THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
In response to a question by Louis T., asking me how a person can get independent and quality unbiased news coverage relating to politics from the current cable opinion shows that are on television.
Louis, It appears the current so-called opinion shows on television clearly are not the place to get relevant and substantial news of the day and/or a fair assessment of political news. I believe a person only receives a smattering of useful news reports through these type of shows. These so-called opinion shows are nothing more than an "entertainment" show.
As an example, three shows come to mind. They are the Keith Olbermann Show, the Rachel Maddow Show, both on MSNBC and the third is the O'Reilly Factor on FOX News Network.
In my opinion I feel that these three shows are partisan. To explain, I have watched the Fox network, particularly the O'Reilly Factor for over a year and found that it only offered a very strong partisan Republican slant on politics. There was never ever a time I could see any information being presented that complimented any Democratic or Independent view,policy or agenda relating to any issue being discussed in any way.
Compared to major network stations like NBC News, ABC News, CBS News and cable CNN who present news and politics I think these shows fall short.
I would not call Fox News a news show. It appears they pretend to be a news show by having the word "news" in their title and claim to be "fair and balanced" but it appears all they do is have their hosts read teleprompters with the party line which is only favorable to the Republican agenda. And, that applies to all of the hosts on Fox News. I personally cannot see any of Fox News hosts as "journalists" or "investigative reporters." I view them as opinion commentators reading material promoting the party line of one political party, the Republicans.
As to the Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow show. Louis, they are just as bad. I've watched the Keith Olbermann show for years and watched the Rachel Maddow show ever since she got her own show after filling in for Olbermann occasionally.
These two shows on MSNBC started out fine. They seemed fair early on but as the years went on both shows morphed into a Democratic partisan platform. So, in my opinion, what Fox is to the Republican Party, the Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow show and MSNBC are to the Democrat Party. Neither one of these shows represent an independent and/or unbiased take on issues. It's not uncommon for Olbermann and/or Maddow to ridicule, make fun of, or belittle lawmakers, personalities and guests and issues on their show. I see these two shows as strictly geared for entertainment purposes only hoping to grab ratings. The hosts of these two shows make funny faces or try gimmicks that takes away from the value of the subject matter being presented.
Keith tries to be funny and apparently sees himself as a comedian. At times he yells and frequently makes snide comments about people and/or the subject matter he is reading about if it doesn't fit the Democratic agenda. He also constantly rips Fox Network and belittles O'Reilly even though his show is really not much different than O'Reilly's show. O'Reilly pushes the Republican talking points and Olbermann pushes the Democratic talking points.
Olbermann tries to mimic voices like "a wanna be Rich Little" as he attempts to get his point across. He has set up a scenario where he has an ongoing running battle with Bill O'Reilly , Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and uses his funny voices, snide remarks, insults and comedy props to pander to the Democrats who enjoy watching his slap stick comedy. So my opinion, The Olbermann Show- "Entertainment", "Yes", substantial news coverage, "No." However, Olbermann's special comments segments are an entirely different story. When he gets serious and stops trying to be a clown or funny man he can really relate. I would like to hear special comment segments complimenting not only the Democratic agenda but also the Republican agenda.
I submit that both parties do some good. The Republican Party is not "all bad" and the Democratic Party is not "all bad" but you would never know it watching these two cable giants bad mouthing each other.
I think that squandering valuable air time on a purported news/politics show that is only entertaining and one-sided is a waste. Covering current news and politics from an unbiased perspective would be refreshing and much more interesting.The guy certainly has the talent to to do just that if he chose to.
The Rachel Maddow Show? I think she mirrors the Keith Olbermann Show quite a bit. She too, like Keith, tries to be funny. She also tries using gimmicks and props to grab viewers attention rather that reading nonpartisan issues and events. Like Olbermann she tries try to play "got you" hosting.
When these opinion commentators,-for example,The Rachel Maddow Show finally does have a guest agree to appear on the show to offer their position on an issue she and her research staff have pictures, clips, etc., preset up to embarrass or ridicule the guest when discussing the particular issue. I should say here that Fox News also plays the "got you" game when they have a guest from the Democratic party.
It appears that these partisan hosts have their research people dig up anything that could belittle, embarrass and discredit the guest. That's sad. And, some of the questionable research is sometimes 20 and 30 years old. Rather than letting the guest present their side of an issue it looks like they would rather throw up materials that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
I've observed on occasion, that if the guest is talking and presenting their side of an issue the hostess apparently doesn't want the guest to complete their view and looking flustered she waves her hands frantically saying, "let me talk" only wanting to follow her prearranged setup to play"got ya."
Yes, Fox news does the same thing. I've seen segments where O'Reilly had his staff bushwack lawmakers and personalities to embarrass, discredit and belittle them. That's the trouble with these partisan entertainment shows.
It is actions like these that stop Democrats from appearing on Fox News and Republicans appearing on MSNBC. There is no way those people could get their voices heard and have a fair hearing without being caught up in a "got you game" and/or belittled and ridiculed.
Fox News says it is "fair and balanced." It appears to me there is nothing fair and balanced about a partisan Republican platform. As for MSNBC, Maddow says people are "treated fairly" and Maddow says MSNBC is the place for politics. I doubt that unless you want one-sided politics geared only toward the Democratic spin. If you believe Fox News is "fair and balanced and MSNBC's Olbermann and Maddow shows and other MSNBC shows treat guests and issues fairly I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.
In my view these three shows are not news worthy nor are they a place where a person can depend on actual relevant material for informative news and political information unless you're either a Republican or a Democrat and in that case you have the choice of either Fox News or MSNBC. These shows resemble a cheap entertainment comedy show where people can watch each of them blast each other and pounce on the opposite parties views and agendas.
I have been an Independent voter since I was old enough to vote over these many years and I wonder where the independent, nonpartisan, unbiased commentator is?
If I had a television show and knew I had the opportunity to use valuable airtime to present my case I would strive to have both sides heard (without ridicule, embarrassment and belittlement, funny games, comedy props or funny voices) so as to insure that the guest, whether a Republican, Democrat, Independent, or a known personality would return at a later time.
For example, I would allow a person offering the Republican perspective to answer my question and then I would allow the person with the Democrat or Independent view answer my question. I would do it without filibusters by either guest. A moderator should have control of the show and insist they answer the question or move to another question and let the television viewing audience actually make up their mind as to which guest was more credible and forthright.
I would not have the same old talking heads appear for any analysis as these opinion entertainment shows do. The three shows discussed here most always have the same analysts appear and it clearly appears these analysts will spout the party line and agree completely with the host. How many times does the viewing audience hear these same repeat analysts tell the host- "I agree with you totally," or "you're absolutely right."
There is a vast array of talented experts on most any subject matter out there and if it were me I would make certain the audience heard from a varied pool of analysts, including from time to time, views from the Main Street public and everyday middle class people from across the nation.
So, Louis- For you to gather an unbiased view relating to news, current events and politics, I woulds suggest you look to the newspapers and major network news. As to television I would suggest you stick with ABC, CBS and NBC news on the major networks and CNN on cable.
Again, from my point of view the three shows mentioned here can only be classified as " strictly for entertainment." However, if you really want jokes and real comedy and entertainment delivered with your news and politics fix I would suggest "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and the "Colbert Report. They actually do what they purport to do - They really deliver good comedy with their news, politics and current events.
I'm clearly disappointed with MSNBC for becoming so partisan. I have been watching NBC television over 60 years and I always depended on NBC to present news and politics with out partisanship.- And, that's my opinion. You nake your own decision. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Friday, April 30, 2010
Arizona SB1070- Favored By 70% of Americans
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Illegal means "illegal." If any person is questioned about the status of their citizenship following a legitimate traffic stop or an investigation relating to a crime or their involvement in any other illegal activity, I say that is perfectly legal under Arizona law and is legal under most any other states laws.
