Joe Biden needs surgery

To repair a jaw malfunction.

It seems like almost every time he works his jaw, his mouth opens and something wrong comes out.

Doctors have yet to diagnose him, but near as I can tell from my limited experience in lay medicine, U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden suffers from Open Mouth Syndrome(OMS), a much more severe form of Foot-in-the-Mouth Disease because guffaws and gaffes occur much more frequently; nearly constant, in fact.

In the case of "Delaware Joe" Biden, OMS is a daily cause of embarrassment for himself and those around him, because he is unable to open his mouth without something bad coming out.

Given his latest guffaw made at a senate candidate fundraiser to replace John Kerry, I'm thinking it's time for Joe to be fitted with a muzzle.

At the event held Tuesday, June 11, 2013 Biden made comments to follow his introduction by Al Gore meant to be complimentary of the former U.S. Senator and Vice President-turned-environmental propagandist.

Biden said, "This man (Al Gore) was elected president of the United States of America...But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision, in my view, was made, he did the right thing for the nation." He went on, "I’ve served longer than all but 13 members of the United States Senate. I can’t think of very many who would put his country first like that at a really, really, really difficult time. There’s an awful lot of folks Al and I both know who have run for president and still haven’t gotten over it. ...Al, you set an example for this country that is going to live as long as recorded history, about the man who won by a decision that I think constitutional scholars now and in the future will conclude was an ill-fated decision,” Biden said. “The way you stepped up, it was amazing.”

*Sigh* How to start with all of this...

Well, first of all, Joe, Al Gore wasn't elected President of the United States (POTUS). The Constitution requires that, to be elected POTUS, a candidate must win a majority of electoral college votes. Gore, while collecting more popular votes in the 2000 Presidential election, failed to earn a majority of electoral college votes necessary to become President-elect. Rather, his opponent, George W. Bush, did. And the rest is history.

But perhaps there's the rub. Despite his comments, Joe apparently still ruminates over Gore's loss and still bitterly broods over its perceived subjective injustice. It was an injustice to Gore, his supporters and the Democratic Party because the Florida election results did not go their way.

Still, what the Veep said is categorically incorrect. Gore was not elected POTUS because he did not receive sufficient electoral votes to win the Presidency.

Now, concerning what Biden said about Gore being a gracious loser...

Unless my memory fails me, it was Al Gore and his campaign that drew the Florida recount out much farther than it should have gone. Votes were recounted twice, and twice George W. Bush came out the winner. On the third recount request by the Gore Campaign, then-Secretary of State Katharine Harris halted the recount, citing state law that supported sufficient recount had been performed to certify the election and that the results should stand.

And, as I further recall, the Gore Campaign didn't like Harris' determination, so an appeal was made to the Florida State Supreme Court, which, in turn, sided with Gore and overruled the SoS decision, requiring that a third recount proceed.

But the state supreme court's ruling was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which collectively found that the SoS's original determination was correct and should stand. The state supreme court's ruling was overruled by the highest court in the land. End of story. George W. Bush was certified as the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes and became U.S. President-elect instead of Gore.

I see no evidence that Gore was a gracious loser. He couldn't demand enough recounts to satisfy his ego. And when his efforts to continue the recount were halted, he wouldn't accept the rule of law. He couldn't appeal the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling, so why even go there? That the Gore Campaign conceded after that is a foregone conclusion. By law, he sort of, kind of had to.

So, not only was Biden wrong about Gore being the rightful POTUS--which, by law, he wasn't--but he was also wrong about Gore being the gracious loser he painted him to be.

And make no mistake: The losers never did forget about Florida 2000. They made it pretty clear in the months following as GWB was sworn into office that they did not recognize him as POTUS. He was, in their words, illegitimate and he wouldn't ever be their President.

I would not be at all surprised if both Gore and Biden could be counted among those who held such a grudge that they couldn't even look upon GWB as he took the oath of office.

Gracious losers? Uh, huh.

