THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Everybody is blaming the child obesity problem on snacks, soft drinks and fast foods. I guess that would be the political correct thing to do. But the parents should be aware that a number of the anti-psychotic medications that are shoveled into the child each and every day actually causes rapid weigh gain.
A child can very quickly pack on 20 pounds or more within about 10 to 12 weeks after beginning a regimen of some of these medications. Fact is, many doctors can see the child balloon up between treatments.If your child is being treated with anti-psychotic drugs for such things as: attention deficit disorder(s); schizophrenia; a bipolar disorder; autism and /or other behavioral disorders they are a candidate for this obesity side-effect.
The study, one of the largest in children is reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association and it involved 205 New York City-area children. Their ages ranged from 4 to 19 years old. The average age of the child was 14 years old. The children gained an average of between 10 and 20 pounds in an amazing eleven weeks. Between 10 and 36 percent of the children became obese.This study also said that there were increases in blood fats including cholesterol, which is also seen in adults.
Many scientists and doctors worry that this obesity will cause heart problems with the child later in their adult life.The drugs in question, so far, is: Abilify, Risperdal, Seroquel and Zyprexa . The drug makers acknowledge the side effects but they maintain that the drugs are safe.
From last count it appears that there are approximately 2 million children using these anti-psychotic drugs annually. I leave the decision up to you and your doctor to determine if these particular medications are your drug of choice for your child.
My thought? Don't blame child obesity just on a soft drink, a cookie, a piece of candy, etc.--Do your homework.It seems political correctness has been popular this past decade and that's a shame.- And, that's my opinion.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Saturday, October 31, 2009
MENTAL PATIENTS- MISDIAGNOSED?
THE DOCTOR IS IN:
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
Seniors and children take the biggest brunt of being misdiagnosed with a mental problem while being treated in an emergency room.
Everyday across this country hospitals generally dump patients that arrive in emergency rooms. The hospitals don't want to be bothered with what they think is a mental case. Many hospitals with a busy emergency room resent the fact that they have to do work-ups on patients when the patient walks in. Many feel as though a complete evaluation is a waste of time and often neglect problems relating to the patient.
If hospital personnel would do a timely and accurate work-up they could rule out a number of probable medical problems concerning the patient who presents with mental and psychiatric issues.
The haste in which some of these hospitals choose to dump the patient into a mental health and/or psychiatric facility causes that facility to handle a multitude of actual medical problems that the mental care unit is ill equipped to handle both with proper expertise and proper equipment for the medical problem.
For example, a senior citizen may be sent to the mental health or psychiatric unit with the diagnosis of a psychosis but once the proper intake and a full, complete work-up is done it is discovered that the patient has been experiencing diarrhea or constipation and in many female patients they may be experiencing an infection of the urinary tract . This is not uncommon, especially with the elderly and children. For many patients that are diagnosed as manic, or schizophrenic they were found to be on medications such as amphetamines and really required IV fluids.
I believe there should be a more detailed and complete assessment of patients that are treated in the hospital emergency rooms.- And, that's my opinion.
Bradley W. Kuhns,Ph.D., O.M.D.
______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
Seniors and children take the biggest brunt of being misdiagnosed with a mental problem while being treated in an emergency room.
Everyday across this country hospitals generally dump patients that arrive in emergency rooms. The hospitals don't want to be bothered with what they think is a mental case. Many hospitals with a busy emergency room resent the fact that they have to do work-ups on patients when the patient walks in. Many feel as though a complete evaluation is a waste of time and often neglect problems relating to the patient.
If hospital personnel would do a timely and accurate work-up they could rule out a number of probable medical problems concerning the patient who presents with mental and psychiatric issues.
The haste in which some of these hospitals choose to dump the patient into a mental health and/or psychiatric facility causes that facility to handle a multitude of actual medical problems that the mental care unit is ill equipped to handle both with proper expertise and proper equipment for the medical problem.
For example, a senior citizen may be sent to the mental health or psychiatric unit with the diagnosis of a psychosis but once the proper intake and a full, complete work-up is done it is discovered that the patient has been experiencing diarrhea or constipation and in many female patients they may be experiencing an infection of the urinary tract . This is not uncommon, especially with the elderly and children. For many patients that are diagnosed as manic, or schizophrenic they were found to be on medications such as amphetamines and really required IV fluids.
I believe there should be a more detailed and complete assessment of patients that are treated in the hospital emergency rooms.- And, that's my opinion.
Bradley W. Kuhns,Ph.D., O.M.D.
______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Thursday, October 29, 2009
WE NEED A PUBLIC HEALTH OPTION
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
We're currently spending 2.5 Trillion dollars for United States health care but we are ranked 50th, in the world for quality health care. What a shame. We squander our dollars on other countries needs and projects but fail to address our own health system.
At this point in time our Congress is fighting for a public option in American health care but a few Blue Dog Democrats are refusing to agree with the majority of the Democrats and at least one Independent, Senator Joe Lieberman (I) flatly said that he will vote against the public option.
This is the guy that said he would support the Democratic agenda when he was reelected and President Obama stuck up for him and told the Congress not to demote him or remove him from a powerful seat. Well, pay back is a bitch! However, Lieberman's beholden to the Insurance companies and is taking mounds of money from this industry in return for his opposition to the public option plan.
Then, there is Senator Evan Bayh (D) Indiana, whose wife is associated and aligned with the pharma and/or insurance industry and has received millions of dollars from these companies. The Bayh's own stock in these same industries worth millions of dollars and when the stock prices of the insurance and health care companies surged a few days ago it added kazillions of dollars to their financial accounts.
It seems to me that there is political corruption running throughout this entire health plan. Even though approximately 67% of the people in the United States want and demand a public option politicians like Lieberman and Bayh and all the other group of wanna be Democrats insist on ignoring the will of the people and their own constituents so as to improve their own personal gain.
The Democratic members of Congress should remove Senator Lieberman from his powerful seat and let him know that actions like his are not appreciated and they should also seriously counsel Bayh and point out the glaring conflict and money grab he is enjoying for his own benefit.
It amazes me how these politicians look the voter in the eye and flat out lie. We voters should make these politicians put their commitments in writing prior to electing them to office. At least then, we would have something in writing to hold their feet to the fire with.
The Democrats crying and whining prior to the election said that if we put them into office their majority would be powerful enough to get those changes made and they would vote together as one to realize President Obama's agenda. The only change being seen is the change of dollars from the pharma and insurance companies right into certain Democrats pockets. So much for the will of the people, right? We tired of the bad shake we got from the Republicans over eight years and now the Democrats reneged on their promises.
My feeling is that President Obama should stand up and take a strong stand and insist that he wants a robust public option. He has been sitting back and his milk toast approach is really disappointing. I can see now why in the Illinois Senate he voted "present" often rather than vote "yes or no" on a number of legislative matters. It appears he doesn't like to take a firm stand on issues. During his campaign he sounded great and he gave the impression that would take a strong and firm stand on issues but that didn't turn out to be the case.- And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
We're currently spending 2.5 Trillion dollars for United States health care but we are ranked 50th, in the world for quality health care. What a shame. We squander our dollars on other countries needs and projects but fail to address our own health system.
At this point in time our Congress is fighting for a public option in American health care but a few Blue Dog Democrats are refusing to agree with the majority of the Democrats and at least one Independent, Senator Joe Lieberman (I) flatly said that he will vote against the public option.
This is the guy that said he would support the Democratic agenda when he was reelected and President Obama stuck up for him and told the Congress not to demote him or remove him from a powerful seat. Well, pay back is a bitch! However, Lieberman's beholden to the Insurance companies and is taking mounds of money from this industry in return for his opposition to the public option plan.