The misunderstanding about the Arizona law SB1070 is that people are assuming that a person might be stopped and questioned just because they "may" be an illegal alien, or just because of what they look like. WRONG! The Arizona law doesn't allow or mandate that state and local law enforcement agencies do such a thing. The law also doesn't allow for law enforcement to set up prearranged checkpoints for the sole purpose of checking peoples documents. The opposition to this well crafted bill is attempting to muddy the waters to justify the continued illegal alien flow into the state of Arizona and elsewhere in the United States.
As I said in previous blogs , Governor Brewer and the Arizona legislature was correct when they state that the reason this law was passed was because the Federal government blatantly failed to secure our borders and protect all of the states from the illegal activity of sovereign incursion into this country.
If the wishy-washy Congress would have did their job years ago I would say this law would never have seen the light of day. When President Reagan gave millions of illegals "amnesty" years ago, he and these lawmakers "promised" that the amnesty would be only a one time thing and also promised that they would insure that our borders would be secured. So much for promises! Right? Like people say, promises are made only to be broken and our politicians clearly broke that promise. Now some of these politicians are mulling over the idea of giving amnesty AGAIN. What a rip off to and for United States citizens.
This Arizona law SB1070 is favored by 70 percent of the people in the United States and 70 percent of all Arizona residents. Remember, it doesn't cost us a penny for law enforcement to ask an additional question during a traffic stop or during an official investigation.
The Congress has passed a law(s) actually defining what "illegal" is yet groups and organization that have specific agendas either for monetary or political reasons goes of the deep end when the residents of Arizona has the audacity to want the law(s) enforced.
Self-interest groups like LaRaza pressure the Arizona school districts and politicians to let all of the students attending school to leave the classroom and march with foreign flags in the streets of Arizona but these same politicians who are pandering for the Hispanic vote ignore the legal United States citizens concerns who only want the illegal alien out of the state and country. The pandering politicians seem to turn a deaf ear to United States citizens in favor of their supporters like LaRaza and their ilk.That's really sad.
Personally I have no ill feeling against any race or ethnic group. Like millions of other United States citizens I have lived and worked with peoples from other nationalities and races, however I am against criminals and law breakers and as such I would like to see criminals and law breakers off the streets of Arizona and/or any other state in this country and see those same criminals and law breaker s out of this country.
I would suggest that if any person from anywhere in the world wants to come to this country and become a citizen, that's great but - - DO IT legally. Our immigration process has specific steps to follow to enter this country and become a citizen. The illegal alien should stand in line like all the other good intentioned people from around the world waiting to become a citizen. If any individual attempts shortcuts and circumvents the law - -that is illegal. There is no rights for an illegal alien and they have no right to jump ahead of all those other law abiding applicants waiting for citizenship. That, in my opinion is why there should never, ever be an "amnesty" program. That is what the illegal alien is waiting for and it shouldn't happen.
Our immigration laws used to work very well from about the early 1900's forward but they began to fail, big time, about the 1970's and 1980's, especially when the President and Congress of these United States gave mass "amnesty" to millions of illegal aliens, made promises, and then openly broke those promises.
The drain on our economic system and expense to the taxpayers by the illegal alien influx is devastating. Some of the ideas I would offer to quell the massive influx of the illegal alien entry into the United States may include but is not limited to:
1. Employment: Penalize any company, firm and/or organization that hires illegal aliens.There should be no waivers or exceptions for any company or business. The fines should be very substantial for each violation of an illegal hire and also jail time. You can bet if a few employers were sent to jail and had to pay large fines they would very quickly STOP hiring illegal aliens. So far, many of these big companies and corporations have been using the loophole "knowingly" as an escape clause when they are caught will illegal aliens on the payroll. The government should mandate that every company hiring employees has to use the e-verify system to check legal status.
Note: Many groups and organizations that do not want to stop illegal aliens argue that the e-verify system makes mistakes. I submit that the system does not make gross errors and if a person is flagged in the e-verify system that individual can then be checked out more closely through all the other government sources we have available to us.
Again,the government does a great job of keeping track of all of us citizens. For example, millions receive monthly social security checks, many receive monthly federal,state and county benefits and in all, there are really not that many mistakes made processing the funds or benefits for the individual. When a mistake is made with those programs they are checked and rechecked until resolution. So, for these illegal alien advocates crying that e-verify doesn't work is a very lame argument. It would help the system more than it would hurt it.
2. Enact the Real ID act: The detractors use the same argument as with the e-verify system. They say, it will make mistakes. So what? If there is an occasional mistake made the individual can be checked and double checked against all the data information systems the government has at its disposal and correct any mistake, if in fact one was made.
3. Medical treatment: Mandate that prior to any medical treatment the persons legal status should be confirmed. In an emergency situation if an illegal alien is treated that person should be stabilized and then jailed and deported for being in this country illegally. Currently many hospitals on the Southern border in Texas and Arizona are at on the brink of bankruptcy only because of illegal alien free medical care and treatment. United States citizens have to pay for their treatment if they can eventually be seen by the medical personnel who are treating the illegal alien at these hospitals and clinics.
4. Social Services:Any person that is in the United States illegally should not receive any type of social services. For example, California is on the breaking point. They are billions of dollars in debt and a big part of that debt is only because of the free services and benefits the California taxpayer is obligated to pay to illegal aliens. There are a number of states in the same position and they are attempting to dig out of massive debt only because of the drain on their social service system by the illegal alien.
5. Anchor Babies- The government should immediately stop giving citizenship to illegal alien babies born in the United States. It's no secret that a large majority of illegal alien women cross the border into the United States just to have their baby declared a citizen. There has been video and film showing Mexican citizens actually lifting and dropping pregnant illegal women over parts of the Southern Border fence that is up and running knowing that once the pregnant woman is on United States soil the baby will be born and declared a United States citizen. Interviews with medical health professionals in United States towns along the Mexican/United States border have indicated that more and more pregnant illegal alien women are receiving free medical treatment for deliveries and that treatment is increasing more and more each year.
I predict that if the above areas of concern were seriously considered by our lawmakers and these lucrative incentives are indeed removed and the laws enforced we would see a dramatic reduction in illegal aliens attempting to illegally enter this country.- And, that's my opinion. You decide. You make the decision.
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 is the world treating you?
Illegal means "illegal." If any person is questioned about the status of their citizenship following a legitimate traffic stop or an investigation relating to a crime or their involvement in any other illegal activity, I say that is perfectly legal under Arizona law and is legal under most any other states laws.
The misunderstanding about the Arizona law SB1070 is that people are assuming that a person might be stopped and questioned just because they "may" be an illegal alien, or just because of what they look like. WRONG! The Arizona law doesn't allow or mandate that state and local law enforcement agencies do such a thing. The law also doesn't allow for law enforcement to set up prearranged checkpoints for the sole purpose of checking peoples documents. The opposition to this well crafted bill is attempting to muddy the waters to justify the continued illegal alien flow into the state of Arizona and elsewhere in the United States.
As I said in previous blogs , Governor Brewer and the Arizona legislature was correct when they state that the reason this law was passed was because the Federal government blatantly failed to secure our borders and protect all of the states from the illegal activity of sovereign incursion into this country.
If the wishy-washy Congress would have did their job years ago I would say this law would never have seen the light of day. When President Reagan gave millions of illegals "amnesty" years ago, he and these lawmakers "promised" that the amnesty would be only a one time thing and also promised that they would insure that our borders would be secured. So much for promises! Right? Like people say, promises are made only to be broken and our politicians clearly broke that promise. Now some of these politicians are mulling over the idea of giving amnesty AGAIN. What a rip off to and for United States citizens.
This Arizona law SB1070 is favored by 70 percent of the people in the United States and 70 percent of all Arizona residents. Remember, it doesn't cost us a penny for law enforcement to ask an additional question during a traffic stop or during an official investigation.