Try instead "sore," a word that fittingly rhymes with Gore. And speaking of "getting over it," Joe, if you were really "over" the 2000 election, then why bring it up again and lament it as a mistake, a travesty? Obviously, it still bothers you enough that you've got to raise that haunting specter of yours yet again.

Frankly, I don't think Biden has ever really gotten over his failed presidential bids; of which there are multiple. The only reason he is able to remain composed when talking about presidential candidate failures is because current POTUS Barack Obama appeased him and the elders of the Democratic Party by naming him as his running mate.

The scalding comments that Biden is documented to have made against Obama during the 2008 primaries stand in stark contrast to the praise that "Delaware Joe" gives his running mate nowadays.

Naming Biden to the 2008 ticket was a purely political move on the part of the Obama Campaign.

Doing so prevented Biden from making a further fool of the party as a yet-again failed presidential candidate. It also pacified him in his zeal for executive power. And it satisfied all of the old-guard Democrats who wanted to see a "veteran" get his due.

Plus, who better to show "Mister Change" how to play the old game by old rules than ol' "Delaware Joe" himself?

Surgery, a muzzle, something needs to be done to help Joe overcome the handicap that his impairment causes. Otherwise, we will all continue to suffer. I wonder if this would qualify as a "pre-existing condition" under Obamacare?

What part of “share the road” don’t we understand?

To borrow a phrase, can’t we all just get along?

I found myself pondering this pearl of wisdom recently while on my commute home, having popped into my head all of a sudden while I was in a stand-off at a four-way stop sign with an automobile.

Either the driver was in complete shock over actually seeing a bicyclist stop at a stop sign, or she was too scared to go for fear that I might decide turn in front of her anyway. Whatever her reasons, I couldn’t help but shake my head and mutter under my breath in frustration over just how many drivers don’t know that the rules of the road apply to bicycles, too.

That’s right: Bicyclists who ride on the road are subject to the same traffic laws that cars are. The trouble is that so few drivers and bicyclists seem to know this.

What this has caused among automobile drivers is either resentment or outright hostility toward riders, or else an awkward fear of them because of the damage that could be inflicted in an accident.

Bicyclists have only themselves to blame.

Some ride with reckless abandon, showing total disregard for traffic laws and right-of-ways. For others it is a matter of ignorance of traffic laws and their application to all vehicles on the road—including those that are pedal-powered. Still others are just plain arrogant, adopting the mind-set that rules do not apply to them, and that drivers have to look out for them anyway.

The offenders know who they are. A good many of them are the very people who dress like they know what they’re doing; but they are too vain or egotistical to care about an insignificant yield sign they just blew past. There are also the youths that are bullet-proof until their first serious accident.

And then there are those who are about as oblivious on a bicycle as they are clueless behind the wheel of a car. You irresponsible bicycle riders give me a bad reputation every time I take to the road and share the same asphalt with a tractor trailer pulling 50,000 GVW.

Because of you, I have to deal with drivers who are too afraid to proceed at a four-way stop, even though I have clearly stopped and have motioned them to take their right-of-way. Because of you, I’ve had cars stop in the middle of busy four-lane roads and their drivers motion me to turn left in front of them despite the fact that I am supposed to yield to oncoming traffic from the left-hand turn lane.

What’s worse is arguing with the guy who has stopped in the middle of the busy road, trying to get him to go because (1) he has the right-of-way, and (2) because his stopping suddenly poses a traffic hazard to everyone else.

And because of you bad bicyclists out there, I must incur the wrath of some ticked off driver who has a bone to pick with you.

There’s something unnerving about a two-ton hunk of steel blowing by me at 50 mph and leaving little more than an arm’s length between me and a side-view mirror.

The bottom line here is that, at some point, bicycles and cars must learn to coexist and share the road.

This means that bicyclists need to be applying the same principles to the road when riding their bikes as they would be when driving their cars. And this also means that automobile drivers ought to be aware that the road is open to bicycles, too.

Just because I am riding my bike to work doesn’t mean I can stop driving defensively. And just because there’s a bicycle in the roadway doesn’t mean a driver can dismiss it as somewhat less significant than another car.

