THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
Police Chiefs from around the country met with Attorney General Eric Holder to blast the merits of the Arizona Immigration Law SB1070. The meeting was really one sided because most of the Chief's meeting with Holder already oppose the Arizona law.
Many of the cities that were represented in this meeting are sanctuary cities which allow and condone illegal immigration. The Chief's from Arizona cities Phoenix and Tucson clearly have an ax to grind. Even though there are approximately 450,000 illegal aliens living in Arizona illegally and fifty (50) percent of all illegal aliens living in the United States actually enter the country through Arizona these police chiefs still want to pander to politics and the Hispanic community for votes. That's really sad! It looks like these two Arizona Chief's of Police who live at "immigration ground zero" want to shirk their duties and maintain a status qo situation allowing thousands of illegal aliens to slink into the state every day, instead of wanting to enforce laws that are already on the Federal books and now will be Arizona law.
Like the saying goes, "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, IT MUST BE A DUCK." And,to me, it looks like the misguided actions by these Chief's of Police along with their implied threats of not enforcing Arizona law in the state and cities where they serve as law enforcement officers is completely unwarranted. These lawmen swore to uphold the laws of the land. I would remind them that they receive their pay checks from American citizens. These lawmen who are crying the blues about the Arizona immigration law are quacking louder than the Aflac duck.
These Chief's of Police offer very lame reasons for not wanting to enforce immigration laws: Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said, the law will likely discourage witnesses and victims of crimes from cooperating with police. "This bill bill breaks the trust with our communities." What a crock! The only trust being broken is by the Los Angeles Police Department not enforcing laws already on the books and breaking the trust of all the "LEGAL" citizens residing in the city of Los Angeles.
That old beaten up phrase that the illegal alien will not cooperate with police is a sham. I submit that if an illegal alien or their spouse and/or children become a victim of a crime that" illegal alien" like any other person in the city will want justice and the perpetrator apprehended and punished. So, yes that illegal alien will cooperate with the police. They have been cooperating with law enforcement for decades while living in this country illegally. The only difference in Los Angeles is that the Chief wants to continue a sanctuary city status and doesn't want to upset the apple cart for political reasons. Chief Beck doesn't want to take the extra step to verify proper identification.To me, that's laziness. It appears Chief Charlie Beck wants to continue to run a lax police department. This chief should be more worried about earning trust with the legal citizens of the City of Los Angeles,the state of California and the nation.
Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris: He said, "It doesn't fix the immigration problem. It only diverts our scarce resources." What a joke. I would say to Chief Harris, "Yes" it does fix the immigration problem, especially in Arizona. Chief,if you allow your police officers to do their job, rather than you bemoaning that it may cause a little more work for you and implement and enforce the new Arizona law it will allow illegal aliens to be detained and deported or leave the state. I don't agree with that old tired argument that it will divert scarce resources. Each and every police department in the country is "always" short on resources and it's not only police departments but all kinds of departments, but they continue to do their job and make due. They do not make excuses or snivel. They make do with what they have to work with. Divert? Chief, when you have a probable cause stop or are investigating a crime and asking the person to identify themselves , how long does it take to ask "any" individual, "where were you born?" or "do you have any document that states you are in the United States legally?" What? 30 seconds, one minute? Bad argument chief. Just do your job and stop blaming it on short resources.
Kudos to Sheriff Paul Babeu, from Pinal County, Arizona. His statements is what law enforcement is all about: He said that his law enforcement colleagues should be "preparing to implement the law," rather than meeting with Eric Holder." I totally agree with Sheriff Babeu and his perspective on the immigration issue.
Remember, the biased Attorney General, Eric Holder, who admitted nationwide that he DID NOT read the Arizona law before he began to bad mouth it is just trying to justify a way to repeal the Arizona law before other states introduce a similar bill, which by the way is happening as we speak. There are at least five (5)other states attempting to pass an immigration bill like Arizona's and the list is growing. Hooray! I hope it happens because the Feds have consistently failed to do the job of securing the Southern border.
In response to the immigration problem President Obama reluctantly said he will send a token number of National Guard troops to the border. The number he is going to send is 1200 troops, which would not even begin to quell the illegal flow of illegal aliens that illegally cross into the state of Arizona each and every day.
Like Senators McCain and Kyle I say we need 50000, to 6000 National Guard troops at a minimum. I think that those numbers are required just to begin to stem the illegal alien flow until the entire Southern Border is SECURE.
It should be noted that all of the recent polls across the country indicate the majority of citizens agree with the current Arizona law and when asked, those same citizens said they want such a law in their own state. The majority of people across this country have no problem with any race, color, national origin or creed when it come to those people entering the United States legally. It's the "illegal alien" I, and the majority of people have a problem with.
Anyone wanting to immigrate to the United States should stand in line, do the proper paper work, receive the proper and legal papers and /or cards or certificates, take the proper and required examinations and then, and only then, I and probably all the rest of the Americans will welcome them with open arms. There are tens of thousands of people from around the world that take the proper legal steps to immigrate to this country and they eventually succeed.
As I said in previous articles: build the "physical" fence barrier the full length of the Southern border with only narrowed and guarded check points to identify who is entering and exiting the United States. Use the Military to assist Customs (ICE)in the act of securing the border.
A message to president Obama and Attorney General Holder: All recent polls across the nation reflect that 69% of all Americans agree with the new Arizona law. And, the number is growing every day. I find this administrations position and president Obama's actions on the excellent crafted Arizona law very discouraging and disappointing. I'm disappointed and ashamed when our president allows the president of Mexico to criticize Arizona and the whole of the United States only because the people of Arizona and the rest of America want to enforce the laws that already exist. I'm even more ashamed and disappointed when I observe president Obama , a symbol of the United States, agreeing with Mexico's president while embracing his radical ideas while heaping additional criticism of his own on America.
Our elected representatives, especially those currently in office, have chose to forget who they actually represent. The administration and other government officials choose to wear blinders when it comes to actual representation for all Americans.
These politicians who were sent to Washington by the American people only look to rake in contribution dollars from special interests so that they can hold on to their political seat while ignoring the will of the people and let all legal citizens pick up the bill with the financial, social services and political burden that is caused by allowing illegal aliens to remain in the USA.
Why should we citizens have to put up with the illegal alien that commits a crime to enter this country? We should not have to accept anyone that slaps us in the face by ignoring our laws and tramples on our legal system and expect us citizens of the USA to condone their criminal act. My advice to those who want to immigrate to the USA- - Do it legally and I predict that there will never be a problem. -And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
The Oil Disaster Is Really 11 Counts of Homicide-Where's The Arrests?