Then, there is Senator Evan Bayh (D) Indiana, whose wife is associated and aligned with the pharma and/or insurance industry and has received millions of dollars from these companies. The Bayh's own stock in these same industries worth millions of dollars and when the stock prices of the insurance and health care companies surged a few days ago it added kazillions of dollars to their financial accounts.
It seems to me that there is political corruption running throughout this entire health plan. Even though approximately 67% of the people in the United States want and demand a public option politicians like Lieberman and Bayh and all the other group of wanna be Democrats insist on ignoring the will of the people and their own constituents so as to improve their own personal gain.
The Democratic members of Congress should remove Senator Lieberman from his powerful seat and let him know that actions like his are not appreciated and they should also seriously counsel Bayh and point out the glaring conflict and money grab he is enjoying for his own benefit.
It amazes me how these politicians look the voter in the eye and flat out lie. We voters should make these politicians put their commitments in writing prior to electing them to office. At least then, we would have something in writing to hold their feet to the fire with.
The Democrats crying and whining prior to the election said that if we put them into office their majority would be powerful enough to get those changes made and they would vote together as one to realize President Obama's agenda. The only change being seen is the change of dollars from the pharma and insurance companies right into certain Democrats pockets. So much for the will of the people, right? We tired of the bad shake we got from the Republicans over eight years and now the Democrats reneged on their promises.
My feeling is that President Obama should stand up and take a strong stand and insist that he wants a robust public option. He has been sitting back and his milk toast approach is really disappointing. I can see now why in the Illinois Senate he voted "present" often rather than vote "yes or no" on a number of legislative matters. It appears he doesn't like to take a firm stand on issues. During his campaign he sounded great and he gave the impression that would take a strong and firm stand on issues but that didn't turn out to be the case.- And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
SMOKING BANS & SECONDHAND SMOKE SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
A recent report from the Institute of Medicine claims secondhand smoke is an immediate threat to your life. It states that where smoking bans are in effect the heart attack rate fell. and that smoking bans do not affect loss of business in restaurants, taverns, casinos, etc.,further the report states there is no safe level for secondhand smoke.
I totally disagree with both premises. There have been studies pro and con regarding secondhand smoke. The subject is still very controversial. As to loss of business because of smoking bans the report fails to mention that such bans has caused business profits to drop as much as fifty percent and in many instances fifty percent of the employees had to be laid off while other businesses had to actually close and shut down operations. The point being that some of these alleged scientific reports only put their own spin on the materials they expound on.
Right now in Las Vegas casino profits are down as much as twenty percent. I admit it is not only because of the smoking ban but it has been reported that since many of the tourists and locals cannot eat, drink gamble and smoke at the places of their choice it is a very large part and one of the reasons these losses are being sustained by restaurants, taverns, bars, and casinos. For a state that supposedly caters to adults and is known as sin city the nanny attitude of the legislators and politicians and their failure to allow freedom of choice will continue to hurt the state.
Now! Lets look at what may prevent heart attacks other than secondhand smoke. If a person over indulges in eating pies, cakes, burgers, drinking alcohol breathing in the daily polluted everyday air from traffic and in their home, stress from a job, a persons lifestyle and yes, taking many of the current medications on the market today can cause heart attacks "and" strokes and that is just a fraction of things that can cause heart attacks.
Carrying the simplistic logic of this self serving study to a conclusion - -if, the government also bans fat foods and desserts, bans driving automobiles from the road, and prohibits alcohol consumption that too will cut down on heart attack risk. And, that is true. Removing all of these items from a persons life will also reduce the heart attack rate. But, do we really want that?
How far will this silly political correct thinking take us. People, most anything a person does to improve their diet, nutrition, lifestyle by using common sense can help them avoid a heart attack. It appears some of these organizations choose to write up political correct, self serving studies to either get published or funded by the government and private institutions. They tend to choose a subject that is controversial and then spin it to fit their agenda.
Anyone born before the 1980's were brought up in a smoking society. People smoked in their homes, businesses, doctor and lawyers offices, restaurants and most anywhere they chose and believe it or not these same people who are Congress persons, doctors lawyers and people from all walks of life and professions are currently living a happy, full, life who raised their children in the smoked filled homes and businesses and those children today are living and contributing to society in occupations of their choice. Smoking did not affect their minds like some scientists write about nor did smoking make these people idiots or dumb them down. The country continued to move forward with new inventions and innovations in science and technology, small business and education. And, the world didn't stop! Fact is, it thrived.
The first study by our Surgeon General a few years ago relating to secondhand smoke was flawed in many areas and now these groups that want to push their own agenda come up with a lackluster report saying smoking bans reduce heart attacks.
I submit that most every American knows smoking is not a good thing but to reach out and blame all of the health ills on smoking is outrageous.
The next step by these scientists will be to ban all of the above items mentioned in this article. In fact, it's already started. There is a proposal and movement by some politicians and special interest groups to tax soft drinks and fruit juices and placing a fat tax on such things as burgers and pies and other foods that they think a person shouldn't eat.
These nanny groups are using the excuse that our kids are obese and some of these same people and groups prohibit kids from eating cookies on school grounds. Yet, these same politicians, who by the way, many are fat themselves fail to look at the facts that prove that people are living longer than ever and that any child born this year 2009, will in all likelihood live to be 100 years old.
As a side note it should be mentioned that many of the drugs and medications that are administered to our children right now actually cause them to become obese. Some of the drugs that are being given to the children cause a weight gain up to 30 pounds within a couple of weeks after starting the drug regimen. So, I say it's not cookies and a bottle of soda we have to worry about or smoke from a cigarette in a room separated by another room in which the smoke is not in direct contact with another persons face. We have to worry about these individuals and groups that have a personal agenda and do not disclose all of the information regarding obesity and secondhand smoke and other pet projects on their agenda.
This secondhand smoke issue is just one way for organizations to fuel debate and raise fears in people. I believe that smoking is freedom of choice and optional. The government is saying everyone should have a choice regarding a health plan. I say everyone should have a choice and option as to if they want to indulge in smoking and have the choice as to what they want to eat and drink and do with their own body. People know the risks and consequences of their actions. They can see and read the warning labels on most everything available to them.
I would challenge some of these states that push smoking bans to do an experiment such as: allow the individual business make the choice as to whether to offer smoker friendly services or to operate smoke free establishment. Further they could set up a restaurant, bar, casino or any public business that offers food, drink, gaming or any service and then a block or two away have an exact similar business that offers the same fare but offers a totally smoke free environment and see which one does the best business. I would dare to say that the business that offers all of the same services and/or food and drink plus the choice of smoking would do a much better business.
But that is why the states refuse to let the business and marketplace set the policy and allow people to have a choice of where to eat, drink and patronize. These special interest groups are truly afraid of competition and it would burst their bubble if they saw any business that gave people the choice to either smoke or not to smoke really doing well. That is why they push for state laws to mandate prohibitions.
These "I want to look out after your health", "I know what's good for you " people even ignore the fact that there is and has been air filters on the market for decades that can filter out the air by 99.9% and these filters are being used all over the world today. Yet, these individuals and groups would rather push the fact that such filters cannot filter rooms or buildings. What a joke!
I submit that a person in one room or building smoking a cigarette cannot actually harm another person in the same building that is not in that room while the smoking is occurring. That act has been proven over decades by the smoking public worldwide.
