One aspect of rising health care costs: chemicals in the environment my be causing autism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/opinion/25kristof.html

Is it permissible for the Democrats in Congress to use the "reconciliation" procedure (which requires a simple majority -- 51 votes in the Senate -- but is intended to be used for budget measure) to achieve the means of health care reform? The right-of-center pundits (e.g. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity) have been having a field day playing sound bites from years gone by of Democrats in the Senate during W's presidency roundly condemning the Republican Senate majority use of "reconciliation. Among those who weighed in against the GOP use of reconciliation were (then) Senators Biden, Hillary Clinton and yes, even Barack Obama himself. But all of this gloating over the Democrats willingness to use the reconciliation short-cut they once condemned begs the real question: namely, is the end to be achieved -- "reforming" health care a noble one which should be achieved by any means. The process is a side issue. The merits of health care reform in its latest incarnation(s) are the issue to be addressed. For many years I have supported a "public option" and without if, in my view, the "reform" does not mean much.

We have known for about three months now that Tiger Woods had about as many extra-marital girlfriends as about three quarters of the teams in the NBA, plus Charlie Sheen in his heyday. I get it, enough already!

Recent reports from reliable sources say the Obama Whitehouse has authored a new version of comprehensive health care legislation. The same reliable sources go on to say the Senate is considering passing comprehensive health care legislation with a simple 51 vote majority. I will believe this when it happens and not until then.

After more than a year of ignoring Dick Cheney's pointed criticisms of its handling of the War on Terror the Obama Whitehouse, through the person of Joe Biden, is responding.  While there is little Biden has to say on the subject that is new, Biden has given emphasis to two of the better arguments against Cheney; namely, that the Bush Whitehouse abandoned waterboarding and other "enhanced" techniques still favored by Cheney by 2006 and that even Richard Reed the "shoebomber" received prompt Miranda warnings approved by the Bush justice department.  In giving Miranda warnings to the Christmas Day bomber the current adminstration is following a policy identical to the policy actually followed when Bush was President.  Cheney is not merely urging a continuation of anti-terror policies followed by the Bush Whitehouse, Cheney is seeking the re-adoption of policies rejected by the Bush Whitehouse.  To follow Cheney's current position to its immediate and logical conclusion, the Bush administration made America "less safe" from 2006 onward by rejecting tactics favored by Dick Cheney.

I get the fact that Bayh hurt his own party by announcing his retirement so late that other candidates do not have the chance to get on the ballot, but other than that I do not understand why the press are devoting so much attention and hand-wringing to his decision to retire.  In my view, the press is over-reacting.

It was just last week the Phillies were victorious in Game 1 of the World Series.  Now they are trailing three games to two and I can find nary a sportswriter willing to give them a chance of winning the Series.  Indeed the writers all greeted the Phillies win last night with turns of phrase like "Phillies survive another 48 hours".  I for one believe the series is far from over -- and the writers should be using turns of phrase like "Phillies fight on!"