The Congress has passed a law(s) actually defining what "illegal" is yet groups and organization that have specific agendas either for monetary or political reasons goes of the deep end when the residents of Arizona has the audacity to want the law(s) enforced.
Self-interest groups like LaRaza pressure the Arizona school districts and politicians to let all of the students attending school to leave the classroom and march with foreign flags in the streets of Arizona but these same politicians who are pandering for the Hispanic vote ignore the legal United States citizens concerns who only want the illegal alien out of the state and country. The pandering politicians seem to turn a deaf ear to United States citizens in favor of their supporters like LaRaza and their ilk.That's really sad.
Personally I have no ill feeling against any race or ethnic group. Like millions of other United States citizens I have lived and worked with peoples from other nationalities and races, however I am against criminals and law breakers and as such I would like to see criminals and law breakers off the streets of Arizona and/or any other state in this country and see those same criminals and law breaker s out of this country.
I would suggest that if any person from anywhere in the world wants to come to this country and become a citizen, that's great but - - DO IT legally. Our immigration process has specific steps to follow to enter this country and become a citizen. The illegal alien should stand in line like all the other good intentioned people from around the world waiting to become a citizen. If any individual attempts shortcuts and circumvents the law - -that is illegal. There is no rights for an illegal alien and they have no right to jump ahead of all those other law abiding applicants waiting for citizenship. That, in my opinion is why there should never, ever be an "amnesty" program. That is what the illegal alien is waiting for and it shouldn't happen.
Our immigration laws used to work very well from about the early 1900's forward but they began to fail, big time, about the 1970's and 1980's, especially when the President and Congress of these United States gave mass "amnesty" to millions of illegal aliens, made promises, and then openly broke those promises.
The drain on our economic system and expense to the taxpayers by the illegal alien influx is devastating. Some of the ideas I would offer to quell the massive influx of the illegal alien entry into the United States may include but is not limited to:
1. Employment: Penalize any company, firm and/or organization that hires illegal aliens.There should be no waivers or exceptions for any company or business. The fines should be very substantial for each violation of an illegal hire and also jail time. You can bet if a few employers were sent to jail and had to pay large fines they would very quickly STOP hiring illegal aliens. So far, many of these big companies and corporations have been using the loophole "knowingly" as an escape clause when they are caught will illegal aliens on the payroll. The government should mandate that every company hiring employees has to use the e-verify system to check legal status.
Note: Many groups and organizations that do not want to stop illegal aliens argue that the e-verify system makes mistakes. I submit that the system does not make gross errors and if a person is flagged in the e-verify system that individual can then be checked out more closely through all the other government sources we have available to us.
Again,the government does a great job of keeping track of all of us citizens. For example, millions receive monthly social security checks, many receive monthly federal,state and county benefits and in all, there are really not that many mistakes made processing the funds or benefits for the individual. When a mistake is made with those programs they are checked and rechecked until resolution. So, for these illegal alien advocates crying that e-verify doesn't work is a very lame argument. It would help the system more than it would hurt it.
2. Enact the Real ID act: The detractors use the same argument as with the e-verify system. They say, it will make mistakes. So what? If there is an occasional mistake made the individual can be checked and double checked against all the data information systems the government has at its disposal and correct any mistake, if in fact one was made.
3. Medical treatment: Mandate that prior to any medical treatment the persons legal status should be confirmed. In an emergency situation if an illegal alien is treated that person should be stabilized and then jailed and deported for being in this country illegally. Currently many hospitals on the Southern border in Texas and Arizona are at on the brink of bankruptcy only because of illegal alien free medical care and treatment. United States citizens have to pay for their treatment if they can eventually be seen by the medical personnel who are treating the illegal alien at these hospitals and clinics.
4. Social Services:Any person that is in the United States illegally should not receive any type of social services. For example, California is on the breaking point. They are billions of dollars in debt and a big part of that debt is only because of the free services and benefits the California taxpayer is obligated to pay to illegal aliens. There are a number of states in the same position and they are attempting to dig out of massive debt only because of the drain on their social service system by the illegal alien.
5. Anchor Babies- The government should immediately stop giving citizenship to illegal alien babies born in the United States. It's no secret that a large majority of illegal alien women cross the border into the United States just to have their baby declared a citizen. There has been video and film showing Mexican citizens actually lifting and dropping pregnant illegal women over parts of the Southern Border fence that is up and running knowing that once the pregnant woman is on United States soil the baby will be born and declared a United States citizen. Interviews with medical health professionals in United States towns along the Mexican/United States border have indicated that more and more pregnant illegal alien women are receiving free medical treatment for deliveries and that treatment is increasing more and more each year.
I predict that if the above areas of concern were seriously considered by our lawmakers and these lucrative incentives are indeed removed and the laws enforced we would see a dramatic reduction in illegal aliens attempting to illegally enter this country.- And, that's my opinion. You decide. You make the decision.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Big Oil Explosion and Politics-It's Shameful
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
On April 20, 2010, we experienced one of the worlds worst oil spills in history. The spill in the gulf off of the coast of Louisiana is leaking approximately 210,000 gallons of oil each day and with a third leak occurring in the structure beneath the sea you can expect even more oil to pour into the ocean. Today the oil slick is over 100 miles long and is expected to hit the Louisiana shoreline sometime today.
This oil spill is just another example big oil business BP, (British Petroleum)sacrificing the environment for the sake of the almighty dollar. BP has been fighting against any new regulations being placed on the oil industry. BP owns the oil rig that exploded and they lied to the government and administration about the size and scope of the leaking. The leak is five times more than BP said it was.
BP and the other oil companies have no real regulation. Our government has been letting these oil giants regulate themselves. Needless to say the past few administrations have sided with big oil interests and literally let them have any thing they wanted.
This oil rig sank to depths of over 5,000 feet into the ocean yet our politicians and lawmakers failed to have big oil show a plan of how they would cap and stop any leaks prior to letting BP sink this well. The oil companies had no backup plan nor did they have any idea how a leak at that great depth would be resolved. Their battle cry was only "Drill baby drill."
It should be noted that Brazil explores and gathers oil from the ocean also but in their country it is mandatory that each rig have a backup valve in the event the first one fails. But here in the U.S.A. for the sake of saving and making money this rig had no such backup valve. It would have been an inexpensive investment but---money wins out.
The oil companies cut costs and now fragile sea life, birds, and environment and loss of jobs, especially the ones dependent on the sea for their survival will suffer the consequences for decades to come. Even if our government can get this one oil rig valve shut down it will be 30, 40, or even 50 years before the area gets back to even a somewhat normal condition.
According to estimates, it may take 50 days to get this leaking valve shut down and with 210,000 gallons, and climbing, of oil spewing out each and every day, you do the math.
My view, the government has to regulate the big oil industry with tough and rigid legislation and rules. There should also be a limit of how deep an oil company can drill. If the oil company cannot show precisely how they can stop an oil leak at specific depths then they should not be allowed to drill below the depth of which they can actually handle an oil leak.
Our lawmakers believed the oil companies when they said "trust me." Our short-sighted lawmakers failed to hold these money machines accountable hoping not to get on the wrong side of big oil. They wanted all of those large contributions and now we, the general public are paying the price for the politicians greed.
How many of these large catastrophic oil spills can our oceans stand before they too begin to look like our polluted rivers and waterways. We should be drilling for less oil, not more and we shouldn't be drilling off shore in sensitive nature areas. We have wind. It will never run out. The money we spend on exploration and drilling for more oil could be spent on wind, natural gas and other safe alternatives.- And, that's my opinion.
Dr.Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
__________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
________________
Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
On April 20, 2010, we experienced one of the worlds worst oil spills in history. The spill in the gulf off of the coast of Louisiana is leaking approximately 210,000 gallons of oil each day and with a third leak occurring in the structure beneath the sea you can expect even more oil to pour into the ocean. Today the oil slick is over 100 miles long and is expected to hit the Louisiana shoreline sometime today.