Folks, many of these so-called scientific studies floating around have been skewed and some have been reported to be falsified. I would urge the readers to check the web and see how the scientific community over the past few decades has made up information or put out misinformation in studies either for their own personal gain or to push a specific agenda. Like numbers, reports "do" lie.
If you do want the nanny government and states to control your actions as to what you eat, where you can eat and drink, and what you do with your own body then go along with the current flow. If not, demand freedom of choice and options.
With a choice, no one will be forcing anyone. If a person wants to eat or drink where smoking is allowed they would have that choice and a nonsmoker can make the choice not to enter a smoker friendly business but instead go down the street and select a nonsmoking establishment. And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
You can reach Dr. Kuhns by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
A recent report from the Institute of Medicine claims secondhand smoke is an immediate threat to your life. It states that where smoking bans are in effect the heart attack rate fell. and that smoking bans do not affect loss of business in restaurants, taverns, casinos, etc.,further the report states there is no safe level for secondhand smoke.
I totally disagree with both premises. There have been studies pro and con regarding secondhand smoke. The subject is still very controversial. As to loss of business because of smoking bans the report fails to mention that such bans has caused business profits to drop as much as fifty percent and in many instances fifty percent of the employees had to be laid off while other businesses had to actually close and shut down operations. The point being that some of these alleged scientific reports only put their own spin on the materials they expound on.
Right now in Las Vegas casino profits are down as much as twenty percent. I admit it is not only because of the smoking ban but it has been reported that since many of the tourists and locals cannot eat, drink gamble and smoke at the places of their choice it is a very large part and one of the reasons these losses are being sustained by restaurants, taverns, bars, and casinos. For a state that supposedly caters to adults and is known as sin city the nanny attitude of the legislators and politicians and their failure to allow freedom of choice will continue to hurt the state.
Now! Lets look at what may prevent heart attacks other than secondhand smoke. If a person over indulges in eating pies, cakes, burgers, drinking alcohol breathing in the daily polluted everyday air from traffic and in their home, stress from a job, a persons lifestyle and yes, taking many of the current medications on the market today can cause heart attacks "and" strokes and that is just a fraction of things that can cause heart attacks.
Carrying the simplistic logic of this self serving study to a conclusion - -if, the government also bans fat foods and desserts, bans driving automobiles from the road, and prohibits alcohol consumption that too will cut down on heart attack risk. And, that is true. Removing all of these items from a persons life will also reduce the heart attack rate. But, do we really want that?
How far will this silly political correct thinking take us. People, most anything a person does to improve their diet, nutrition, lifestyle by using common sense can help them avoid a heart attack. It appears some of these organizations choose to write up political correct, self serving studies to either get published or funded by the government and private institutions. They tend to choose a subject that is controversial and then spin it to fit their agenda.
Anyone born before the 1980's were brought up in a smoking society. People smoked in their homes, businesses, doctor and lawyers offices, restaurants and most anywhere they chose and believe it or not these same people who are Congress persons, doctors lawyers and people from all walks of life and professions are currently living a happy, full, life who raised their children in the smoked filled homes and businesses and those children today are living and contributing to society in occupations of their choice. Smoking did not affect their minds like some scientists write about nor did smoking make these people idiots or dumb them down. The country continued to move forward with new inventions and innovations in science and technology, small business and education. And, the world didn't stop! Fact is, it thrived.
The first study by our Surgeon General a few years ago relating to secondhand smoke was flawed in many areas and now these groups that want to push their own agenda come up with a lackluster report saying smoking bans reduce heart attacks.
I submit that most every American knows smoking is not a good thing but to reach out and blame all of the health ills on smoking is outrageous.
The next step by these scientists will be to ban all of the above items mentioned in this article. In fact, it's already started. There is a proposal and movement by some politicians and special interest groups to tax soft drinks and fruit juices and placing a fat tax on such things as burgers and pies and other foods that they think a person shouldn't eat.
These nanny groups are using the excuse that our kids are obese and some of these same people and groups prohibit kids from eating cookies on school grounds. Yet, these same politicians, who by the way, many are fat themselves fail to look at the facts that prove that people are living longer than ever and that any child born this year 2009, will in all likelihood live to be 100 years old.
As a side note it should be mentioned that many of the drugs and medications that are administered to our children right now actually cause them to become obese. Some of the drugs that are being given to the children cause a weight gain up to 30 pounds within a couple of weeks after starting the drug regimen. So, I say it's not cookies and a bottle of soda we have to worry about or smoke from a cigarette in a room separated by another room in which the smoke is not in direct contact with another persons face. We have to worry about these individuals and groups that have a personal agenda and do not disclose all of the information regarding obesity and secondhand smoke and other pet projects on their agenda.
This secondhand smoke issue is just one way for organizations to fuel debate and raise fears in people. I believe that smoking is freedom of choice and optional. The government is saying everyone should have a choice regarding a health plan. I say everyone should have a choice and option as to if they want to indulge in smoking and have the choice as to what they want to eat and drink and do with their own body. People know the risks and consequences of their actions. They can see and read the warning labels on most everything available to them.
I would challenge some of these states that push smoking bans to do an experiment such as: allow the individual business make the choice as to whether to offer smoker friendly services or to operate smoke free establishment. Further they could set up a restaurant, bar, casino or any public business that offers food, drink, gaming or any service and then a block or two away have an exact similar business that offers the same fare but offers a totally smoke free environment and see which one does the best business. I would dare to say that the business that offers all of the same services and/or food and drink plus the choice of smoking would do a much better business.
But that is why the states refuse to let the business and marketplace set the policy and allow people to have a choice of where to eat, drink and patronize. These special interest groups are truly afraid of competition and it would burst their bubble if they saw any business that gave people the choice to either smoke or not to smoke really doing well. That is why they push for state laws to mandate prohibitions.
These "I want to look out after your health", "I know what's good for you " people even ignore the fact that there is and has been air filters on the market for decades that can filter out the air by 99.9% and these filters are being used all over the world today. Yet, these individuals and groups would rather push the fact that such filters cannot filter rooms or buildings. What a joke!
I submit that a person in one room or building smoking a cigarette cannot actually harm another person in the same building that is not in that room while the smoking is occurring. That act has been proven over decades by the smoking public worldwide.
Folks, many of these so-called scientific studies floating around have been skewed and some have been reported to be falsified. I would urge the readers to check the web and see how the scientific community over the past few decades has made up information or put out misinformation in studies either for their own personal gain or to push a specific agenda. Like numbers, reports "do" lie.
If you do want the nanny government and states to control your actions as to what you eat, where you can eat and drink, and what you do with your own body then go along with the current flow. If not, demand freedom of choice and options.
With a choice, no one will be forcing anyone. If a person wants to eat or drink where smoking is allowed they would have that choice and a nonsmoker can make the choice not to enter a smoker friendly business but instead go down the street and select a nonsmoking establishment. And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
You can reach Dr. Kuhns by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Monday, October 26, 2009
AIR PASSENGERS NEED TO FEEL SAFE
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
Northwest airline pilots on flight 188 Richard and Timothy B. Cheney missed their destination by 150 miles and put the 144 passengers in harms way. These two pilots have been changing their stories as to what occurred in that cockpit over and over. Originally, they contend they had a argument, then changed that to working on computers checking schedules. I have a bridge in New York to sell you if you believe that.
Ten years ago the NTSB did recommend that all airplanes and helicopters which seat more than ten people have a cockpit recorder that records for two hours. However, this airplane had an out dated recorder that only records thirty minutes. It's obvious the airline industry continue to fall down on the job.