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Just a follow up on my articles on the Gulf oil disaster.In my early articles on this matter I referred to the BP fiasco as an oil spill most of the time, but I have to clearly upgrade this situation as a disaster and a catastrophe. This environmental disaster no way resembles an oil spill.
Right now we have the Obama administration still relying on British Petroleum for the solution. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar states that BP is cooperating with the administration and says "If we find that they are not doing what they are supposed to do, we'll push them out of the way appropriately ." Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also took a milk toast, soft, mushy approach to the disaster and said: "We continue to hold British Petroleum responsible...but we are on them, watching them ." Wow! BP is being watched. Big deal. Still, the Coast Guards Admiral said that their organization cannot handle the task of stopping the leak, The head honcho of that service said the Coast Guard is not equipped for a catastrophe like this nor do they have the knowledge or expertise to handle it and he wants BP to continue to be in charge saying they have the people and experience to stop the oil gusher. Once again, BP is the fox in the hen house while the administration is running around like a chicken with its head cut off. Like I stated previously,- Cut BP loose. Do not depend on them. Give the government the task of solving this disaster using our Navy and NASA and private sources and institutions that are adept dealing with oceanographic situations.
Big oil suggests that they want to use more cement to close the massive oil discharge beneath the sea but it is a proven and recorded fact that Halliburton (Dick Cheney's baby) who is doing most all of these cement jobs has failed miserably in servicing and/or protecting oil wells around the world. They do not have the where with all to cement the wells and still politicians, groups and supporters of big oil let them continue to do the cement work.
Folks, this disaster should never be referred to as a spill. Call it what it is. It is a HOMICIDE resulting in a devastating environmental disaster.
I have worked in law enforcement for years and dealt with most every type of crime you can imagine and I think that this obscene corporate negligence and the homicides should have been addressed from day one of the explosion by our administration and the justice department.
If this disaster was investigated as a crime (homicide) from the start it would be shown in a different light by know. If the investigators were turned loose, just the act of following and gathering information as to the homicides would have shown who did what and when, and who knew what and when. The interviews that should have been conducted by homicide investigators would have brought to light the facts as they may have occurred. The criminal homicide investigation would clarify any responsibility as the investigation progressed.
I have said before, where are the subpoenas? The justice department and the administration want to look at this matter as an "accident" when they should have initiated a homicide investigation to begin with.
This inaction on the part of the administration only reinforces the view that they are not really interested in resolving these homicides. If they fail to address this situation as a homicide it will be much more difficult to get to the true and clear facts of responsibility. It may takes years before all of the facts come out but if the deaths were investigated as a homicide the big picture would become much clearer, much faster.
Many of these oil companies, their CEO's and employees will cover and duck. They will have sufficient time to possibly shred and dispose of valuable documents and muddy the oil slick legal waters with a cover up so as to avoid any possibility of prosecution.
If I were in charge you can bet that there would have been subpoenas issued for the CEO's, oil executives, supervisors and employees as soon as those eleven oil workers were killed. There would not have been any political theater being played out as is being done now.
I say that Obama and his administration is a a day late and a dollar short. As I wrote in previous articles, the government should have been in charge of this disaster from the get go. I wonder how long Obama and his White House will allow British Petroleum to be in charge. Obama allowing BP to continue to call the shots is like a snake eating it's own tail.
British Petroleum is still taking meager measures to stop the oil. These are the bad guys that with the blessing of our lawmakers got us into this mess. They are destroying our environment and ecosystem each and every second of the day.
Everyone knows the old saying: "Don't fool with Mother Nature." However, our money grabbing politicians lusting for contributions closed their eyes, held their nose and gave a blank check to Mega oil to do whatever the oil companies wanted to do to our nature and environment. My view is that "if we destroy mother nature, we destroy ourselves. With that said, it is happening and happening now.
I would suggest that the administration and its justice department get off their duff, issue the proper subpoenas to all involved in these homicides and turn the homicide investigators loose so they can document the facts and actions of all the individuals responsible. The justice department should arrest and jail the perpetrators even while the oil disaster is being addressed. I would say that a two track solution could be accomplished at the same time. That being, seal the well and arrest the suspects for homicide.- And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
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?
Just a follow up on my articles on the Gulf oil disaster.In my early articles on this matter I referred to the BP fiasco as an oil spill most of the time, but I have to clearly upgrade this situation as a disaster and a catastrophe. This environmental disaster no way resembles an oil spill.
Right now we have the Obama administration still relying on British Petroleum for the solution. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar states that BP is cooperating with the administration and says "If we find that they are not doing what they are supposed to do, we'll push them out of the way appropriately ." Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also took a milk toast, soft, mushy approach to the disaster and said: "We continue to hold British Petroleum responsible...but we are on them, watching them ." Wow! BP is being watched. Big deal. Still, the Coast Guards Admiral said that their organization cannot handle the task of stopping the leak, The head honcho of that service said the Coast Guard is not equipped for a catastrophe like this nor do they have the knowledge or expertise to handle it and he wants BP to continue to be in charge saying they have the people and experience to stop the oil gusher. Once again, BP is the fox in the hen house while the administration is running around like a chicken with its head cut off. Like I stated previously,- Cut BP loose. Do not depend on them. Give the government the task of solving this disaster using our Navy and NASA and private sources and institutions that are adept dealing with oceanographic situations.
Big oil suggests that they want to use more cement to close the massive oil discharge beneath the sea but it is a proven and recorded fact that Halliburton (Dick Cheney's baby) who is doing most all of these cement jobs has failed miserably in servicing and/or protecting oil wells around the world. They do not have the where with all to cement the wells and still politicians, groups and supporters of big oil let them continue to do the cement work.
Folks, this disaster should never be referred to as a spill. Call it what it is. It is a HOMICIDE resulting in a devastating environmental disaster.
I have worked in law enforcement for years and dealt with most every type of crime you can imagine and I think that this obscene corporate negligence and the homicides should have been addressed from day one of the explosion by our administration and the justice department.
If this disaster was investigated as a crime (homicide) from the start it would be shown in a different light by know. If the investigators were turned loose, just the act of following and gathering information as to the homicides would have shown who did what and when, and who knew what and when. The interviews that should have been conducted by homicide investigators would have brought to light the facts as they may have occurred. The criminal homicide investigation would clarify any responsibility as the investigation progressed.