This oil spill is just another example big oil business BP, (British Petroleum)sacrificing the environment for the sake of the almighty dollar. BP has been fighting against any new regulations being placed on the oil industry. BP owns the oil rig that exploded and they lied to the government and administration about the size and scope of the leaking. The leak is five times more than BP said it was.
BP and the other oil companies have no real regulation. Our government has been letting these oil giants regulate themselves. Needless to say the past few administrations have sided with big oil interests and literally let them have any thing they wanted.
This oil rig sank to depths of over 5,000 feet into the ocean yet our politicians and lawmakers failed to have big oil show a plan of how they would cap and stop any leaks prior to letting BP sink this well. The oil companies had no backup plan nor did they have any idea how a leak at that great depth would be resolved. Their battle cry was only "Drill baby drill."
It should be noted that Brazil explores and gathers oil from the ocean also but in their country it is mandatory that each rig have a backup valve in the event the first one fails. But here in the U.S.A. for the sake of saving and making money this rig had no such backup valve. It would have been an inexpensive investment but---money wins out.
The oil companies cut costs and now fragile sea life, birds, and environment and loss of jobs, especially the ones dependent on the sea for their survival will suffer the consequences for decades to come. Even if our government can get this one oil rig valve shut down it will be 30, 40, or even 50 years before the area gets back to even a somewhat normal condition.
According to estimates, it may take 50 days to get this leaking valve shut down and with 210,000 gallons, and climbing, of oil spewing out each and every day, you do the math.
My view, the government has to regulate the big oil industry with tough and rigid legislation and rules. There should also be a limit of how deep an oil company can drill. If the oil company cannot show precisely how they can stop an oil leak at specific depths then they should not be allowed to drill below the depth of which they can actually handle an oil leak.
Our lawmakers believed the oil companies when they said "trust me." Our short-sighted lawmakers failed to hold these money machines accountable hoping not to get on the wrong side of big oil. They wanted all of those large contributions and now we, the general public are paying the price for the politicians greed.
How many of these large catastrophic oil spills can our oceans stand before they too begin to look like our polluted rivers and waterways. We should be drilling for less oil, not more and we shouldn't be drilling off shore in sensitive nature areas. We have wind. It will never run out. The money we spend on exploration and drilling for more oil could be spent on wind, natural gas and other safe alternatives.- And, that's my opinion.
Dr.Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
__________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Republicans March In Lock Step-Want To Kill Financial Reform
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
The Republicans are bad news.They clearly are the party of "No." The Republicans stand in lock step and say "no" so as to prevent any legislation, policy and even any ideas of President Obama. They pulled their nonsense during the health care legislation and now they are at it again with the financial legislation. The Republicans know that Wall street brought the country to its knees with the worst recession since the Great Depression and yet they refuse to legislate meaningful and strong legislation and hold the greedy big banks accountable.
They want to water down any legislation that would regulate the banking industry and they have refuse to debate the matter in public. The Republicans want to go behind closed doors and debate and manipulate the legislation to the financial giants benefit. Why? You guessed it. MONEY! The Republicans have already met privately with the banking elite and had the gall to ask these financial manipulators for donations. What a joke. These politicians are looking out for their own skin. Out of one side of their mouth they say they are going to regulate the financial sector but out of the other side of their mouth they are asking banking lobbiysts and the CEO's of Wall street for money for their own coffers.
There is currently one Democrat that is siding with the Republicans to stall, or kill financial legislation. His name is Senator Nelson,a conservative Democrat representing Nebraska. It looks like this Democrat is playing the money game just for his own personal gain and for the benefit of his friends.
Nelson owns substantial shares in Warren Buffett's business organizations that may be worth millions and he wants to have any financial bill exempt Warren Buffett's holding in the sloppy, junk investments known as "derivatives." This guy who has a relationship with Warren Buffett and is financially invested in Nebraska billionaire Buffett's businesses actually wants to exempt "existing derivatives" from any new regulations. Why? Because Buffett holds these exotic securities and the billionaire will have his assets protected, especially with the help of Nebraska Democrat Nelson and now Senator Dodd. The sad part is Senator Cris Dodd, D-Conn is considering giving away tight regulation of derivatives just to pacify Nelson and Buffett. Again, what people on Main street are going to get is another watered down bit of legislation. The beneficiaries of any deal will be the Senators in Congress and their rich friends.
To have strong regulation and teeth in the financial legislation any and all (existing derivatives and all future derivatives) should be traded openly in open exchanges and cleared through a third party that would guarantee these obscene instruments and there also should be a demand for collateral for all of the derivatives being traded. But currently it appears Senator Dodd is waffling and will pander to Nelson and billionaire Buffett so that he can get Nelsons vote.
Shame on Senator Dodd and the Democrats for giving away the store again. This is becoming a habit with this administration.They give away the store to Republicans and the Republican leaning Democrats.
My thoughts are the administration should keep the strong regulations in the bill and ignore Nelson's demands. Do what is best for the protection of the Main street public. Christ, the Dems are in the majority but for financial and political reasons they continue to buckle under to interests that are not in the best interests of John and Jane Doe.
Finally, this administration could demand and push through the same regulations this country had in place following the Great Depression. Those regulations that were imposed on the financial community in the 1930's worked very well for decades. I say, why not follow that old adage, "If isn't broke, don't fix it."
The regulations that were introduced following the Great Depression were not broke. They worked but politics and greed dismantled those excellent regulations for special interest groups personal financial gains. Look where it got us. And now, these same politicians are watering down a weak, anemic attempt at regulation.- 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 is the world treating you?
The Republicans are bad news.They clearly are the party of "No." The Republicans stand in lock step and say "no" so as to prevent any legislation, policy and even any ideas of President Obama. They pulled their nonsense during the health care legislation and now they are at it again with the financial legislation. The Republicans know that Wall street brought the country to its knees with the worst recession since the Great Depression and yet they refuse to legislate meaningful and strong legislation and hold the greedy big banks accountable.
They want to water down any legislation that would regulate the banking industry and they have refuse to debate the matter in public. The Republicans want to go behind closed doors and debate and manipulate the legislation to the financial giants benefit. Why? You guessed it. MONEY! The Republicans have already met privately with the banking elite and had the gall to ask these financial manipulators for donations. What a joke. These politicians are looking out for their own skin. Out of one side of their mouth they say they are going to regulate the financial sector but out of the other side of their mouth they are asking banking lobbiysts and the CEO's of Wall street for money for their own coffers.
There is currently one Democrat that is siding with the Republicans to stall, or kill financial legislation. His name is Senator Nelson,a conservative Democrat representing Nebraska. It looks like this Democrat is playing the money game just for his own personal gain and for the benefit of his friends.
Nelson owns substantial shares in Warren Buffett's business organizations that may be worth millions and he wants to have any financial bill exempt Warren Buffett's holding in the sloppy, junk investments known as "derivatives." This guy who has a relationship with Warren Buffett and is financially invested in Nebraska billionaire Buffett's businesses actually wants to exempt "existing derivatives" from any new regulations. Why? Because Buffett holds these exotic securities and the billionaire will have his assets protected, especially with the help of Nebraska Democrat Nelson and now Senator Dodd. The sad part is Senator Cris Dodd, D-Conn is considering giving away tight regulation of derivatives just to pacify Nelson and Buffett. Again, what people on Main street are going to get is another watered down bit of legislation. The beneficiaries of any deal will be the Senators in Congress and their rich friends.
To have strong regulation and teeth in the financial legislation any and all (existing derivatives and all future derivatives) should be traded openly in open exchanges and cleared through a third party that would guarantee these obscene instruments and there also should be a demand for collateral for all of the derivatives being traded. But currently it appears Senator Dodd is waffling and will pander to Nelson and billionaire Buffett so that he can get Nelsons vote.
Shame on Senator Dodd and the Democrats for giving away the store again. This is becoming a habit with this administration.They give away the store to Republicans and the Republican leaning Democrats.