I suggest that all airplane that carry more than ten people should have video recorders inside the cockpit. That would solve many of the problems. The FAA could mandate cockpit video recorders. But so far the pilots oppose video recording in the cockpit. The NTSB and the FAA shouldn't suggest ideas but instead "mandate" the changes.
What are these and all pilots afraid of having video recorders in the cockpit? Taxis, school buses, law enforcement vehicles and many transportation modes have video camera protection.
Since this fiasco many pilots and representatives from the NTSB and FAA have said that it is not uncommon for pilots to fall asleep due to fatigue. If that is the case the pilots should take nap breaks on a rotation basis, one at a time.
I suspect that the pilots opposition to video in the cockpit is only because they want to cover their butts. Since 9-11 the door to the cockpit is basically sealed and even the attendants have no access other than through an intercom system. Proper agencies need more oversight on what is actually occurring the the cockpit.
So,can and does hanky panky go in the cockpit? What could pilots want to hide? Sleeping, drinking,card games,sex? What? If the pilots are professional and are doing their job following all rules and regulations there is no real reason to oppose video cameras operating in the cockpit. With that said, there are lives at stake. In this particular case 144 lives and the FAA and NTSB should take steps to make video cockpit recorders mandatory.- And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns,Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
Northwest airline pilots on flight 188 Richard and Timothy B. Cheney missed their destination by 150 miles and put the 144 passengers in harms way. These two pilots have been changing their stories as to what occurred in that cockpit over and over. Originally, they contend they had a argument, then changed that to working on computers checking schedules. I have a bridge in New York to sell you if you believe that.
Ten years ago the NTSB did recommend that all airplanes and helicopters which seat more than ten people have a cockpit recorder that records for two hours. However, this airplane had an out dated recorder that only records thirty minutes. It's obvious the airline industry continue to fall down on the job.
I suggest that all airplane that carry more than ten people should have video recorders inside the cockpit. That would solve many of the problems. The FAA could mandate cockpit video recorders. But so far the pilots oppose video recording in the cockpit. The NTSB and the FAA shouldn't suggest ideas but instead "mandate" the changes.
What are these and all pilots afraid of having video recorders in the cockpit? Taxis, school buses, law enforcement vehicles and many transportation modes have video camera protection.
Since this fiasco many pilots and representatives from the NTSB and FAA have said that it is not uncommon for pilots to fall asleep due to fatigue. If that is the case the pilots should take nap breaks on a rotation basis, one at a time.
I suspect that the pilots opposition to video in the cockpit is only because they want to cover their butts. Since 9-11 the door to the cockpit is basically sealed and even the attendants have no access other than through an intercom system. Proper agencies need more oversight on what is actually occurring the the cockpit.
So,can and does hanky panky go in the cockpit? What could pilots want to hide? Sleeping, drinking,card games,sex? What? If the pilots are professional and are doing their job following all rules and regulations there is no real reason to oppose video cameras operating in the cockpit. With that said, there are lives at stake. In this particular case 144 lives and the FAA and NTSB should take steps to make video cockpit recorders mandatory.- And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns,Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Saturday, October 24, 2009
C.E.O. EXECUTIVE PAY SHOULD BE CUT
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
The Obama administration has decided to cut executive compensation for those companies that were bailed out at taxpayer expense. The companies cried and moaned and said they were on life support and need the money.
Now that they received billions of dollars from us, the taxpayer, these companies continued to pay their employees billions of dollars in in bonuses. They are irate that the Obama administration dare to cut their executive pay at least by 50 percent.
These 175 top executives targeted by the government are threatening to leave the companies and go elsewhere. They say they are the most talented and productive people in the financial world. Really? These are the same idiots that raided wall street, made bad investments and brought the country to the brink of another great depression.
These so called "smarties" say they are the only ones that can fix our financial problems. What arrogance! Why should we retain them? It's the fox watching the hen house.
I have no doubt these so called financial brains will look for loopholes so they can raid the piggy bank again. The wall street supporters say there will be a "brain drain" and these executives will seek employment elsewhere. My thoughts? Let them leave. There are many talented young people graduating from our elite universities and financial think tanks that can do the same job --for much less.
-And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns,Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________
Dr.Kuhns can be reached at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
The Obama administration has decided to cut executive compensation for those companies that were bailed out at taxpayer expense. The companies cried and moaned and said they were on life support and need the money.
Now that they received billions of dollars from us, the taxpayer, these companies continued to pay their employees billions of dollars in in bonuses. They are irate that the Obama administration dare to cut their executive pay at least by 50 percent.
These 175 top executives targeted by the government are threatening to leave the companies and go elsewhere. They say they are the most talented and productive people in the financial world. Really? These are the same idiots that raided wall street, made bad investments and brought the country to the brink of another great depression.
These so called "smarties" say they are the only ones that can fix our financial problems. What arrogance! Why should we retain them? It's the fox watching the hen house.
I have no doubt these so called financial brains will look for loopholes so they can raid the piggy bank again. The wall street supporters say there will be a "brain drain" and these executives will seek employment elsewhere. My thoughts? Let them leave. There are many talented young people graduating from our elite universities and financial think tanks that can do the same job --for much less.
-And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns,Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________
Dr.Kuhns can be reached at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Sunday, October 18, 2009
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE A GOVERNMENT HEALTH PLAN
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
The Democratic party told us of all the outstanding things they were going to do for the country if we, the voters, would only give them a chance. They insisted that they have to have a majority. We voters gave them a majority in the House, we gave them a Senate majority, filibuster free, and we gave them a Democratic White House. But now they squandered it. Their promise turned out to be a bag of hot air. The only thing they have done so far is pass their inaction onto the Republican Party.
We don't have healthcare even though Obama promised us the same health plan that he and the members of Congress has available to them. This Democratic Party is fighting among themselves mainly because many of those Democrats are beholden to the corrupt obscene lobbyists monies given them by the insurance lobby. Instead of melting into one exceptional voting block Obama and his party choose to splinter and crash.
Theodore Roosevelt attempted to get universal healthcare back in 1912, Richard Nixon wanted National health care in 1974, But even now the Democrats are balking even when 73 percent of the country want a healthcare plan like the one those same politicians enjoy.
Those elite group of people in Congress truly believe they are owed more than the John and Jane Doe working stiff. They have laws that specifically exempt them from crimes that the average citizen does not have and with their own "government health plan" the Congress has a choice of at least a dozen different health plans to choose from. They have that option for themselves. So far, we voters do not have that plan or any plan even with one option choice.
These easy riding politicians even have their own clinic facility on site for their personal use. In this facility they have access to the best treatment and medical specialists from around the United States and from around the world. The best part of this super facility is that these fat cats only have to pay approximately $500.00 a year for this added exceptional health care and even if the person didn't pay their $500.00 annual premium they can still avail themselves to that care because they are one of the club. People! We don't have anything like that. Not even anything close.
So, when you hear these politicians cry out against a government health plan for us little people and their screams that any government plan for us is bad I want you to ask yourself why these same people are sucking up their government health plan for themselves and their families on our dime.
All of those promises made then were made to be broken now. The White House and it's top staff went into this health plan from the get go writing off any universal health care. Senator Raum Emanuel was one of the biggest cheerleaders against universal care or any public option and has talked his home state friend President Obama out of insisting on a public option.