I have said before, where are the subpoenas? The justice department and the administration want to look at this matter as an "accident" when they should have initiated a homicide investigation to begin with.
This inaction on the part of the administration only reinforces the view that they are not really interested in resolving these homicides. If they fail to address this situation as a homicide it will be much more difficult to get to the true and clear facts of responsibility. It may takes years before all of the facts come out but if the deaths were investigated as a homicide the big picture would become much clearer, much faster.
Many of these oil companies, their CEO's and employees will cover and duck. They will have sufficient time to possibly shred and dispose of valuable documents and muddy the oil slick legal waters with a cover up so as to avoid any possibility of prosecution.
If I were in charge you can bet that there would have been subpoenas issued for the CEO's, oil executives, supervisors and employees as soon as those eleven oil workers were killed. There would not have been any political theater being played out as is being done now.
I say that Obama and his administration is a a day late and a dollar short. As I wrote in previous articles, the government should have been in charge of this disaster from the get go. I wonder how long Obama and his White House will allow British Petroleum to be in charge. Obama allowing BP to continue to call the shots is like a snake eating it's own tail.
British Petroleum is still taking meager measures to stop the oil. These are the bad guys that with the blessing of our lawmakers got us into this mess. They are destroying our environment and ecosystem each and every second of the day.
Everyone knows the old saying: "Don't fool with Mother Nature." However, our money grabbing politicians lusting for contributions closed their eyes, held their nose and gave a blank check to Mega oil to do whatever the oil companies wanted to do to our nature and environment. My view is that "if we destroy mother nature, we destroy ourselves. With that said, it is happening and happening now.
I would suggest that the administration and its justice department get off their duff, issue the proper subpoenas to all involved in these homicides and turn the homicide investigators loose so they can document the facts and actions of all the individuals responsible. The justice department should arrest and jail the perpetrators even while the oil disaster is being addressed. I would say that a two track solution could be accomplished at the same time. That being, seal the well and arrest the suspects for homicide.- And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Monday, May 24, 2010
Soda Pop and Food Tax :Govertment Say We're Sinning Again
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how the the world treating you?
Here we go again. The Washington lawmakers are salivating at the idea of taxing soft drinks, juices, teas and other sweet tasting beverages. They also are considering expanding the tax to candies and other sweet products.
I hate to say I told you so but I did, years ago. When the nannies in California and New York began raising taxes on cigarettes I told my readers and patients and anyone who wanted to listen that" what goes around comes around." So for all of you who thought it was okay to punitively tax and ban the cigarette smoker from the social scene it looks like it is your turn now.
The first move by government will be to raise taxes on your bottle sodas, teas, juices, etc., then the second phase will be to ban the products from schools, parks, sport facilities and their game areas and the ban may even encroach on your favorite eating places. This is the format that all of the nannies used to control a persons smoking behavior and now it will eventually happen to the people that thought it okay to restrict and ban products that people CHOSE to ingest in their own bodies. Like the saying says, -"be careful what you wish for."
These nanny states and the wanna be goodie two shoes tell you that they are looking out after your health and that they are going to take care of you. They tell you that they know what is best for you and that you should not doubt them.
New York, New Jersey and a host of other states now see another tax jackpot gleaming in their eyes . And yes,once again, the excuse and reason they say they are taxing your colas, juices,teas, sweet flavored waters and all of those other sweet tasting products is because they want to prevent you from acquiring diabetes, heart problems and other health issues. These wanna be doctors, who are nothing but tax collecting politicians arrogantly argue that since they raised prices and taxed cigarettes to new heights, people stopped smoking, and if it worked for smoking it will work for candy, juices,teas, soft drinks and other tasty items.
Now for all those people that said it was okay for the government to tax cigarettes: I would wonder how you feel now when the government steps into"your" household and tell you that if you and your family drink soft drinks, bottled teas and fruit juice and enjoy other sweet items it is going to cost you, big time.
The government is going to tax you under the guise of "it's for your own good." Do you really believe that? How far can these nanny groups and government beat that dead horse?
I submit that drinking coffee can cause you health problems? Eating bacon, ham and sausage can cause health problems? Eating any type of processed foods can cause health problems? Eating butter can cause you health problems? Fast food, ice cream or puddings (whoops, those are sweet ones) , sorry,the tax will cover those too.
I could go on and on about what can cause a health problem in an individual but I am telling you that just about anything you ingest into your body can cause a health problem. So, where will it stop. The government saddled us taxpayers with an income tax, then state and county taxes, cigarette taxes and now they want to initiate a body tax on all of us saying what we choose to put into our body should be taxed.
But hey! The government is going to tell you what's good for you. Right? Example, the feds and a number of activist groups have already pressured many schools and soft drink companies across the nation to remove soft drinks, candy and chips from the schools.I don't agree with those actions but it appears the people refuse to fight these moves.
Do you really believe that one soda or one candy bar or a small single bag of chips is the reason a person puts on weight? Sure, if the child or adult eats a dozen candy bars or drinks a dozen cans of soda at one sitting they are going to "get fat." But an occasional snack like a candy bar,chips , or soda is not the root cause.
I would suggest the schools revise their lunch programs to include the proper nutritious food combination rather than blame the child's weight increase on the occasional candy bar, chips, or soda that may be eaten during a break at school. Further,the schools should provide a proper "physical education" plan at each school and make it mandatory that each student take part in the physical education class. There is nothing like a small amount of exercise, fresh air, sunshine, and walking and/or swimming to maintain a healthy, physically fit body. I would guess it is easier for these activist groups and the Feds to point the finger and play a blame game and say that the can of soda is the problem while at the same time they are cutting out physical eduction from their curriculum saying they do not have the money to support the program.
What would be more important to you for your child? Would you rather have the child be required to get exercise and play time and have their physical fitness improved or have the school save money by cutting out such a program? It is easier for the legislators to blame soft drink manufacturers and blame the student for drinking an occasional soda or eating an occasional candy bar instead of addressing the real problem.
Not every child, college student or adult drinks dozens of cans of soda a day nor do they eat dozens of candy bars or bags of chips a day. For that child in school who is gaining weight I would say that it is the parents job to oversee their diet, exercise and health care. Why place penalties on the soft drink manufacturer and all of the other students in the school who does eat and exercise in moderation and does in fact enjoy an occasional soft drink, chips or candy bar?