The reality is we need to look out for one another. That’s what driving—and riding—defensively is all about. A little mutual respect can go along way toward avoiding an accident and promoting a safer commute for everyone.

The next revolution...

…may well take place over the hotly contested health care law pushed by President Barack Obama and the progressive leadership of the Democratic Party.

In light of renewed efforts by the White House and Congress to resurrect the failed health care referendum of 2009, and succeed in passing it into law the following year, there are still some who are willing to stand for liberty.

Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter signed a measure requiring the Idaho attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance. The republican governor is basing this measure on the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

To put it more succinctly (if that’s possible) what the Tenth Amendment says is that the powers that the Constitution doesn’t give to the federal government are instead granted to the states or the people therein. Last time I checked, health care and the ability to regulate and control it was not a power granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution. It is neither the responsibility of the legislative nor executive nor even judicial branches of the United States government.

As such, the health care issue should be rightfully delegated to the individual states and to the people to regulate as they see fit. What Gov. Otter was saying with his measure is that Congress and the President are acting outside of the powers that the Constitution limits the federal government to.

But wait: It gets even better.

Evidently, more than thirty other states have legislation similar to Idaho. This means that a vast majority of individual states are now poised to sue Uncle Sam for a breach of contract—i.e., the U.S. Constitution—as a result of the health care bill recently passed that requires all citizens to own and carry health insurance. What better way to hurt a bunch of lawyers and career lawmakers than with a lawsuit against the government they are in control of.

Now this is what I call fighting fire with fire.

What we are on the cusp of here is a modern American Revolution. Only this one will be fought with pens and paper, instead of swords and muskets.

Frankly, I hope the lawsuits can proceed and the public at large can get an education about the Constitution and the powers that it limits the federal government to. I hope we see a lawsuit so that the power-hungry progressives, who have run rough-shod over individual liberty with reckless abandon the past several decades, can be exposed for the frauds, phonies and fakes that they really are. I want their political agenda exposed for all to see.

Of course, this is assuming that people still have eyes to see with. Hopefully, the poisonous propaganda spread by the left over the last half century hasn’t done permanent, irreversible damage to our individual senses of what freedom and liberty are really all about.

The government needs to save us from salmonella

I’m only saying what nearly half the country is thinking and feeling, right?

News reports make it sound as though more government involvement would have prevented the largest egg recall and salmonella outbreak in recent history.

I heard it again yesterday: “Some blame the federal government for not doing enough to ensure the safety of eggs,” the reporter said. “They say tighter regulations might have prevented the outbreak from happening.”

What?

Could somebody please tell me how tighter regulations would keep bacteria in check? Do micro-organisms cower in fear at the very mention of big government? How utterly absurd to think that more laws and more government will cause there to be less bacteria.

How profoundly arrogant, too.

Somehow I rather doubt that microscopic, single-cell bacteria care whether or not humans and their organizations try to take greater control over their environment.

Case in point: Despite a massive campaign launched against the flu each year by government-run public health agencies, millions of people are stricken with one of millions of strains of the virus.

Yes, in spite of the popularity and prevalence of flu shots, the flu continues to affect a significant segment of the population each year without fail.

In 2009 the H1N1 “Swine Flu” virus became a national epidemic that claimed the lives of hundreds, even after the federal government intervened and authorized the release of vaccines to fight the virus.

Yes, sir, salmonella had better watch out because Uncle Sam is on the case, and he is going to pass more laws to fight its spread. I wish somebody would remind e. coli and botulism that they are also heavily regulated.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has very stringent sanitation standards for food industries. And yet, despite these tough regulations against food contaminants, e. coli, botulism and salmonella et al tend to raise their ugly heads from time to time.

Do you remember the California spinach scare a few years ago? That was an e. coli outbreak.

Salmonella and botulism are still such common threats in meat that they warrant additional food handling warnings to the consumer... despite FDA regulations already on the books. The U.S. meat industry has been perhaps under the harshest scrutiny for well over a century, since Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” was published, exposing foul and unsanitary practices of meat packing companies.