There have been reports that staffers in the White House are afraid to take on Emanuel because of his friendship with President Obama , his friendship with people like Rod Blagojevich, his temper and his sometimes vulgar language when trying to press a point. It seems that Emanuel's position is working because so far President Obama has not really come out strong nor has he taken any stand whatsoever on this important health care option other than saying Congress is working on it. That's a milk toast approach. I submit, the President has to become more aggressive and speak out using his pulpit and insist that any health plan "must" have a public option. Any government health plan that is good enough for them is good enough for us. No more, no less. - And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
The Democratic party told us of all the outstanding things they were going to do for the country if we, the voters, would only give them a chance. They insisted that they have to have a majority. We voters gave them a majority in the House, we gave them a Senate majority, filibuster free, and we gave them a Democratic White House. But now they squandered it. Their promise turned out to be a bag of hot air. The only thing they have done so far is pass their inaction onto the Republican Party.
We don't have healthcare even though Obama promised us the same health plan that he and the members of Congress has available to them. This Democratic Party is fighting among themselves mainly because many of those Democrats are beholden to the corrupt obscene lobbyists monies given them by the insurance lobby. Instead of melting into one exceptional voting block Obama and his party choose to splinter and crash.
Theodore Roosevelt attempted to get universal healthcare back in 1912, Richard Nixon wanted National health care in 1974, But even now the Democrats are balking even when 73 percent of the country want a healthcare plan like the one those same politicians enjoy.
Those elite group of people in Congress truly believe they are owed more than the John and Jane Doe working stiff. They have laws that specifically exempt them from crimes that the average citizen does not have and with their own "government health plan" the Congress has a choice of at least a dozen different health plans to choose from. They have that option for themselves. So far, we voters do not have that plan or any plan even with one option choice.
These easy riding politicians even have their own clinic facility on site for their personal use. In this facility they have access to the best treatment and medical specialists from around the United States and from around the world. The best part of this super facility is that these fat cats only have to pay approximately $500.00 a year for this added exceptional health care and even if the person didn't pay their $500.00 annual premium they can still avail themselves to that care because they are one of the club. People! We don't have anything like that. Not even anything close.
So, when you hear these politicians cry out against a government health plan for us little people and their screams that any government plan for us is bad I want you to ask yourself why these same people are sucking up their government health plan for themselves and their families on our dime.
All of those promises made then were made to be broken now. The White House and it's top staff went into this health plan from the get go writing off any universal health care. Senator Raum Emanuel was one of the biggest cheerleaders against universal care or any public option and has talked his home state friend President Obama out of insisting on a public option.
There have been reports that staffers in the White House are afraid to take on Emanuel because of his friendship with President Obama , his friendship with people like Rod Blagojevich, his temper and his sometimes vulgar language when trying to press a point. It seems that Emanuel's position is working because so far President Obama has not really come out strong nor has he taken any stand whatsoever on this important health care option other than saying Congress is working on it. That's a milk toast approach. I submit, the President has to become more aggressive and speak out using his pulpit and insist that any health plan "must" have a public option. Any government health plan that is good enough for them is good enough for us. No more, no less. - And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Saturday, October 17, 2009
WHERE'S THE PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST?
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell returned from the area again and failed to convince the Israelis and Palestinians to get together in peace talks.Decade after decade these two warring factions continue to refuse to compromise. Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to build settlements in disputed territory and Israel continues to occupy territories as they have for years.Palestinians want their own freedom. The Israel occupation should have ceased years and years ago. There should indeed be two separate states dividing these parties.
President Obama has requested that the Israelis cease building settlements in the territories so as to promote progress in a peace settlement.But his overtures and requests have been shunned by Israel.
I would suggest that the Obama administration use the power of the purse to insist that the expansion of settlements in the disputed territories come to an immediate halt. The Obama administration should withhold all foreign aid to Israel until they meet Obama's demands. The United States gives billions of dollars to Israel each and every year. Israel is given more U.S.A. foreign aid dollars per capita than any other country in the world.In addition, the USA has given Israel billions of dollars in advanced military weapons and do I need to remind America that we also have contributed millions in tax payer dollars to help Israel build up and improve their nuclear program.
The United States talks of controlling nuclear weapons and yet we want to dictate to the world which countries should have them and which countries should not have nukes. However, there is never a mention of Israel's nuke capability. Why?
As an example of these two factions going off the reservation lets look at what Israel did last winter with their military offensive in the Gaza Strip. There was a recent report by the U.N. that Israel committed war crimes and possible crimes against humanity throughout that conflict.The report said that Israel used disproportionate force, deliberately targeting civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure and using people as human shields. It should also be duly noted that Hamas also had committed war crimes. They also deliberately targeted civilians and tried to spread terrorism through its rocket attacks. Both sides committed war crimes - what a shame.
When Israel was accused of war crimes by the U.N. Netanyahu became angry and said his countries acts were self-defense. I submit that there is such a thing as self-defense and there is also such a thing as war crimes. But the two acts are completely different. In fact, it is said that some of our own leaders from the last administration should be brought before the courts on war crimes. It appears no one country is exempt.
There are a number of other countries that believe individuals in the past administration and CIA officers and officials should face a court for their war crimes. Some of those countries have gone so far as to issue warrants for the arrest of some of the individuals. It seems unclear why the United States and their allies can let war crimes be prosecuted against other leaders and officials of other countries but when the same crimes are committed by The United States and it's allies we say we won't face those same courts. Where's the equality and parity in the justice courts of the world? Everyone should be held accountable.
I submit that when a country or individuals from that country are alleged to have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity they should have to face the world courts, just like the people that were and is currently being prosecuted today in those same courts.- And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
________________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell returned from the area again and failed to convince the Israelis and Palestinians to get together in peace talks.Decade after decade these two warring factions continue to refuse to compromise. Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to build settlements in disputed territory and Israel continues to occupy territories as they have for years.Palestinians want their own freedom. The Israel occupation should have ceased years and years ago. There should indeed be two separate states dividing these parties.
President Obama has requested that the Israelis cease building settlements in the territories so as to promote progress in a peace settlement.But his overtures and requests have been shunned by Israel.
I would suggest that the Obama administration use the power of the purse to insist that the expansion of settlements in the disputed territories come to an immediate halt. The Obama administration should withhold all foreign aid to Israel until they meet Obama's demands. The United States gives billions of dollars to Israel each and every year. Israel is given more U.S.A. foreign aid dollars per capita than any other country in the world.In addition, the USA has given Israel billions of dollars in advanced military weapons and do I need to remind America that we also have contributed millions in tax payer dollars to help Israel build up and improve their nuclear program.
The United States talks of controlling nuclear weapons and yet we want to dictate to the world which countries should have them and which countries should not have nukes. However, there is never a mention of Israel's nuke capability. Why?
As an example of these two factions going off the reservation lets look at what Israel did last winter with their military offensive in the Gaza Strip. There was a recent report by the U.N. that Israel committed war crimes and possible crimes against humanity throughout that conflict.The report said that Israel used disproportionate force, deliberately targeting civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure and using people as human shields. It should also be duly noted that Hamas also had committed war crimes. They also deliberately targeted civilians and tried to spread terrorism through its rocket attacks. Both sides committed war crimes - what a shame.
When Israel was accused of war crimes by the U.N. Netanyahu became angry and said his countries acts were self-defense. I submit that there is such a thing as self-defense and there is also such a thing as war crimes. But the two acts are completely different. In fact, it is said that some of our own leaders from the last administration should be brought before the courts on war crimes. It appears no one country is exempt.
There are a number of other countries that believe individuals in the past administration and CIA officers and officials should face a court for their war crimes. Some of those countries have gone so far as to issue warrants for the arrest of some of the individuals. It seems unclear why the United States and their allies can let war crimes be prosecuted against other leaders and officials of other countries but when the same crimes are committed by The United States and it's allies we say we won't face those same courts. Where's the equality and parity in the justice courts of the world? Everyone should be held accountable.