My thoughts are the administration should keep the strong regulations in the bill and ignore Nelson's demands. Do what is best for the protection of the Main street public. Christ, the Dems are in the majority but for financial and political reasons they continue to buckle under to interests that are not in the best interests of John and Jane Doe.
Finally, this administration could demand and push through the same regulations this country had in place following the Great Depression. Those regulations that were imposed on the financial community in the 1930's worked very well for decades. I say, why not follow that old adage, "If isn't broke, don't fix it."
The regulations that were introduced following the Great Depression were not broke. They worked but politics and greed dismantled those excellent regulations for special interest groups personal financial gains. Look where it got us. And now, these same politicians are watering down a weak, anemic attempt at regulation.- 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
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Sheriff Pima County, Refuses To Enforce Bill 1070-Fire Him
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
In response to an inquiry by Arlene C.: She asked my opinion as to why some politicians and government workers will refuse to carry-out the new Arizona law Bill 1070. Do I think that is the right thing to do?
Arlene, "No"! It is not the right thing to do. Just today, the Sheriff of Pima County, Arizona told the news media that he will refuse to carry out the law. He said the law is "racist." He is an elected official and is mandated to carry out the laws of the state of Arizona. If this law enforcement official doesn't want to enforce the laws of the state, he should not be a sheriff. He should resign and get a job in the private sector pumping gas, working selling shoes, etc., and let a law enforcement official who believes in enforcing all laws enacted in his/her state hold the position of Sheriff of Pima County, Arizona.
President Obama, President Bush and previous Presidents and all Senators in Congress are always the first to say: "We are a nation of law." If this Sheriff disagrees with any law that he feels is unfair he should move to change the law through legislation. He has no right to pick and choose which law he will enforce.
If any law is passed in any state and that law is put on the books, the State, County and Municipal government law enforcement personnel should enforce the said law. If this Pima, County Sheriff goes on a tangent, on his own, and decides that some laws are okay but his personal feeling about other laws shouldn't be applied to lawbreakers he clearly shouldn't be a lawman.
His argument that Bill 1070 is "racist" is his personal feeling running amok. Whether this sheriff likes it or not, if and when Bill 1070 becomes law his job is to "enforce" that law. This misguided sheriff's protests and screams of "racism" sounds a little like (he protests too much). Could it be he has a little racist feeling running in his bones? Who knows?
What doesn't this sheriff and other protesters understand about the word "illegal." Illegal is illegal. Illegal is not racist. There is one meaning and definition for "illegal and there is one meaning and definition for "racist." I suggest this sheriff and others who try to muddy a law with inflamed rhetoric page through the dictionary and see the difference between "illegal" and "racist."
So, Arlene--If indeed we are a nation of laws our own law enforcement personnel should quit screaming inflammatory speech and do their job. ENFORCE THE LAWS. If they do not, the public should fire them.- 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 is the world treating you?
In response to an inquiry by Arlene C.: She asked my opinion as to why some politicians and government workers will refuse to carry-out the new Arizona law Bill 1070. Do I think that is the right thing to do?
Arlene, "No"! It is not the right thing to do. Just today, the Sheriff of Pima County, Arizona told the news media that he will refuse to carry out the law. He said the law is "racist." He is an elected official and is mandated to carry out the laws of the state of Arizona. If this law enforcement official doesn't want to enforce the laws of the state, he should not be a sheriff. He should resign and get a job in the private sector pumping gas, working selling shoes, etc., and let a law enforcement official who believes in enforcing all laws enacted in his/her state hold the position of Sheriff of Pima County, Arizona.
President Obama, President Bush and previous Presidents and all Senators in Congress are always the first to say: "We are a nation of law." If this Sheriff disagrees with any law that he feels is unfair he should move to change the law through legislation. He has no right to pick and choose which law he will enforce.
If any law is passed in any state and that law is put on the books, the State, County and Municipal government law enforcement personnel should enforce the said law. If this Pima, County Sheriff goes on a tangent, on his own, and decides that some laws are okay but his personal feeling about other laws shouldn't be applied to lawbreakers he clearly shouldn't be a lawman.
His argument that Bill 1070 is "racist" is his personal feeling running amok. Whether this sheriff likes it or not, if and when Bill 1070 becomes law his job is to "enforce" that law. This misguided sheriff's protests and screams of "racism" sounds a little like (he protests too much). Could it be he has a little racist feeling running in his bones? Who knows?
What doesn't this sheriff and other protesters understand about the word "illegal." Illegal is illegal. Illegal is not racist. There is one meaning and definition for "illegal and there is one meaning and definition for "racist." I suggest this sheriff and others who try to muddy a law with inflamed rhetoric page through the dictionary and see the difference between "illegal" and "racist."
So, Arlene--If indeed we are a nation of laws our own law enforcement personnel should quit screaming inflammatory speech and do their job. ENFORCE THE LAWS. If they do not, the public should fire them.- 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
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Arizona Bill 1070: It should Be The Law of the Land
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Kudos to Arizona Governor Brewer, State Senator Russell Pearce and the Arizona legislature in passing Bill 1070 strengthening the immigration status in Arizona.
I only hope that Governor Brewer doesn't buckle under pressure from all of the naysayers, the various illegal immigrant groups and the Hispanic organization like LaRaza that completely support the illegal aliens entry into the United States.
If the government would have taken on this issue over 15 years ago and actually built a "real, physical" fence along our Southern border, with proper check points checking identification, jailing the illegals and deporting them this legislation would not have come about.
Currently there are at least 460,000 illegal aliens living in Arizona. Thirty percent of the population is now Hispanic and the majority of them are illegal.
There are Mexican drug dealers and gangs and human traffickers pushing across our Southern border and are often engaged in firefights with our Border Patrol agents and law enforcement officers. There are even Mexican military units violating our borders. They have crossed into the Unites States and fired on Americans in Texas and Arizona. That should not have happened-it should never happen.
When the President and all of these blowhard politicians take office they take an oath to protect and secure our borders from invasions but they close their eyes to the death and destruction being perpetrated against American citizens and law enforcement officers on our southern borders today. They ignore the severe situation in the name of pandering for Hispanic votes. The statistics point out that by 2035 the majority of the people in this country will be of Hispanic descent and these idiot lawmakers only see votes from this segment of society.That is why Obama and his cohorts want to give amnesty to over 14 million illegal aliens currently living here in the United States. The 14 million figure is really conservative because there are some analysts that suggest there are between 12 and 21 million illegal aliens in the United States right now and growing each and every day.
It's ironic that the administration can set up and protect borders in Iraq, Korea, Afghanistan, Bosnia and other countries but cannot set up border protection in our own country.
The lawmakers have no real incentive to secure our borders because they fear a backlash and loss of votes from the Hispanic community. That's a sad commentary, but true.
One of the arguments from the people that dislike Arizona bill 1070 is that a person shouldn't have to be asked for identification. What? Currently every person living in the United States is subject to being asked for identification by law enforcement officials any day of the week. The first thing a person is asked for is their drivers license.I think all races who were ever stopped by law enforcement can attest to that. A person is asked for I.D. in most banks, stores, businesses and government offices in every state across this country as a regular course of doing business. If we go out of the country we have to show a passport and/or birth certificate when returning. Showing identification to law enforcement or government officials and/or their agents doesn't violate anyone's civil rights. Personally, I have no problem whatsoever about showing my drivers license, passport, birth certificate or other forms of legal identification to the law. I'm proud to show the document to let people know I am a proud legal American.
It should be noted that other countries actually have persons carry an identity card to move about their country, especially in the Middle East. Those countries authorities want to know who the person is that is entering their sovereign territory, where they reside and what that person is up to while in their country.
When I traveled to Europe I had to surrender my passport at each and every hotel I stayed at in each country. As I traveled by bus soldiers and law enforcement would board the bus to check my identity. The same applied when I traveled on a train or in a car.