Using the governments logic: Why not tell each politician in Washington that all alcoholic beverages will be removed from all restaurants and bars in and about the Capitol where they congregate because a small percentage of the lawmakers are abusing alcohol and acting unbecoming, and/or receiving DUI's, and most of all, it is bad for their health and they should be looked out after. Do you think they would go for that? They would be the first group of people to squeal to high heaven, "you can't do that." But in reality, that is what they are actually doing to the rest of us when they regulate what people put in their bodies.
I suggest that each and every person's health care should be looked at individually. What foods and drinks one puts into their body may affect one person differently than it does another. No two people are the same.
Each person's metabolism is different and handles food and drink intake differently "but" these government bureaucrats will take punitive action against you for no other reason that dinging more taxes out of you and using the excuse that 'IT'S GOOD FOR YOU."
The government says that they want to stop you from getting diabetes, heart disease, strokes, obesity, cancer,and a list of other ailments etc., but the scientific and medical community cannot say with a "medical certainty" what specific product and/or item actually may have caused the disease to rear its ugly head.
Was it the high cholesterol that cause a person to have a heart attack? Was it stress on the job that was the sole cause of that heart attack? Was it anxiety that the person felt because of financial problems in the marriage that was the sole cause of that heart attack? Or,was it the poor air quality in the city,the town or state where the person lives or was it the pollution from the automobile exhaust being spewed into the air each day? No doctor can say with medical certainty which of those separate things actually caused the person to suffer heart disease.
Another example, the doctor cannot say with" medical certainty" that smoking cigarettes and/or second hand smoke was the sole cause of anyone acquiring cancer or any other disease for that matter.
Just the few examples mentioned here in this article could be a combination of things that may include but not limited to: a person being obese, suffering diabetes, heart problems, cancer, and most any other disease.
Besides any environmental pollution, a persons food and diet and their nutritional habits and their lifestyle choices along with pesticides, chemical additives in such things as plastic water bottles and containers, cosmetics, their intake of alcohol and their ingestion of medications will all contribute to any one persons health and well being.
The list could go on, and on. There are literally thousands of products like foods, chemicals and environmental factors being used around the world that can contribute any and all illnesses a person can imagine.
What will be next and taxed? Is the government going to raise taxes on all cosmetics, soaps and other hygiene products used by everyone? They'll tell you it's for your own good. Are they going to tax everyone for driving a motor vehicle, a boat, a recreational vehicle? Are these tax hungry nannies going to raise taxes on bottled water or anything in a plastic container? They will tell you its for health reasons. Raise taxes on household products used everyday in your kitchen or bathroom? Are they going to raise taxes on your air conditioning units in your house or business because of the chemical pollution caused by the unit?
Believe it or not some lawmakers and legislators across the country have already tried to put a tax on some of the items just mentioned in the paragraph above and you can bet they will continue their misguided attempts.
People, the lawmakers can use any excuse to raise taxes on us taxpayers but their rationalization for the taxes stink. The lame argument they continually make for the tax doesn't track. This argument "it's for your own good." or, another favorite argument is "It's for the kids," are worn out phrases. They are old and tired.
Every time lawmakers, groups, and organizations who usually have an agenda for their own benefit pass an initiative or a law they usually tell the public it's only a suggestion or it's only voluntary or it will only be a temporary fix.
When the lawmakers offer those reasons I would be suspect. Why? Those taxes, laws,rules and regulations that were said to be voluntary or temporary always wind up to be a mandate.
The government clearly ignores and selectively forgets the constitution and they trample on Americans "freedom of choice."
For example:(Smoking), if there were restaurants, bars and taverns across the country that clearly posted signs indicating that they were or were not a "friendly smoking" establishment any prudent person could make an informed choice as to which place they wanted to patronize. Nonsmokers could and would go to nonsmoking establishments and smokers would go into the smoking establishments. Result: {CHOICE), the person made their own decision. Everyone would be happy and satisfied. They would have their own place to go to.
For example: (Alcohol) Each person and/or group can make up their own mind whether they want to go into an establishment such as a restaurant that serves alcohol.Result: {CHOICE), the person makes their own decision. Nonalcoholics can use restaurant that do not serve alcohol.
For example: (Fast Food) Each and every person can make the decision whether they want to drive into the drive-in for that hamburger, fried chicken, taco, etc. Result: (CHOICE), the person chooses to either go into or walk away from the establishment.
The same goes for a person eating a piece of pie, cake, ice cream, candy bar, chips, etc.,-- Result: (CHOICE). It is that persons right and clearly their "freedom of choice" to either eat that piece of pie, and whether the pie should be regular, fat free, or ala mode and making a choice without being told they have to drink a diet soda, or they can't have a milkshake unless they choose the non-fat shake which will be offered at a cheaper price.
Side Note: These tax crazy lawmakers always claim that they can raise "sin taxes" which are defined by them as tobacco, (cigarettes and cigars)and alcohol, but if you notice, these lawmakers keep alcohol off limits and have chosen to only pick on the smoking public.
Lawmakers refuse to raise taxes on beer, wine and hard booze. Why? That's easy. Many of our politicians really love their alcohol. Many may be closet alcoholics while still others are treated in rehab for their alcohol abuse. Another reason is that people across the country would raise hell.
Raising taxes on any type of alcohol is like social security's third rail in politics for the lawmaker. So, what do they do? They are going to include soft drinks, juices, teas bottled waters and sweets into the web of "sin taxes." They want to deprive every man, woman and child of the right and "free choice" to drink and eat what they want.
I would say that what a family eats either at home or out in public, is a decision that should be made by the parents of the family. It is their choice. The parents can educate their children on what should be eaten and what foods should be restricted or avoided. From my point of view, it's a family matter. The government should stay out of the business of dictating what I and my family choose to put in our body and without adding additional taxes or punitive penalties if we chose to eat or drink something the government said was "bad" for us.
There are people around the world that will always acquire diabetes, heart problems, strokes,obesity, etc., and many of those people will suffer those diseases for reasons that cannot explained.
People will live and they will all die. I have always told my patients and friends, relatives and associates that: "I believe and have always believed that a person begins to die from the moment of birth." Folks, we all are on deaths path from the moment we are born. We can't get around that fact.
I would suggest that these lawmakers who pretend that they want to "look out for our best interests" leave the train at the next station. We, the people can look out for ourselves as long as we have choices.
If a person becomes obese because they eat a full whole 12 inch pie at one sitting instead of one slice of that pie that person can make the choice and decision to stop the bad behavior and/or seek help to assist them in doing so. If a woman wants to get an abortion for reasons only known to her, that's her choice and she should be able to seek advice and assistance to help her come to her own decision. Again,"freedom of choice."