Since then, sanitation has vastly improved, along with the incidents of spoiled, rotten and infected meat. But federal regulations have neither reduced nor eliminated the risk of bacteria to the industry.

In spite of the laws meant to keep consumers safe, raw meat should still be washed in cold water before cooking, and hands cleaned after being handled. Most meats should be fully cooked all the way through to kill off bacteria and reduce the risk of salmonella or botulism poisoning; all of this after meat companies have complied with the law.

What good, then, are additional food safety regulations on business if consumers must continue safe food handling practices after producers have already done so? Isn’t the law supposed to address the problem so you and I don’t have to? That’s the logic of some in the wake of the latest salmonella outbreaks. But it is flawed reasoning, to be sure.

Bullied into the operating room

I recently heard a news report on a television morning show about children seeking plastic surgery to correct physical blemishes that they say make them targets of teasing and bullying.

Even more alarming is the fact that some parents appear to support putting their own children under the cosmetic knife.

What in the world?

So, little Susie comes home crying because her ears stick out too far and her schoolmates tease her about them. The solution? Plastic surgery, of course. Just pin those little ol’ ears back and Susie will never be laughed at again. Problem solved, right? Wrong.

I can speak from experience and with authority that the bullying doesn’t end just because there’s nothing visible for bullies to laugh at.

As a young boy, I had a bright red birth mark right smack-dab in the middle of my forehead. I looked like one of those Indian women with the red dots on their foreheads. To top it off, I wore thick framed glasses. I was laughed at and teased incessantly. By the seventh grade, though, both my glasses and my birthmark were gone. Yet, the teasing and the bullying continued. Why? Because it was me—and not my physical appearance—that the bullies targeted. I was just one of those children to whom bullies were drawn because of my quiet good-naturedness. I seemed like an easy target for being picked on.

Make no mistake: Bullies tend to know the kids that they can get away with teasing or bullying. They are the kids less likely to fight back; who will walk or run away rather than stand up to them; and/or who will take the abuse because they want so badly to be accepted and to fit in.

I think it is a grave mistake for parents to support cosmetic plastic surgery for their children as a solution to being teased or bullied. The negative messages that parents subconsciously send their children are that (1) they agree there’s a physical problem needing correction, and (2) there’s no other more reasonable solution.

My mother always insisted that she liked my birth mark because it made me unique and special. She told me God gave me my birth mark to remind me that I am His child, too, and that He loves me. Mom said that the birth mark made it easier for God to see me amidst the billions of other children in the world. Dad, meanwhile, told me that my glasses made me look sharp, distinguished and sophisticated. No matter how many times I came home crying, mom was always there with a reassuring hug that told me someone loved and accepted me just the way I was. I didn’t need to change my appearance to be loved and accepted. I believe that is the healthiest and most positive message parents can send their children.

There are three really big pitfalls to using plastic surgery as a way to combat bullying and teasing.

First, the root of the problem is not being addressed. Children are teased because of who or what they are, and because the bully has found them to be an easy target for their teasing or bullying. Physical blemishes just give a bully something to point at, but they are not the targets. The children themselves are.

Second, parents who consent to plastic surgery as an anti-bullying method are sending a destructive message to their children: It is better to run away from your problems instead of facing them. This teaches them nothing constructive. They do not learn how to handle themselves internally during hard times, because they find themselves stuck in “fight or flight” mode all of the time.

And third, the corrective plastic surgery approach only validates a bully's reasons for targeting a child. As a parent, I cannot even fathom telling my kid that, "yeah, you've got a big nose. Maybe we should get it fixed so you won't be laughed at anymore." The last thing parents need to be telling their children is that the bullies are right and justified in their actions. That is precisely the message we send our children when we agree that there is something physically wrong with them that needs to be corrected.

By encouraging our children to change their appearances because of bullying we are telling them that what they look like isn't good enough for others; and especially for those who love them the most.

Should we really be telling a kid that s/he isn't good enough the way s/he is, and that perhaps s/he will never be truly "good enough," because physical perfection is an impossible pursuit? I perish the thought.

Is 2012 the beginning of the end?