Another argument from the Hispanic community is that law enforcement officers would use racial profiling. That's a lame excuse. Law enforcement has to have reasonable and probable cause to stop a person and request their identification. If a person is in the act of committing a crime or is violating driving laws they should be stopped and questioned and if they are found to be illegally in this country they should be booked, their photo and fingerprints should be placed in a data information system so the government has a record of the person being detained and who is in this country illegally and then that individual (s) should be deported.
Seventy percent of the people in the United States agree with this new Arizona law. I would hope that other states adopt the same type or similar law. I really think that is what the illegal alien and its supporters are afraid. They fear that other states will move in the same direction as Arizona.
My view, if a person isn't committing a crime and is in the United States "LEGALLY", then there is nothing at all to be afraid of if they are asked to show their identification. They show their identification when asked and move on. But if they are committing a crime and are stopped and questioned and found that they are in the United States illegally, they should be afraid.The illegal alien is the only one that has to be concerned about showing proper identification.
I would also say that since the past few administrations failed to do their job and secure our borders the matter should be left to each individual state.
Let each state legislate how they want to handle illegal aliens who are currently bankrupting and closing down most hospitals, especially in the border states because of the free medical care they gouge out of us taxpayers. An example, the medical care alone at one hospital in Las Vegas, Nevada is on the hook for millions of dollars a year for such things as dialysis, heart procedures and other major traumatic care. People, the illegals receiving these expensive treatments do not pay a dime. The care is being given free to illegals. An illegal does not pay for the free education their illegal alien children are receiving. We the taxpayer pick up the tab and we are the ones that have to pay for all of the extra teachers to teach the illegals English, which those same illegals often refuse to speak.
Don't forget all of the free social services, benefits and government services the illegal is receiving. That's WRONG! The illegal gets most every thing free and the legal citizen pays their freight. Who wouldn't like free dialysis,or free major medical operations or have our children catered to free of charge? California is a great example of the burden illegals place on state budgets. The state is on the verge of bankruptcy. I submit that if California would cease all free education, and free medical care to all illegals, just those two things would save the state billions of dollars. But, it appears the nanny state wants to continue the budget breaking practice.
Arizona did the right thing. It should be the law of the land. Finally, do not let these pandering politicians give "amnesty" to millions of illegals.If that happens those millions and millions of illegals will be automatically put on our social service rolls and clearly drain our social security and medicare system just as quickly as water running through a sieve 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?
Kudos to Arizona Governor Brewer, State Senator Russell Pearce and the Arizona legislature in passing Bill 1070 strengthening the immigration status in Arizona.
I only hope that Governor Brewer doesn't buckle under pressure from all of the naysayers, the various illegal immigrant groups and the Hispanic organization like LaRaza that completely support the illegal aliens entry into the United States.
If the government would have taken on this issue over 15 years ago and actually built a "real, physical" fence along our Southern border, with proper check points checking identification, jailing the illegals and deporting them this legislation would not have come about.
Currently there are at least 460,000 illegal aliens living in Arizona. Thirty percent of the population is now Hispanic and the majority of them are illegal.
There are Mexican drug dealers and gangs and human traffickers pushing across our Southern border and are often engaged in firefights with our Border Patrol agents and law enforcement officers. There are even Mexican military units violating our borders. They have crossed into the Unites States and fired on Americans in Texas and Arizona. That should not have happened-it should never happen.
When the President and all of these blowhard politicians take office they take an oath to protect and secure our borders from invasions but they close their eyes to the death and destruction being perpetrated against American citizens and law enforcement officers on our southern borders today. They ignore the severe situation in the name of pandering for Hispanic votes. The statistics point out that by 2035 the majority of the people in this country will be of Hispanic descent and these idiot lawmakers only see votes from this segment of society.That is why Obama and his cohorts want to give amnesty to over 14 million illegal aliens currently living here in the United States. The 14 million figure is really conservative because there are some analysts that suggest there are between 12 and 21 million illegal aliens in the United States right now and growing each and every day.
It's ironic that the administration can set up and protect borders in Iraq, Korea, Afghanistan, Bosnia and other countries but cannot set up border protection in our own country.
The lawmakers have no real incentive to secure our borders because they fear a backlash and loss of votes from the Hispanic community. That's a sad commentary, but true.
One of the arguments from the people that dislike Arizona bill 1070 is that a person shouldn't have to be asked for identification. What? Currently every person living in the United States is subject to being asked for identification by law enforcement officials any day of the week. The first thing a person is asked for is their drivers license.I think all races who were ever stopped by law enforcement can attest to that. A person is asked for I.D. in most banks, stores, businesses and government offices in every state across this country as a regular course of doing business. If we go out of the country we have to show a passport and/or birth certificate when returning. Showing identification to law enforcement or government officials and/or their agents doesn't violate anyone's civil rights. Personally, I have no problem whatsoever about showing my drivers license, passport, birth certificate or other forms of legal identification to the law. I'm proud to show the document to let people know I am a proud legal American.
It should be noted that other countries actually have persons carry an identity card to move about their country, especially in the Middle East. Those countries authorities want to know who the person is that is entering their sovereign territory, where they reside and what that person is up to while in their country.
When I traveled to Europe I had to surrender my passport at each and every hotel I stayed at in each country. As I traveled by bus soldiers and law enforcement would board the bus to check my identity. The same applied when I traveled on a train or in a car.
Another argument from the Hispanic community is that law enforcement officers would use racial profiling. That's a lame excuse. Law enforcement has to have reasonable and probable cause to stop a person and request their identification. If a person is in the act of committing a crime or is violating driving laws they should be stopped and questioned and if they are found to be illegally in this country they should be booked, their photo and fingerprints should be placed in a data information system so the government has a record of the person being detained and who is in this country illegally and then that individual (s) should be deported.
Seventy percent of the people in the United States agree with this new Arizona law. I would hope that other states adopt the same type or similar law. I really think that is what the illegal alien and its supporters are afraid. They fear that other states will move in the same direction as Arizona.
My view, if a person isn't committing a crime and is in the United States "LEGALLY", then there is nothing at all to be afraid of if they are asked to show their identification. They show their identification when asked and move on. But if they are committing a crime and are stopped and questioned and found that they are in the United States illegally, they should be afraid.The illegal alien is the only one that has to be concerned about showing proper identification.
I would also say that since the past few administrations failed to do their job and secure our borders the matter should be left to each individual state.
Let each state legislate how they want to handle illegal aliens who are currently bankrupting and closing down most hospitals, especially in the border states because of the free medical care they gouge out of us taxpayers. An example, the medical care alone at one hospital in Las Vegas, Nevada is on the hook for millions of dollars a year for such things as dialysis, heart procedures and other major traumatic care. People, the illegals receiving these expensive treatments do not pay a dime. The care is being given free to illegals. An illegal does not pay for the free education their illegal alien children are receiving. We the taxpayer pick up the tab and we are the ones that have to pay for all of the extra teachers to teach the illegals English, which those same illegals often refuse to speak.
Don't forget all of the free social services, benefits and government services the illegal is receiving. That's WRONG! The illegal gets most every thing free and the legal citizen pays their freight. Who wouldn't like free dialysis,or free major medical operations or have our children catered to free of charge? California is a great example of the burden illegals place on state budgets. The state is on the verge of bankruptcy. I submit that if California would cease all free education, and free medical care to all illegals, just those two things would save the state billions of dollars. But, it appears the nanny state wants to continue the budget breaking practice.
Arizona did the right thing. It should be the law of the land. Finally, do not let these pandering politicians give "amnesty" to millions of illegals.If that happens those millions and millions of illegals will be automatically put on our social service rolls and clearly drain our social security and medicare system just as quickly as water running through a sieve 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, April 16, 2010
Obama Did The Right Thing On Nukes and Space
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
President Obama took a big step forward on two fronts recently. The first, The nuclear summit and second, the space program.