I submit that when a country or individuals from that country are alleged to have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity they should have to face the world courts, just like the people that were and is currently being prosecuted today in those same courts.- And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
LEGALIZE MARIJUANA, NOW!
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
A recent poll found that 56% of all Americans want marijuana legalized. I agree.
It is a fact that 67 percent of all illegal drugs being brought into this country is marijuana. If just marijuana was legalized it would stop the majority of drug traffic into the U.S.A.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger even expressed his idea of legalizing marijuana in California not to long ago. It appears there are many in the nation that agree with his marijuana legalization idea.
At the present time there are approximately over 600,000 illegal aliens in our prisons here in the United States, the majority on drug and murder charges.
I would suggest that if the Federal government did legalize marijuana it would produce a number of benefits for the country.A small list would include but not limited to some of the following. Legalizing marijuana would:
1.Immediately take all incentives away from the drug cartels to smuggle the drug into the United States and that in turn would drastically diminish the smuggling operations on our borders.
2. The sale of marijuana would be strictly regulated by our government and the cost of the drug would be reduced.
3. The legal sale of the marijuana would show an immediate benefit to the Federal government and the states by bringing in tens of millions of dollars in taxes, if not billions.
4. The legalization of the drug would have an immediate impact on all of the drug related murders that are currently being waged on our borders and in our states. I would predict that the drug crimes and murders would show a significant drop.
Imagine, sixty-seven percent of all illegal drugs being brought into this country is marijuana. Wouldn't it be nice if we could see a sixty-seven percent drop in drug traffic and drug related murders? It's possible folks.
5. The marijuana legalization would also reduce the number of illegal aliens and U.S. citizens being sent to our prisons which in turn would result in enormous savings to our corrections system in every state.
Currently it costs tens of thousands of dollars a year to house only one of these criminals and by the sole act of legalizing marijuana we could save billions of dollars a year avoiding incarceration of marijuana traffickers.
The above is just some of the reasons I think the Federal government should legalize marijuana. It's a win, win situation. There will be a new tax windfall of millions or even billions of dollars for our states and Federal treasuries. It will reduce the number of criminal drug dealers and murders in our prisons. The legalization will also cut down on the gang violence in our cities across the country and it will clearly slash the smuggling opportunities for the criminal element. I would think all the politicians from all parties would get on board, especially when they can see all of the dollars signs blinking before their eyes.
- And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
_________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
A recent poll found that 56% of all Americans want marijuana legalized. I agree.
It is a fact that 67 percent of all illegal drugs being brought into this country is marijuana. If just marijuana was legalized it would stop the majority of drug traffic into the U.S.A.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger even expressed his idea of legalizing marijuana in California not to long ago. It appears there are many in the nation that agree with his marijuana legalization idea.
At the present time there are approximately over 600,000 illegal aliens in our prisons here in the United States, the majority on drug and murder charges.
I would suggest that if the Federal government did legalize marijuana it would produce a number of benefits for the country.A small list would include but not limited to some of the following. Legalizing marijuana would:
1.Immediately take all incentives away from the drug cartels to smuggle the drug into the United States and that in turn would drastically diminish the smuggling operations on our borders.
2. The sale of marijuana would be strictly regulated by our government and the cost of the drug would be reduced.
3. The legal sale of the marijuana would show an immediate benefit to the Federal government and the states by bringing in tens of millions of dollars in taxes, if not billions.
4. The legalization of the drug would have an immediate impact on all of the drug related murders that are currently being waged on our borders and in our states. I would predict that the drug crimes and murders would show a significant drop.
Imagine, sixty-seven percent of all illegal drugs being brought into this country is marijuana. Wouldn't it be nice if we could see a sixty-seven percent drop in drug traffic and drug related murders? It's possible folks.
5. The marijuana legalization would also reduce the number of illegal aliens and U.S. citizens being sent to our prisons which in turn would result in enormous savings to our corrections system in every state.
Currently it costs tens of thousands of dollars a year to house only one of these criminals and by the sole act of legalizing marijuana we could save billions of dollars a year avoiding incarceration of marijuana traffickers.
The above is just some of the reasons I think the Federal government should legalize marijuana. It's a win, win situation. There will be a new tax windfall of millions or even billions of dollars for our states and Federal treasuries. It will reduce the number of criminal drug dealers and murders in our prisons. The legalization will also cut down on the gang violence in our cities across the country and it will clearly slash the smuggling opportunities for the criminal element. I would think all the politicians from all parties would get on board, especially when they can see all of the dollars signs blinking before their eyes.
- And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Friday, October 9, 2009
LETTERMAN- SEXUAL HARASSMENT
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America,and how's the world treating you?
It appears David Letterman is getting a free pass from all of the women's rights groups, why?
Here we have an old guy that has sex with young women who work for him. He's the boss who apparently believes it's just fine to trade sex for job security on his show. I would assume that CBS has policy and rules that apply to sexual harassment. It's no secret that most all large corporations have classes and seminars on how to avoid sexual harassment between the boss and their employees.I have no doubt that CBS at one time or the other has held such classes for their employees. If they did in fact offer such classes I would say that Letterman can't plead ignorance of the law.
I suspect that since other executives as high up as President(s) at CBS has had alleged sex on the job with their employees Letterman can use the old defense that everyone else is doing it.
I think it is a sleazy act for any boss in any company or corporation to use their position and their power relating to that position to exchange it for sex.
In coming clean about his wrongful sexual contact, Letterman jokes about it to millions of people and says he is a victim. In one respect, and only one respect he is a victim, "a victim of alleged extortion of two million dollars." But, the women are the real victims. All of these women are victims of sexual harassment and Letterman clearly is not a victim in any way shape or form regarding the sex acts on the job.
So when Letterman says he is a victim everyone should remember that he is only a victim to an alleged extortion attempt. The sexual misconduct, he owns it.-And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
_________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America,and how's the world treating you?
It appears David Letterman is getting a free pass from all of the women's rights groups, why?
Here we have an old guy that has sex with young women who work for him. He's the boss who apparently believes it's just fine to trade sex for job security on his show. I would assume that CBS has policy and rules that apply to sexual harassment. It's no secret that most all large corporations have classes and seminars on how to avoid sexual harassment between the boss and their employees.I have no doubt that CBS at one time or the other has held such classes for their employees. If they did in fact offer such classes I would say that Letterman can't plead ignorance of the law.
I suspect that since other executives as high up as President(s) at CBS has had alleged sex on the job with their employees Letterman can use the old defense that everyone else is doing it.
I think it is a sleazy act for any boss in any company or corporation to use their position and their power relating to that position to exchange it for sex.
In coming clean about his wrongful sexual contact, Letterman jokes about it to millions of people and says he is a victim. In one respect, and only one respect he is a victim, "a victim of alleged extortion of two million dollars." But, the women are the real victims. All of these women are victims of sexual harassment and Letterman clearly is not a victim in any way shape or form regarding the sex acts on the job.
So when Letterman says he is a victim everyone should remember that he is only a victim to an alleged extortion attempt. The sexual misconduct, he owns it.-And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Thursday, October 8, 2009
VOTE OUT ALL OF THOSE BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS -Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
The Democrats were given a mandate during the last election to change the way government was run. Voters put Democrats in to carry our President Obama's agenda.