The fact that 2012 represents the end of the Mayan calendar—and presumably the end of the world—is perhaps fitting for the next presidential election. Next year may well be the last chance conservatives have to avert economic catastrophe from befalling the United States of America.

A brief period in the nineteen nineties withstanding, the U.S. federal government—along with many state and local governments across the country—has been spend-thrift since the Great Depression.

America has borrowed money beyond her ability to repay. She has reached her debt ceiling. Both her debt and her trade deficit are into the trillions of dollars. That’s a thousand times a billion, or a hundred thousand times a million.

Foreign countries such as China, Japan, the United Kingdom and OPEC nations (e.g., Saudi Arabia) own about 47 percent, or a little less than half of the total public debt owed by the United States. The American public owns the rest.

The value of the American dollar continues to fall as it’s routinely borrowed against other foreign currencies. Pretty soon, our dollar will be worth less than the Chinese yuan, the Japanese yen or perhaps even the Euro. When that happens, who will want to buy any more of our debt from us?

Rather, those interests will begin demanding payback.

The more we continue to spend in the manner that we have for the past several decades, the faster we will get to the point where our creditors will no longer accept any more debt. They will want to be paid back for what we owe them.

The question is when.

When should the U.S. Congress and the President stop the current pattern of spending that has not only become chronic, but habitual? When should our elected officials start thinking more about their nation’s indebtedness and less about the next election?

I submit that the time is now. Actually, it was yesterday, but that’s water under the bridge now. All we have left are today and tomorrow.

The current presidential administration has demonstrated about the same commitment to fiscal responsibility and discipline as the last one. Can America last much beyond 2012 if the same people with the same fiscal mentality continue to make economic decisions for the rest of us?

I feign to think not…and I perish the thought.

Something has to give in this next year or so, because if nothing changes toward better fiscal discipline in the next two years, then I am left to wonder what America may look like in another decade. Will she exist at all the way we know her today?

These are questions I hope everyone of us—left, right or center—has the courage to ask in the upcoming general election.