I would like to say that under the shallow and lame benign rationale of " it's best for you," or "I know best" or "protecting us" our government know-it-alls that say they represent us are very quickly usurping all rights we have as it applies to our own bodies. It's insanity. These looney tunes are the one's running our country? As the saying goes, I think it's time for the inmates to take back the asylum. Stand up folks, and say enough is enough. - And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
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 the the world treating you?
Here we go again. The Washington lawmakers are salivating at the idea of taxing soft drinks, juices, teas and other sweet tasting beverages. They also are considering expanding the tax to candies and other sweet products.
I hate to say I told you so but I did, years ago. When the nannies in California and New York began raising taxes on cigarettes I told my readers and patients and anyone who wanted to listen that" what goes around comes around." So for all of you who thought it was okay to punitively tax and ban the cigarette smoker from the social scene it looks like it is your turn now.
The first move by government will be to raise taxes on your bottle sodas, teas, juices, etc., then the second phase will be to ban the products from schools, parks, sport facilities and their game areas and the ban may even encroach on your favorite eating places. This is the format that all of the nannies used to control a persons smoking behavior and now it will eventually happen to the people that thought it okay to restrict and ban products that people CHOSE to ingest in their own bodies. Like the saying says, -"be careful what you wish for."
These nanny states and the wanna be goodie two shoes tell you that they are looking out after your health and that they are going to take care of you. They tell you that they know what is best for you and that you should not doubt them.
New York, New Jersey and a host of other states now see another tax jackpot gleaming in their eyes . And yes,once again, the excuse and reason they say they are taxing your colas, juices,teas, sweet flavored waters and all of those other sweet tasting products is because they want to prevent you from acquiring diabetes, heart problems and other health issues. These wanna be doctors, who are nothing but tax collecting politicians arrogantly argue that since they raised prices and taxed cigarettes to new heights, people stopped smoking, and if it worked for smoking it will work for candy, juices,teas, soft drinks and other tasty items.
Now for all those people that said it was okay for the government to tax cigarettes: I would wonder how you feel now when the government steps into"your" household and tell you that if you and your family drink soft drinks, bottled teas and fruit juice and enjoy other sweet items it is going to cost you, big time.
The government is going to tax you under the guise of "it's for your own good." Do you really believe that? How far can these nanny groups and government beat that dead horse?
I submit that drinking coffee can cause you health problems? Eating bacon, ham and sausage can cause health problems? Eating any type of processed foods can cause health problems? Eating butter can cause you health problems? Fast food, ice cream or puddings (whoops, those are sweet ones) , sorry,the tax will cover those too.
I could go on and on about what can cause a health problem in an individual but I am telling you that just about anything you ingest into your body can cause a health problem. So, where will it stop. The government saddled us taxpayers with an income tax, then state and county taxes, cigarette taxes and now they want to initiate a body tax on all of us saying what we choose to put into our body should be taxed.
But hey! The government is going to tell you what's good for you. Right? Example, the feds and a number of activist groups have already pressured many schools and soft drink companies across the nation to remove soft drinks, candy and chips from the schools.I don't agree with those actions but it appears the people refuse to fight these moves.
Do you really believe that one soda or one candy bar or a small single bag of chips is the reason a person puts on weight? Sure, if the child or adult eats a dozen candy bars or drinks a dozen cans of soda at one sitting they are going to "get fat." But an occasional snack like a candy bar,chips , or soda is not the root cause.
I would suggest the schools revise their lunch programs to include the proper nutritious food combination rather than blame the child's weight increase on the occasional candy bar, chips, or soda that may be eaten during a break at school. Further,the schools should provide a proper "physical education" plan at each school and make it mandatory that each student take part in the physical education class. There is nothing like a small amount of exercise, fresh air, sunshine, and walking and/or swimming to maintain a healthy, physically fit body. I would guess it is easier for these activist groups and the Feds to point the finger and play a blame game and say that the can of soda is the problem while at the same time they are cutting out physical eduction from their curriculum saying they do not have the money to support the program.
What would be more important to you for your child? Would you rather have the child be required to get exercise and play time and have their physical fitness improved or have the school save money by cutting out such a program? It is easier for the legislators to blame soft drink manufacturers and blame the student for drinking an occasional soda or eating an occasional candy bar instead of addressing the real problem.
Not every child, college student or adult drinks dozens of cans of soda a day nor do they eat dozens of candy bars or bags of chips a day. For that child in school who is gaining weight I would say that it is the parents job to oversee their diet, exercise and health care. Why place penalties on the soft drink manufacturer and all of the other students in the school who does eat and exercise in moderation and does in fact enjoy an occasional soft drink, chips or candy bar?
Using the governments logic: Why not tell each politician in Washington that all alcoholic beverages will be removed from all restaurants and bars in and about the Capitol where they congregate because a small percentage of the lawmakers are abusing alcohol and acting unbecoming, and/or receiving DUI's, and most of all, it is bad for their health and they should be looked out after. Do you think they would go for that? They would be the first group of people to squeal to high heaven, "you can't do that." But in reality, that is what they are actually doing to the rest of us when they regulate what people put in their bodies.
I suggest that each and every person's health care should be looked at individually. What foods and drinks one puts into their body may affect one person differently than it does another. No two people are the same.
Each person's metabolism is different and handles food and drink intake differently "but" these government bureaucrats will take punitive action against you for no other reason that dinging more taxes out of you and using the excuse that 'IT'S GOOD FOR YOU."
The government says that they want to stop you from getting diabetes, heart disease, strokes, obesity, cancer,and a list of other ailments etc., but the scientific and medical community cannot say with a "medical certainty" what specific product and/or item actually may have caused the disease to rear its ugly head.
Was it the high cholesterol that cause a person to have a heart attack? Was it stress on the job that was the sole cause of that heart attack? Was it anxiety that the person felt because of financial problems in the marriage that was the sole cause of that heart attack? Or,was it the poor air quality in the city,the town or state where the person lives or was it the pollution from the automobile exhaust being spewed into the air each day? No doctor can say with medical certainty which of those separate things actually caused the person to suffer heart disease.
Another example, the doctor cannot say with" medical certainty" that smoking cigarettes and/or second hand smoke was the sole cause of anyone acquiring cancer or any other disease for that matter.
Just the few examples mentioned here in this article could be a combination of things that may include but not limited to: a person being obese, suffering diabetes, heart problems, cancer, and most any other disease.