The Democrats have the majority in the House and Senate and the White House but instead of sticking together and pushing through President Obama's plan for Health Care including the health care option there are at least six Democrats who refuse to vote for the Democratic proposals and are backing the Republicans.In fact, many of them including Senator Reid from Nevada, the Senators from Arkansas and Senator from Montana and others are holding the Democrats hostage and preventing the Democratic party from carrying out many of President Obama's programs.
These six Democrats calling themselves "blue dogs" are dogs alright - -"dirty dogs". Their only interest is scooping up money from the insurance and big Phara lobbies for their own use. It's no secret that these "dogs" have been receiving millions of dollars from the insurance and pharmaceutical companies for their war chest to get reelected.
If these Democrats we voted for cannot stand together what good is it to put them in office. They all promised that if the Democrats were given a shot they would have the majority and vote the Democratic policy agenda. They lied! Their hands are so dirty with insurance money they can't wash the stench off.
These "dogs" should lose their seats on their committee's. They should be demoted to the smallest position performed in Congress and when election time rolls around they should be voted out of office for their betrayal.The voters should watch these wanna-be Democrats who lied to us and demand that they vote with all of the other Democrats to get things done in Congress. Hell! The Republicans have always voted a block to get things done for the past eight years. Just look at all the bad law and policy the Bush Administration pushed through time after time.
Republican's hang together in "lock-step" and no matter what they vote together. For eight years the Republicans had the votes in Congress and they used them.
Why is it the Democrats continually to fight among themselves? They can't vote in block nor do they stick together and they refuse to agree as one.I say that the Democrats had their shot. Enough is enough. They asked for a chance and said if they had the majority they would give us that change the country wanted. But now that the Democrats are in power their stock answer is "we don't have the votes". What a rip off!
I submit that if the Democratic Party who has the majority and the power can't get the countries business done now, ---they'll never get it done. So, who needs them. Throw the idiots out starting with Senator Reid and the "dirty dogs." And,- that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
________________
LAS VEGAS -Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
The Democrats were given a mandate during the last election to change the way government was run. Voters put Democrats in to carry our President Obama's agenda.
The Democrats have the majority in the House and Senate and the White House but instead of sticking together and pushing through President Obama's plan for Health Care including the health care option there are at least six Democrats who refuse to vote for the Democratic proposals and are backing the Republicans.In fact, many of them including Senator Reid from Nevada, the Senators from Arkansas and Senator from Montana and others are holding the Democrats hostage and preventing the Democratic party from carrying out many of President Obama's programs.
These six Democrats calling themselves "blue dogs" are dogs alright - -"dirty dogs". Their only interest is scooping up money from the insurance and big Phara lobbies for their own use. It's no secret that these "dogs" have been receiving millions of dollars from the insurance and pharmaceutical companies for their war chest to get reelected.
If these Democrats we voted for cannot stand together what good is it to put them in office. They all promised that if the Democrats were given a shot they would have the majority and vote the Democratic policy agenda. They lied! Their hands are so dirty with insurance money they can't wash the stench off.
These "dogs" should lose their seats on their committee's. They should be demoted to the smallest position performed in Congress and when election time rolls around they should be voted out of office for their betrayal.The voters should watch these wanna-be Democrats who lied to us and demand that they vote with all of the other Democrats to get things done in Congress. Hell! The Republicans have always voted a block to get things done for the past eight years. Just look at all the bad law and policy the Bush Administration pushed through time after time.
Republican's hang together in "lock-step" and no matter what they vote together. For eight years the Republicans had the votes in Congress and they used them.
Why is it the Democrats continually to fight among themselves? They can't vote in block nor do they stick together and they refuse to agree as one.I say that the Democrats had their shot. Enough is enough. They asked for a chance and said if they had the majority they would give us that change the country wanted. But now that the Democrats are in power their stock answer is "we don't have the votes". What a rip off!
I submit that if the Democratic Party who has the majority and the power can't get the countries business done now, ---they'll never get it done. So, who needs them. Throw the idiots out starting with Senator Reid and the "dirty dogs." And,- that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
PUT LENO BACK ON LATE NIGHT
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
Jay Leno should have stayed on as a late night show. He had a great late night offering. His show clearly did outshine the other late night personalities. I personally liked Leno in the late night slot. Why? Because when I come home after a days work I enjoyed watching all of my favorite television programs in prime time and then, tune into Leno's late night. However, now that he is in prime time if I want to watch his antics I would have to miss all of my favorite prime time shows.
I would submit that there are many viewers that share my same feeling. Most people enjoy watching their favorite prime time shows and then tune into their favorite late night host.To me, that was the Leno show.
Since Jay Leno left late night I did tune into some of the other late night shows to see if I would enjoy them as much as the Leno show. Sorry! The other shows didn't have the stuff the Jay Leno show presented.
If the Leno show in prime time isn't getting the high rating expected I suspect that it is because others like myself actually want to watch their favorite prime time shows and then watch a late night comedian. It's been that way since Steve Allen and Johnny Carson. There has always been a regular late night host that people could count on to end the evening. After the Carson era, to me, that was the Jay Leno show. The guy was made to be a late night host. I think NBC made a huge mistake taking Leno away from late night. My suggestion! Leno back on late night. And,-that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
Jay Leno should have stayed on as a late night show. He had a great late night offering. His show clearly did outshine the other late night personalities. I personally liked Leno in the late night slot. Why? Because when I come home after a days work I enjoyed watching all of my favorite television programs in prime time and then, tune into Leno's late night. However, now that he is in prime time if I want to watch his antics I would have to miss all of my favorite prime time shows.
I would submit that there are many viewers that share my same feeling. Most people enjoy watching their favorite prime time shows and then tune into their favorite late night host.To me, that was the Leno show.
Since Jay Leno left late night I did tune into some of the other late night shows to see if I would enjoy them as much as the Leno show. Sorry! The other shows didn't have the stuff the Jay Leno show presented.
If the Leno show in prime time isn't getting the high rating expected I suspect that it is because others like myself actually want to watch their favorite prime time shows and then watch a late night comedian. It's been that way since Steve Allen and Johnny Carson. There has always been a regular late night host that people could count on to end the evening. After the Carson era, to me, that was the Jay Leno show. The guy was made to be a late night host. I think NBC made a huge mistake taking Leno away from late night. My suggestion! Leno back on late night. And,-that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
AFGHANISTAN -WE SHOULDN'T BE THERE
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, how's the world treating you?
Eight years in Afghanistan? We clearly don't need this war.
President Obama should call this war to an end and remove all of our troops immediately.
Doesn't politicians learn from the past? Russia fought Afghanistan for about ten years and the British tried to conquer Afghanistan.Both countries lost. We, the USA,supported the Afghans during the Russian conflict. We trained the Afghan fighters and gave weapons to them to use against the Russians. Now, those same Afghans are using that training and some of the same weapons against us.
We didn't need the Iraq war and we don't need this war. All we are doing is spending billions of dollars a month on this war and having the Afghanistan corrupt government take billions of our money for themselves and hide it in banks throughout the world for their own use. The USA's mission was to go into Afghanistan and capture Osama bin Laden. However,after thousands of American troop deaths and tens of thousands Afghan civilian deaths in Iraq and approximately 790 troop deaths and thousands of Afghan civilian deaths as of today we are still there with the administration statement that we have to bring a Democratic government to the Country. Why?
Let that country prop up itself. If Afghan forces cannot stand on it's own after eight years, they never will.
A billion dollars a month from the U.S. in Iraq and about the same money in Afghanistan is inappropriate. That money could be used here in the good ol' USA. That money could be used for our own infrastructure, schools, manufacturing, jobs, etc.