Obama had leaders from 47 countries around the world gathered in a meeting to prevent misuse of nukes and possibly avoid the risk of any nuclear attack. If these world powers that met with President Obama forge a united front against any suspected rogue nation that is even thinking about using nukes,their actions will clearly give that rogue nation pause knowing that the wrath of the world powers will be brought down on them. I believe Obama made a wise move with the summit and sealing a deal with Russia. Kudos to the Pres---
Now, as far as cutting back NASA's plans and their funding to continue to go to the moon. Yes! Another good move by President Obama. Why? Well, according to his speeches recently on the matter he wants to go beyond the moon. He wants to go to Mars and asteroids out there in the last frontier. Kudos again. My thoughts on the issue are that we have been to the moon over and over again. Been there, done that. Our goal and vision should be going above and beyond. Right now, countries like China, India, Pakistan and a few others have a very credible space program in place and if we, the USA do not take the forefront and explore space beyond the moon,we will lose out, big time.
If we don't take the lead to explore Mars and other wonders of deep space China, India,Pakistan, etc., will.
My only concern about President Obama's recent speeches regarding the further exploration of space is that he failed to give a time as to when this important exploration would actually begin. I think he is hedging his bets. He, like many other presidents and all politicians parse their words carefully. He says he "wants" to go beyond the moon. Or, we "should" go beyond the moon. Want and should is great but don't we all believe we want something or should have something? What we need from President Obama is a clear statement such as:"We will go beyond the moon and explore other deep space wonders. The program will begin in (i.e.) 2011, 2012, 2014, etc. What we need Mr. President is clarity, something like JFK did when he took the giant step to go to the moon.
I have yet to see politicians actually take a firm stand on any issue either when they are running for office or after being elected. If you listen closely, they will say such things as: I "would" like to see (whatever issue), I "want" to see (whatever issue)or, we "should" have (whatever issue). Instead, what they should be saying is: I will (whatever issue) and explain how and when they will do it. Promises and wishful thinking by these politicians are not the same as actions. So, in closing, if President Obama is actually going to go beyond the moon and explore the asteroids and deep space he needs to tell us very clearly, "when and how." - 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 is the world treating you?
President Obama took a big step forward on two fronts recently. The first, The nuclear summit and second, the space program.
Obama had leaders from 47 countries around the world gathered in a meeting to prevent misuse of nukes and possibly avoid the risk of any nuclear attack. If these world powers that met with President Obama forge a united front against any suspected rogue nation that is even thinking about using nukes,their actions will clearly give that rogue nation pause knowing that the wrath of the world powers will be brought down on them. I believe Obama made a wise move with the summit and sealing a deal with Russia. Kudos to the Pres---
Now, as far as cutting back NASA's plans and their funding to continue to go to the moon. Yes! Another good move by President Obama. Why? Well, according to his speeches recently on the matter he wants to go beyond the moon. He wants to go to Mars and asteroids out there in the last frontier. Kudos again. My thoughts on the issue are that we have been to the moon over and over again. Been there, done that. Our goal and vision should be going above and beyond. Right now, countries like China, India, Pakistan and a few others have a very credible space program in place and if we, the USA do not take the forefront and explore space beyond the moon,we will lose out, big time.
If we don't take the lead to explore Mars and other wonders of deep space China, India,Pakistan, etc., will.
My only concern about President Obama's recent speeches regarding the further exploration of space is that he failed to give a time as to when this important exploration would actually begin. I think he is hedging his bets. He, like many other presidents and all politicians parse their words carefully. He says he "wants" to go beyond the moon. Or, we "should" go beyond the moon. Want and should is great but don't we all believe we want something or should have something? What we need from President Obama is a clear statement such as:"We will go beyond the moon and explore other deep space wonders. The program will begin in (i.e.) 2011, 2012, 2014, etc. What we need Mr. President is clarity, something like JFK did when he took the giant step to go to the moon.
I have yet to see politicians actually take a firm stand on any issue either when they are running for office or after being elected. If you listen closely, they will say such things as: I "would" like to see (whatever issue), I "want" to see (whatever issue)or, we "should" have (whatever issue). Instead, what they should be saying is: I will (whatever issue) and explain how and when they will do it. Promises and wishful thinking by these politicians are not the same as actions. So, in closing, if President Obama is actually going to go beyond the moon and explore the asteroids and deep space he needs to tell us very clearly, "when and how." - 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
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Tell Karzai To Join The Taliban-Call His Bluff
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai says that if the United States does not cease meddling in his countries affairs and continues to pressure him for changes he will join the Taliban. What?
This corrupt politician and his corrupt family who has taken billions of dollars from the United States threatens president Obama's strategy of having a strong, reliable partner in that country to fight the Taliban. The idiot President of Afghanistan doesn't like international pressure.He wants our military, he wants our billions of dollars but he doesn't want the corruption and opium trade stopped.
We shouldn't even be in that country expending over a billion dollars a month and squandering American lives.
My thoughts, let this guy go over to the Taliban and we should take our ball and go home. Those billions of dollars a month we are spending would clearly go a long, long way here at home rebuilding our own bridges, roads, schools and buildings.
Afghanistan and it's different tribes have been warring among themselves for centuries. That is their culture. The different tribes have been jockeying for power and that will not change for centuries to come.
Our problem is that our administration, whether Democrat or Republican have this misconception that we can invade a country and give them democracy and tell them how to live and that our way is their way. Ridiculous!
It appears that many of the people in power and in politics in our country fail to take into account the culture, habits, and social makeup of the people of other countries around the world. These lawmakers and politicians jump to the conclusion that our way is the best way and all peoples around the world should live like we do.
Christ, many of our own lawmakers fail to keep their own families, marriages, and businesses in tact but yet they want expound on the righteous way to have other countries buckle under and live, (according to who)?
The Obama administration should immediately pull all troops out of Afghanistan and stop all of the billions of dollars a month being bled from us taxpayers.
Let this corrupt Karzai carry out his threat and team up with the Taliban and let the warring tribes and different factions in that back woods country fight it out among themselves and then deal with the person and/or group that is left standing.
Why should we allow some clown like Karzai to keep stealing millions, if not billions of our dollars and see him continue to promote corruption and opium sales for his own person gain?
As we coddle Karzai our milk toast lawmakers continue to fail to stop the drug trade in Afghanistan because Karzai keeps telling us that the drug crops is their main export and their farmers need the drug crops to survive--and, we condone that reasoning because the United States doesn't want to hurt his or his countries feelings.
We would save millions and millions of dollars fighting the drug war in Afghanistan if we would take an aggressive stance rather than a piece meal stand and tell Karzai that we are going to destroy all of the opium fields, and do it. How? Fly over every field and drop the proper chemicals and poisons that actually destroy the crop. We have the technology and capability to do the job. Better yet, one napom bomb per drug field.
Once the drug traffickers and drug farmers actually see that we mean business and can wipe the fields out those drug exports would trickle to a near stop. Before the bombing: First, warn Karzai and his drug farmers that the fields are going to be destroyed and people should stay away from the scheduled bombings. Second, on the prearranged date and time, do the job. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that destroying the drug fields swiftly and efficiently would bring a halt to the drug trade. 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 is the world treating you?
Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai says that if the United States does not cease meddling in his countries affairs and continues to pressure him for changes he will join the Taliban. What?
This corrupt politician and his corrupt family who has taken billions of dollars from the United States threatens president Obama's strategy of having a strong, reliable partner in that country to fight the Taliban. The idiot President of Afghanistan doesn't like international pressure.He wants our military, he wants our billions of dollars but he doesn't want the corruption and opium trade stopped.
We shouldn't even be in that country expending over a billion dollars a month and squandering American lives.
My thoughts, let this guy go over to the Taliban and we should take our ball and go home. Those billions of dollars a month we are spending would clearly go a long, long way here at home rebuilding our own bridges, roads, schools and buildings.