Besides any environmental pollution, a persons food and diet and their nutritional habits and their lifestyle choices along with pesticides, chemical additives in such things as plastic water bottles and containers, cosmetics, their intake of alcohol and their ingestion of medications will all contribute to any one persons health and well being.
The list could go on, and on. There are literally thousands of products like foods, chemicals and environmental factors being used around the world that can contribute any and all illnesses a person can imagine.
What will be next and taxed? Is the government going to raise taxes on all cosmetics, soaps and other hygiene products used by everyone? They'll tell you it's for your own good. Are they going to tax everyone for driving a motor vehicle, a boat, a recreational vehicle? Are these tax hungry nannies going to raise taxes on bottled water or anything in a plastic container? They will tell you its for health reasons. Raise taxes on household products used everyday in your kitchen or bathroom? Are they going to raise taxes on your air conditioning units in your house or business because of the chemical pollution caused by the unit?
Believe it or not some lawmakers and legislators across the country have already tried to put a tax on some of the items just mentioned in the paragraph above and you can bet they will continue their misguided attempts.
People, the lawmakers can use any excuse to raise taxes on us taxpayers but their rationalization for the taxes stink. The lame argument they continually make for the tax doesn't track. This argument "it's for your own good." or, another favorite argument is "It's for the kids," are worn out phrases. They are old and tired.
Every time lawmakers, groups, and organizations who usually have an agenda for their own benefit pass an initiative or a law they usually tell the public it's only a suggestion or it's only voluntary or it will only be a temporary fix.
When the lawmakers offer those reasons I would be suspect. Why? Those taxes, laws,rules and regulations that were said to be voluntary or temporary always wind up to be a mandate.
The government clearly ignores and selectively forgets the constitution and they trample on Americans "freedom of choice."
For example:(Smoking), if there were restaurants, bars and taverns across the country that clearly posted signs indicating that they were or were not a "friendly smoking" establishment any prudent person could make an informed choice as to which place they wanted to patronize. Nonsmokers could and would go to nonsmoking establishments and smokers would go into the smoking establishments. Result: {CHOICE), the person made their own decision. Everyone would be happy and satisfied. They would have their own place to go to.
For example: (Alcohol) Each person and/or group can make up their own mind whether they want to go into an establishment such as a restaurant that serves alcohol.Result: {CHOICE), the person makes their own decision. Nonalcoholics can use restaurant that do not serve alcohol.
For example: (Fast Food) Each and every person can make the decision whether they want to drive into the drive-in for that hamburger, fried chicken, taco, etc. Result: (CHOICE), the person chooses to either go into or walk away from the establishment.
The same goes for a person eating a piece of pie, cake, ice cream, candy bar, chips, etc.,-- Result: (CHOICE). It is that persons right and clearly their "freedom of choice" to either eat that piece of pie, and whether the pie should be regular, fat free, or ala mode and making a choice without being told they have to drink a diet soda, or they can't have a milkshake unless they choose the non-fat shake which will be offered at a cheaper price.
Side Note: These tax crazy lawmakers always claim that they can raise "sin taxes" which are defined by them as tobacco, (cigarettes and cigars)and alcohol, but if you notice, these lawmakers keep alcohol off limits and have chosen to only pick on the smoking public.
Lawmakers refuse to raise taxes on beer, wine and hard booze. Why? That's easy. Many of our politicians really love their alcohol. Many may be closet alcoholics while still others are treated in rehab for their alcohol abuse. Another reason is that people across the country would raise hell.
Raising taxes on any type of alcohol is like social security's third rail in politics for the lawmaker. So, what do they do? They are going to include soft drinks, juices, teas bottled waters and sweets into the web of "sin taxes." They want to deprive every man, woman and child of the right and "free choice" to drink and eat what they want.
I would say that what a family eats either at home or out in public, is a decision that should be made by the parents of the family. It is their choice. The parents can educate their children on what should be eaten and what foods should be restricted or avoided. From my point of view, it's a family matter. The government should stay out of the business of dictating what I and my family choose to put in our body and without adding additional taxes or punitive penalties if we chose to eat or drink something the government said was "bad" for us.
There are people around the world that will always acquire diabetes, heart problems, strokes,obesity, etc., and many of those people will suffer those diseases for reasons that cannot explained.
People will live and they will all die. I have always told my patients and friends, relatives and associates that: "I believe and have always believed that a person begins to die from the moment of birth." Folks, we all are on deaths path from the moment we are born. We can't get around that fact.
I would suggest that these lawmakers who pretend that they want to "look out for our best interests" leave the train at the next station. We, the people can look out for ourselves as long as we have choices.
If a person becomes obese because they eat a full whole 12 inch pie at one sitting instead of one slice of that pie that person can make the choice and decision to stop the bad behavior and/or seek help to assist them in doing so. If a woman wants to get an abortion for reasons only known to her, that's her choice and she should be able to seek advice and assistance to help her come to her own decision. Again,"freedom of choice."
I would like to say that under the shallow and lame benign rationale of " it's best for you," or "I know best" or "protecting us" our government know-it-alls that say they represent us are very quickly usurping all rights we have as it applies to our own bodies. It's insanity. These looney tunes are the one's running our country? As the saying goes, I think it's time for the inmates to take back the asylum. Stand up folks, and say enough is enough. - And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Get Rid Of Long Term Politicians And Their COLA's And Set Term Limits.
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Recently we had Democratic Senator Dodd jump to the defense of Blumenthal, the man that lied about his military record and the guy who claimed he served in Vietnam when he "did not."
Blumenthal is running in Connecticut for the office of Senator. Now, I see his character, credibility and veracity seriously in question.
Senator Dodd is retiring after holding the Senatorial seat since 1975. Folks, that's a long, long time to hold on to a position. Some of these politicians have been in Congress for 35 and 45 years. I think that is too long for any one person to hold a political seat. Another man comes to mind. The recently defeated Arlen Specter, from Pennsylvania tried everything to hold on to his seat. Hey, the guys 80 years old and has been serving Pennsylvania for 30 years. If he had held his seat this time he would be 86 years old when his new term would expire.
I don't know about you but I think that we Americans deserve more that this kind of good ol' boy politics. As it stands today the incumbent, with their large contribution war chests beat down any newcomer that wants to serve the nation.
These well connected political incumbents have their political connections, their large contributions and self serving groups use slash and burn politics to devastate their opponent.
I believe that there are many good people out there across this country that want to serve and hate the current system of partisanship,gridlock and "got ya" politics. This situation has been festering in both parties for decades but is becomes worse every year.