The money being squandered by our country on both of these unnecessary wars could support our own nation against terrorism here within our own borders and we would have billions left over.Protecting the USA against terrorism within our own borders should be the priority and the Administration's excuse that spending billions over there will stop Al-Qaida is a poor argument.The billions being spent on these unwarranted wars can be used to break up any terrorist activities being plotted here in this country.
President Obama should look to the past so it doesn't repeat itself. It appears that the lessons from Vietnam hasn't been learned by either the Bush or Obama Administrations.
Many Americans feel that the U.S. should let Afghanistan's war factions fighting among themselves settle their own differences. They have been fighting among themselves for centuries and they have their own culture and ways of handling their differences.The United States shouldn't attempt to bring our democracy to all of these different countries around the world telling their people that our way is best. One of my my views,-- if we are attacked here on our own soil we fight. But we don't start wars in other countries and occupy those countries and tell the world we are going to change that countries way of thinking.
America! America first. We should spend our dollars here in this country first improving our electrical grids,our bridges and roads. We should be taking care of our environment and education system and our borders and immigration system, just to name a few areas that require our immediate attention. Once we take care of our needs in this country, then we can give moderate amounts of money to other countries that promote peace. - And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
_________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, how's the world treating you?
Eight years in Afghanistan? We clearly don't need this war.
President Obama should call this war to an end and remove all of our troops immediately.
Doesn't politicians learn from the past? Russia fought Afghanistan for about ten years and the British tried to conquer Afghanistan.Both countries lost. We, the USA,supported the Afghans during the Russian conflict. We trained the Afghan fighters and gave weapons to them to use against the Russians. Now, those same Afghans are using that training and some of the same weapons against us.
We didn't need the Iraq war and we don't need this war. All we are doing is spending billions of dollars a month on this war and having the Afghanistan corrupt government take billions of our money for themselves and hide it in banks throughout the world for their own use. The USA's mission was to go into Afghanistan and capture Osama bin Laden. However,after thousands of American troop deaths and tens of thousands Afghan civilian deaths in Iraq and approximately 790 troop deaths and thousands of Afghan civilian deaths as of today we are still there with the administration statement that we have to bring a Democratic government to the Country. Why?
Let that country prop up itself. If Afghan forces cannot stand on it's own after eight years, they never will.
A billion dollars a month from the U.S. in Iraq and about the same money in Afghanistan is inappropriate. That money could be used here in the good ol' USA. That money could be used for our own infrastructure, schools, manufacturing, jobs, etc.
The money being squandered by our country on both of these unnecessary wars could support our own nation against terrorism here within our own borders and we would have billions left over.Protecting the USA against terrorism within our own borders should be the priority and the Administration's excuse that spending billions over there will stop Al-Qaida is a poor argument.The billions being spent on these unwarranted wars can be used to break up any terrorist activities being plotted here in this country.
President Obama should look to the past so it doesn't repeat itself. It appears that the lessons from Vietnam hasn't been learned by either the Bush or Obama Administrations.
Many Americans feel that the U.S. should let Afghanistan's war factions fighting among themselves settle their own differences. They have been fighting among themselves for centuries and they have their own culture and ways of handling their differences.The United States shouldn't attempt to bring our democracy to all of these different countries around the world telling their people that our way is best. One of my my views,-- if we are attacked here on our own soil we fight. But we don't start wars in other countries and occupy those countries and tell the world we are going to change that countries way of thinking.
America! America first. We should spend our dollars here in this country first improving our electrical grids,our bridges and roads. We should be taking care of our environment and education system and our borders and immigration system, just to name a few areas that require our immediate attention. Once we take care of our needs in this country, then we can give moderate amounts of money to other countries that promote peace. - And, that's my opinion.
Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Thursday, October 1, 2009
NEWS MEDIA IS BIASED
THE DOCTOR IS IN
__________________
PARTISAN-BIASED NEWS SHOWS
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, how's life treating you?
Where is the unbiased news reporting in today's world? Times certainly have changed.
On one hand we have the FOX News Channel and on the other we have MSNBC. If you are a Republican you watch and soak up the reporting and opinions on Fox News and if you're a Democrat you tune into the slants on MSNBC. Some of these TV hosts claim to be journalists but all they do is spout the party line on each of their respective News Channels. On FOX, you have people like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck reading copy from a monitor that promotes Republican views and talking points. MSNBC is no better. There you have people like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow doing the same thing. Both Channels hosts belittle each others political party. Rather than reporting news they read teleprompters and ridicule politicians from the opposite party and groups that may support the opposing party.
These type of so-called news organizations are clearly partisan and they format their shows to only one perspective. It is no wonder that the people across this country have a sour attitude toward journalism. Where is the news person of yesteryear when they just reported the news and let the viewer make up their own mind as to how to interpret the presentation.
Many of these supposed news shows are nothing more that a comedy show, an entertainment show. They certainly are not reporting the news. Instead, they bend, shape and spin what is a news event into a partisan dissertation. There should be an independent News Channel with an independent, nonpartisan host that actually reports the news for an hour without adding partisan mocking comments of politicians or groups with such things as puppet shows and not-so funny skits. An hour show of actual unbiased news would be a breath of fresh air. FOX and MSNBC should advertise these opinion shows as comedy and make believe news and stop pretending they are presenting news of the day. A real news reporter/journalist reads the news without a biased take. I assume that because these particular (news?) channels are on cable and the hosts are offering their personal opinions with their name fronting the show and with everything formatted into the teleprompter well ahead of time gives them a pass from actually being a legitimate news reporting venue. What we people want is actual, factual reporting of the news . . . not a "show", but it appears that's all these programs really are.."a show, not news". - And, that's my opinion.
Dr. Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at
bradomd@yahoo.com
__________________
PARTISAN-BIASED NEWS SHOWS
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, how's life treating you?
Where is the unbiased news reporting in today's world? Times certainly have changed.
On one hand we have the FOX News Channel and on the other we have MSNBC. If you are a Republican you watch and soak up the reporting and opinions on Fox News and if you're a Democrat you tune into the slants on MSNBC. Some of these TV hosts claim to be journalists but all they do is spout the party line on each of their respective News Channels. On FOX, you have people like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck reading copy from a monitor that promotes Republican views and talking points. MSNBC is no better. There you have people like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow doing the same thing. Both Channels hosts belittle each others political party. Rather than reporting news they read teleprompters and ridicule politicians from the opposite party and groups that may support the opposing party.
These type of so-called news organizations are clearly partisan and they format their shows to only one perspective. It is no wonder that the people across this country have a sour attitude toward journalism. Where is the news person of yesteryear when they just reported the news and let the viewer make up their own mind as to how to interpret the presentation.
Many of these supposed news shows are nothing more that a comedy show, an entertainment show. They certainly are not reporting the news. Instead, they bend, shape and spin what is a news event into a partisan dissertation. There should be an independent News Channel with an independent, nonpartisan host that actually reports the news for an hour without adding partisan mocking comments of politicians or groups with such things as puppet shows and not-so funny skits. An hour show of actual unbiased news would be a breath of fresh air. FOX and MSNBC should advertise these opinion shows as comedy and make believe news and stop pretending they are presenting news of the day. A real news reporter/journalist reads the news without a biased take. I assume that because these particular (news?) channels are on cable and the hosts are offering their personal opinions with their name fronting the show and with everything formatted into the teleprompter well ahead of time gives them a pass from actually being a legitimate news reporting venue. What we people want is actual, factual reporting of the news . . . not a "show", but it appears that's all these programs really are.."a show, not news". - And, that's my opinion.
Dr. Bradley Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at
bradomd@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)