Afghanistan and it's different tribes have been warring among themselves for centuries. That is their culture. The different tribes have been jockeying for power and that will not change for centuries to come.
Our problem is that our administration, whether Democrat or Republican have this misconception that we can invade a country and give them democracy and tell them how to live and that our way is their way. Ridiculous!
It appears that many of the people in power and in politics in our country fail to take into account the culture, habits, and social makeup of the people of other countries around the world. These lawmakers and politicians jump to the conclusion that our way is the best way and all peoples around the world should live like we do.
Christ, many of our own lawmakers fail to keep their own families, marriages, and businesses in tact but yet they want expound on the righteous way to have other countries buckle under and live, (according to who)?
The Obama administration should immediately pull all troops out of Afghanistan and stop all of the billions of dollars a month being bled from us taxpayers.
Let this corrupt Karzai carry out his threat and team up with the Taliban and let the warring tribes and different factions in that back woods country fight it out among themselves and then deal with the person and/or group that is left standing.
Why should we allow some clown like Karzai to keep stealing millions, if not billions of our dollars and see him continue to promote corruption and opium sales for his own person gain?
As we coddle Karzai our milk toast lawmakers continue to fail to stop the drug trade in Afghanistan because Karzai keeps telling us that the drug crops is their main export and their farmers need the drug crops to survive--and, we condone that reasoning because the United States doesn't want to hurt his or his countries feelings.
We would save millions and millions of dollars fighting the drug war in Afghanistan if we would take an aggressive stance rather than a piece meal stand and tell Karzai that we are going to destroy all of the opium fields, and do it. How? Fly over every field and drop the proper chemicals and poisons that actually destroy the crop. We have the technology and capability to do the job. Better yet, one napom bomb per drug field.
Once the drug traffickers and drug farmers actually see that we mean business and can wipe the fields out those drug exports would trickle to a near stop. Before the bombing: First, warn Karzai and his drug farmers that the fields are going to be destroyed and people should stay away from the scheduled bombings. Second, on the prearranged date and time, do the job. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that destroying the drug fields swiftly and efficiently would bring a halt to the drug trade. 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
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Democratic Patients Has To Be Treated By Democratic Doctors?
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Mount Dora Florida doctor Jack Cassell, M.D., a 56 year old urologist took politics and the right to health care to a whole new level by posting a note on his office door which read: ":If you voted for Obama - seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes in your health care begin right now, not in four years."
This doctor has been reported to be very active in Republican politics in Florida. It stands to reason that many of his patients are very upset.
Rep. Alan Grayson, an Orlando Democrat said the doctors move is "ridiculous" and "disgusting."
Dr. Cassell thinks he is expressing his "free speech" right. I totally disagree.
I say this is not a free speech matter. Dr. Cassell's professional obligation as a medical doctor is first:"Do no harm." I believe that the act of turning away ill, sick patients is doing harm.
This doctor believes he has a right to deny a person medical treatment just because that patient is a "Democrat".Wow!
I agree that doctor Cassell has an absolute right to state his feeling "vocally" about any legislation that is passed in this country and taking a side either "pro" or "con." He also has the absolute right to demonstrate and may choose to walk and carry signs in protest but to tell patients to seek medical care elsewhere because of that persons affiliation is wrong, very wrong.
I submit that if you take doctor Cassell's misguided act to extremes he can commit acts of refusing medical care to patients because he doesn't like their obesity; or refuse medical treatment just because a person may believe in the right to choose when it comes to abortion; or refuse medical treatment because he doesn't like the color of their skin, whether it be brown, black, yellow or red.
If doctor Cassell doesn't like the Obama health care bill he should protest by taking steps to legislate new laws through legal channels. Dr. Casssell is not the first person to dislike some type of legislation and he won't be the last. However, there are many legitimate ways to"verbally" express ones dissent and not harm others while still showing your disapproval.
My concern is why does the lawmakers allow such malicious acts as Dr. Cassell fall under the guise of "free speech." I would say that free speech clearly ends where the doctors oath begins.
Another concern of mine is, if Dr. Cassell is so upset and angry at Democrats and/or anyone who voted for a Democratic president, what does that say about the type of medical treatment Dr. Cassell or other physicians with the same views may provide a Democrat as a whole? Would that physician show less concern for a Democrats well being? Would the physician refuse any needed tests for the Democrat (or for whomever that physician felt didn't hold the same views as theirs)? Yet, because the person is a Republican and shared the same political and/or personal views of his or her physician would they in fact be treated differently and given better medical health care? It appears this may be true.
Who could trust and have full confidence in any physician once they make such ludicrous statements like the one Dr. Cassell wrote and posted in his office saying they will not treat a particular type of patient? How could any person return to any doctor for treatment knowing that the doctor has resentful, angry feeling against the person? I would think the patient could not be comfortable and assured that they would be administered the best medical care possible by that doctor for their ailment.
I would wonder that when any professional working in the health care field is so adamant about their feelings, especially about politics, and they take those feeling and project them to such lengths as Dr. Cassell did I would further suspect that there may be deep internal conflicts going on within those professionals - 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 is the world treating you?
Mount Dora Florida doctor Jack Cassell, M.D., a 56 year old urologist took politics and the right to health care to a whole new level by posting a note on his office door which read: ":If you voted for Obama - seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes in your health care begin right now, not in four years."
This doctor has been reported to be very active in Republican politics in Florida. It stands to reason that many of his patients are very upset.
Rep. Alan Grayson, an Orlando Democrat said the doctors move is "ridiculous" and "disgusting."
Dr. Cassell thinks he is expressing his "free speech" right. I totally disagree.
I say this is not a free speech matter. Dr. Cassell's professional obligation as a medical doctor is first:"Do no harm." I believe that the act of turning away ill, sick patients is doing harm.
This doctor believes he has a right to deny a person medical treatment just because that patient is a "Democrat".Wow!
I agree that doctor Cassell has an absolute right to state his feeling "vocally" about any legislation that is passed in this country and taking a side either "pro" or "con." He also has the absolute right to demonstrate and may choose to walk and carry signs in protest but to tell patients to seek medical care elsewhere because of that persons affiliation is wrong, very wrong.
I submit that if you take doctor Cassell's misguided act to extremes he can commit acts of refusing medical care to patients because he doesn't like their obesity; or refuse medical treatment just because a person may believe in the right to choose when it comes to abortion; or refuse medical treatment because he doesn't like the color of their skin, whether it be brown, black, yellow or red.
If doctor Cassell doesn't like the Obama health care bill he should protest by taking steps to legislate new laws through legal channels. Dr. Casssell is not the first person to dislike some type of legislation and he won't be the last. However, there are many legitimate ways to"verbally" express ones dissent and not harm others while still showing your disapproval.
My concern is why does the lawmakers allow such malicious acts as Dr. Cassell fall under the guise of "free speech." I would say that free speech clearly ends where the doctors oath begins.
Another concern of mine is, if Dr. Cassell is so upset and angry at Democrats and/or anyone who voted for a Democratic president, what does that say about the type of medical treatment Dr. Cassell or other physicians with the same views may provide a Democrat as a whole? Would that physician show less concern for a Democrats well being? Would the physician refuse any needed tests for the Democrat (or for whomever that physician felt didn't hold the same views as theirs)? Yet, because the person is a Republican and shared the same political and/or personal views of his or her physician would they in fact be treated differently and given better medical health care? It appears this may be true.
Who could trust and have full confidence in any physician once they make such ludicrous statements like the one Dr. Cassell wrote and posted in his office saying they will not treat a particular type of patient? How could any person return to any doctor for treatment knowing that the doctor has resentful, angry feeling against the person? I would think the patient could not be comfortable and assured that they would be administered the best medical care possible by that doctor for their ailment.
I would wonder that when any professional working in the health care field is so adamant about their feelings, especially about politics, and they take those feeling and project them to such lengths as Dr. Cassell did I would further suspect that there may be deep internal conflicts going on within those professionals - 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)