Standing on the sidelines looking in I can see that there is no give and no collaboration by either of the two warring parties. Neither the Republican or the Democratic party can say they work together. I say that it is time for a change, a big change.
First, I would suggest that the people in this nation stand united and vote out all of the incumbents. They have been there too long. I suspect that these incumbents that have been holding down their political seat for 35, 40, and 45 years is more of the problem that the solution. Those old incumbents tend to blackmail, intimidate and pressure the new members to go along or lose their seat at the next election. I would suggest that actions like that are not politics but instead borders on the criminal.
I submit that we, the people ,deserve much better governing that we are receiving from these fat cats, who feel they are privileged to do anything they wish and ignore the wishes of the majority of the people in the country. As it stands now, most of these Democrats and Republicans only interest is that of building up their contributions and getting what is best for themselves and their families. These lack-luster politicians "chase the money". They go to the trough of big oil, big banks, big corporations and other deep pocket avenues while always promising access and favors in return for the large contributions. The race and chase for the money by our political leaders never end.
Many of these lawmakers in Washington have committed a myriad of crimes over the years and many have been convicted and sent to prison. Others have their hands slapped and are protected by their party bosses for the sake of holding on to a seat.
Besides getting rid of all incumbents the people of this nation should insist on term limits. There is a good argument for it but as it stands now these entrenched politicians refuse to even consider such a move. They use their large money machines to fight off all efforts but I say the time is right and it can be done if we citizens stand together.
I would submit that if all of the Congress people had a term limit of only two terms there would be no time for them to be sucked into the abyss of easy money and power and the sleazy ways of being corrupted as is happening now.
With new intelligent, motivated people, who want to serve and make a difference hoping to improve this nation and actually knowing they cannot hold on to that seat for 35,or 45 years but for only two terms would give that man or woman incentive to work for the good of the people and country and display to the people the accomplishments they made during their two terms of service.
With only a two term representative there would be no chances of the sleaze and corruption that is now politics as usual rubbing off in that short amount of time and there would be no fat, lazy, incompetent six or seven term politician using threats and intimidation to get their way.
Granted, there will be some lawmakers sent to Washington for the two years and they may bend the rules or try to get all they can get for themselves and their families but the public can have some comfort knowing that the "wanna be" bad guy or gal will be out of Washington after serving their two term stretch.
Side note: These lawmakers should not receive a "lifetime" pension for only serving two terms. It could be adjusted accordingly. This idea of Congress people giving themselves all of these fat, obscene benefits like an automatic pay raise each and every year "unless they themselves vote it down " is unwarranted. Currently their pay is $174,000.00 a year. That's a lot. To their credit they did vote down their automatic pay raise for 2010. If they did not, they would have received an increase of and additional $1600.00 a year.
These old long term politicians slyly slid that annual benefit perk into law under the cloak of darkness back in 1989 when it decided to provide itself with annual raises called: "cost-of-living adjustments." This slick, sneaky maneuver guaranteed the politicians a salary increase every year, whether they actually deserved it or not. Nice perk, huh?
I would say that allowing any employee to vote on their own pay raise would really cause any employer to scream out in agony but as it stands now these lawmakers are doing just that, as does the public employee unions across this country.
However, if this obscene law cannot be repealed and removed from the books it should be drastically revised. It would be the lesser of the many evils that these lawmakers have perpetrated on us taxpayers to enrich themselves. It could be revised so as to require that each lawmaker publicly vote on their own pay raise and that in turn would at least hold them accountable to us taxpayers and voters.
Nobody outside the Washington beltway, except the greedy public employees and their powerful union members get an automatic raise each and every year. Middle class Mr. and Mrs. America working on Main street doesn't have such a benefit, so why should our millionaire and billionaire lawmakers deserve this perk. My answer, they "shouldn't."
So, to summarize: We do not need lawmakers in Washington serving 35, 40, or 45 years and playing politics for the sole purpose of getting what they can for themselves and their family. We really need term limits in Washington. -And, that's my opinion.People,draw your own conclusions. You decide.
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?
Recently we had Democratic Senator Dodd jump to the defense of Blumenthal, the man that lied about his military record and the guy who claimed he served in Vietnam when he "did not."
Blumenthal is running in Connecticut for the office of Senator. Now, I see his character, credibility and veracity seriously in question.
Senator Dodd is retiring after holding the Senatorial seat since 1975. Folks, that's a long, long time to hold on to a position. Some of these politicians have been in Congress for 35 and 45 years. I think that is too long for any one person to hold a political seat. Another man comes to mind. The recently defeated Arlen Specter, from Pennsylvania tried everything to hold on to his seat. Hey, the guys 80 years old and has been serving Pennsylvania for 30 years. If he had held his seat this time he would be 86 years old when his new term would expire.
I don't know about you but I think that we Americans deserve more that this kind of good ol' boy politics. As it stands today the incumbent, with their large contribution war chests beat down any newcomer that wants to serve the nation.
These well connected political incumbents have their political connections, their large contributions and self serving groups use slash and burn politics to devastate their opponent.
I believe that there are many good people out there across this country that want to serve and hate the current system of partisanship,gridlock and "got ya" politics. This situation has been festering in both parties for decades but is becomes worse every year.
Standing on the sidelines looking in I can see that there is no give and no collaboration by either of the two warring parties. Neither the Republican or the Democratic party can say they work together. I say that it is time for a change, a big change.
First, I would suggest that the people in this nation stand united and vote out all of the incumbents. They have been there too long. I suspect that these incumbents that have been holding down their political seat for 35, 40, and 45 years is more of the problem that the solution. Those old incumbents tend to blackmail, intimidate and pressure the new members to go along or lose their seat at the next election. I would suggest that actions like that are not politics but instead borders on the criminal.
I submit that we, the people ,deserve much better governing that we are receiving from these fat cats, who feel they are privileged to do anything they wish and ignore the wishes of the majority of the people in the country. As it stands now, most of these Democrats and Republicans only interest is that of building up their contributions and getting what is best for themselves and their families. These lack-luster politicians "chase the money". They go to the trough of big oil, big banks, big corporations and other deep pocket avenues while always promising access and favors in return for the large contributions. The race and chase for the money by our political leaders never end.
Many of these lawmakers in Washington have committed a myriad of crimes over the years and many have been convicted and sent to prison. Others have their hands slapped and are protected by their party bosses for the sake of holding on to a seat.