The forgotten child

In America’s current zeal to bring attention to autism spectrum disorders, other childhood disabilities have consequently become overshadowed and virtually ignored.
A national and regional media blitz on behalf of autism related disorders has helped bring the topic to the fore; but at the cost of other equally severe disabilities, the awareness of which has consequently suffered.
I see the public service announcements all the time on television. The television news reports on autism frequently—almost to an exhausting degree. There is a designated autism awareness month now. And some of the loudest voices in government lobbies are autism advocates and activists.
Here in Nevada there is as great a push for autism awareness, diagnostic and treatment services as there is nationwide. There has been coverage ad nauseum of emotional testimony of parents of autistic children in the wake of statewide budget cuts.
Please do not take this the wrong way: I am not against autism awareness campaigns, fundraisers, or research, diagnostic or treatment services. Certainly the prevalence of autism, as well as its pervasive impact on the lives of children and families afflicted with the disorder, is cause for concern.
But there are other serious and severe childhood disabilities that are being conveniently ignored by the public zeal over autism.
Specifically, I speak on behalf of thousands of children born nationwide each year, and hundreds here in Nevada, with fetal alcohol or fetal drug spectrum disorders. The rate of children born with at least fetal drug or fetal alcohol exposure is as alarming as the 1:110 to 1:150 rate of children born with an autism spectrum disorder.
The prevalence of autism among live births represents a little less than one percent of the total number of children born nationwide each year.
FASD and FDSD birth rates are comparatively smaller at about two to five cases per one thousand births on average. That’s only about half of one percent. However, prevalence of FASD and FDSD can vary significantly according to population and demographics.
Among American Indian tribes, for instance, the prevalence of full-blown Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, or FAS, jumps exponentially to just under six cases per thousand births.
FASD and FDSD include the full-blown diagnoses of FAS and FDS, as well as fetal alcohol and/or drug effects, and fetal alcohol and/or drug exposure; the latter two of which are statistically more common than the former.
Still, children born with any form of FASD or FDSD can face myriad developmental challenges, which are lifelong. From cognitive, to behavioral and social limitations, children born with alcohol and/or drug-related disabilities have an organic deficiency to their brains that will never get better and never improve. There will always be a part of the brain which remains damaged or missing.
Unlike autism, which studies have shown to actually improve in some cases with treatment and age, FASD and FDSD disabilities are with a child for life. Limitations are permanent. Much like mental retardation, there is hope neither for improvement nor a cure.
In fact, FASD and FDSD are more difficult to diagnose early on than even autism, because most limitations that FASD or FDSD cause aren’t evident until a child becomes school-aged.
While many children afflicted with FASD and/or FDSD are born with developmental delays, they can often overcome these deficiencies with appropriate early intervention. In many cases, they can appear developmentally normal by the time they have reached toddler age, and this can be both misleading and dangerous.
That’s why early diagnosis is critical to the treatment of FASD and FDSD. By establishing developmental criteria of infants, FASD and FDSD can be detected early. Unfortunately, this only braces parents and treatment providers for what is to come. There is little anyone can do until those signs and symptoms of cognitive, behavioral and/or social limitations become manifest.
That is what makes living with these disabilities so difficult for parents. There exist feelings of helplessness and anxiety, which are difficult to deal with when one knows that one’s child will one day be significantly impaired.
The only consolation that advocates of FASD and FDSD have is knowing that these disabilities can easily and clearly be prevented. All it takes is for expecting mothers to abstain from using substances while pregnant. Abstinence is the only method of prevention. There is no safe consumption during pregnancy.
But, alarmingly, drug and/or alcohol use among pregnant women is significant. For instance, approximately 12 percent of pregnant women nationwide continue to drink alcohol during pregnancy, and that means 1:8 unborn children nationally are thus exposed and placed at risk for FASDs. Likewise, about five percent of women nationally use illicit drugs while pregnant, making fetal drug exposure about 1:20.
In Nevada, roughly 26 percent of children are born exposed to alcohol and four percent of mothers continue using alcohol even after they learn they are pregnant.
Approximately one percent of children are born affected by alcohol each year, including 40,000 in the United States and 200 in Nevada.
In fact, it is estimated that an alcohol or drug exposed infant is born every 90 seconds. This represents a growing problem both here in Nevada and nationwide.
Founding father Benjamin Franklin is credited to have said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Nothing could be more true about FASD and FDSD.
Prevention—and, therefore, awareness—is the key to curing these afflictions. Without it, there is no cure, and the problem will remain a chronic epidemic.
The state of Nevada funds diagnostic clinics for FASD and FDSD. But there appear to be woefully inadequate funds for the treatment of these disabilities. Unlike autism, FASD and FDSD get grossly and routinely overlooked when it comes to funding treatment programs.
While there is no cure or much hope for improvement, treatment for FASD and FDSD is focused on helping individuals afflicted with these disorders maintain some level of function and productivity. As with MR, that is about all we can do to treat FASD and FDSD effectively.
Without funds for treatment, the only practical solution is to increase community education, which, in turn, spreads awareness and, hopefully, consciousness.
But these children, left in the dust of an autism blitz and forgotten by a frenzy of media campaigns, need the help of those charged with responsibility for bringing the issue and its awareness to the fore; just as the advocates and activists promoting autism awareness have succeeded in doing.
This means that parents and family members, medical and other treatment professionals, social service advocates, journalists and lawmakers all have a fiduciary responsibility to speak for the children who cannot speak for themselves. We have a duty to be proactive in the fight to end a disability that is not only highly preventable, but that ought not even reasonably exist.
The spread of this disability, caused by the negligence of others, should be prevented at all costs. The fact that there are children born to mothers who exposed them to dangerous substances is unreasonable and unacceptable.
In contrast to autism, the cause and prevention of FASD and FDSD are crystal clear. We know what causes these disorders and we know how to prevent them. But we seem too busy studying autism to care that an ounce of simple education and awareness can produce a pound of prevention.
I make this public appeal in the hopes of bringing this topic back to the surface where it belongs; alongside, and not below, autism.
Please, let us not forget the other children.