Besides getting rid of all incumbents the people of this nation should insist on term limits. There is a good argument for it but as it stands now these entrenched politicians refuse to even consider such a move. They use their large money machines to fight off all efforts but I say the time is right and it can be done if we citizens stand together.
I would submit that if all of the Congress people had a term limit of only two terms there would be no time for them to be sucked into the abyss of easy money and power and the sleazy ways of being corrupted as is happening now.
With new intelligent, motivated people, who want to serve and make a difference hoping to improve this nation and actually knowing they cannot hold on to that seat for 35,or 45 years but for only two terms would give that man or woman incentive to work for the good of the people and country and display to the people the accomplishments they made during their two terms of service.
With only a two term representative there would be no chances of the sleaze and corruption that is now politics as usual rubbing off in that short amount of time and there would be no fat, lazy, incompetent six or seven term politician using threats and intimidation to get their way.
Granted, there will be some lawmakers sent to Washington for the two years and they may bend the rules or try to get all they can get for themselves and their families but the public can have some comfort knowing that the "wanna be" bad guy or gal will be out of Washington after serving their two term stretch.
Side note: These lawmakers should not receive a "lifetime" pension for only serving two terms. It could be adjusted accordingly. This idea of Congress people giving themselves all of these fat, obscene benefits like an automatic pay raise each and every year "unless they themselves vote it down " is unwarranted. Currently their pay is $174,000.00 a year. That's a lot. To their credit they did vote down their automatic pay raise for 2010. If they did not, they would have received an increase of and additional $1600.00 a year.
These old long term politicians slyly slid that annual benefit perk into law under the cloak of darkness back in 1989 when it decided to provide itself with annual raises called: "cost-of-living adjustments." This slick, sneaky maneuver guaranteed the politicians a salary increase every year, whether they actually deserved it or not. Nice perk, huh?
I would say that allowing any employee to vote on their own pay raise would really cause any employer to scream out in agony but as it stands now these lawmakers are doing just that, as does the public employee unions across this country.
However, if this obscene law cannot be repealed and removed from the books it should be drastically revised. It would be the lesser of the many evils that these lawmakers have perpetrated on us taxpayers to enrich themselves. It could be revised so as to require that each lawmaker publicly vote on their own pay raise and that in turn would at least hold them accountable to us taxpayers and voters.
Nobody outside the Washington beltway, except the greedy public employees and their powerful union members get an automatic raise each and every year. Middle class Mr. and Mrs. America working on Main street doesn't have such a benefit, so why should our millionaire and billionaire lawmakers deserve this perk. My answer, they "shouldn't."
So, to summarize: We do not need lawmakers in Washington serving 35, 40, or 45 years and playing politics for the sole purpose of getting what they can for themselves and their family. We really need term limits in Washington. -And, that's my opinion.People,draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Temporary Tax? Do You Really Believe That?
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
The big fad that is being adopted by many states is something called "A temporary tax." City, county and state governments are raising taxes for a specific period of time and they are telling the voter and taxpayer that the tax is only temporary and will be eliminated after a specific time frame. For example, Arizona just approved a 1 percent sales tax hike and promised to it will last only three years. Cities like Mobile, Alabama, and states like Kansas are also jumping on the bandwagon saying that these "temporary" taxes are to avoid layoffs of police and fireman. Other states and cities say it is for education. What a joke!
I suggest that these cities and states do layoff some of these police,firemen and teachers. They surely have no qualms about laying off other city, county and state employees. Why should a policeman, fireman or teacher get special treatment? They should be treated like any person working in the private sector. When a person gets laid off or fired from their job in the private sector the remaining employees have to pick up the slack and work a little harder. The same can and should apply to these public sector employees.
Many of these public sector workers are making three and four time the wages that someone in the private sector makes. That inequity should not be allowed to happen. In addition these public sector workers are building up tremendous retirement and pension packages that the average John and Jane Doe will never even be able to come close to, let alone enjoy.
Currently across the United States the public employee powerful unions browbeat the politician and lawmakers into large cost of living increases, bonuses, merit pay, free medical care, large and early retirements and super generous pensions and all of this is given to these public employees in exchange for their votes and backing of the lawmakers. The politicians are giving away the store to the public employees on the backs of the hard working people in the private sector.
There are a number of city, county and state governments that are teetering on the verge of bankruptcy only because of the outrageous demands made by these public employees but no lawmaker wants to layoff any of these people or take a chance of offending the public employee unions.
If you truly believe that these "temporary" taxes are going to be temporary, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you. Remember the Federal Income tax? That income tax was put on the American peoples back in the 1930's and it too was supposed to be a "TEMPORARY TAX." Yeah, right!
I submit that these so-called temporary taxes and levies never go away. Once they are introduced and go into effect they are here to stay. My view is that once the lawmakers get a "temporary" tax and get their hands on that money they do not want to let it go and will use excuse after excuse to avoid letting the "temporary" tax expire.
Right now there are some states that imposed a "temporary" tax early on in the recession and some of those tax deadlines are about to expire. I would bet that Maryland, New Jersey, New York and North Carolina who enacted such a "temporary" tax fix will not allow the deadlines to expire. We'll see!
Do you really think that your state legislature and those greedy lawmakers will say: "Hey, we don't need any more money," so let's let that temporary tax expire? I'll take odds on that bet. Why? Because those public employee unions have a stranglehold on those legislators. The public employees want the little guy to continue to subsidize their over generous retirement and pay for their health plan for the rest of their lives.
I don't know about you but, yes- I also would like to retire early like these public sector workers. Personally, I don't want to work for a long time to pay for" others" to retire early and enjoy free health, fat pensions and obscene retirement benefits while I have to pay for my families health care and have no retirement or pension.
A "temporary" tax? I doubt that.-And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
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 big fad that is being adopted by many states is something called "A temporary tax." City, county and state governments are raising taxes for a specific period of time and they are telling the voter and taxpayer that the tax is only temporary and will be eliminated after a specific time frame. For example, Arizona just approved a 1 percent sales tax hike and promised to it will last only three years. Cities like Mobile, Alabama, and states like Kansas are also jumping on the bandwagon saying that these "temporary" taxes are to avoid layoffs of police and fireman. Other states and cities say it is for education. What a joke!
I suggest that these cities and states do layoff some of these police,firemen and teachers. They surely have no qualms about laying off other city, county and state employees. Why should a policeman, fireman or teacher get special treatment? They should be treated like any person working in the private sector. When a person gets laid off or fired from their job in the private sector the remaining employees have to pick up the slack and work a little harder. The same can and should apply to these public sector employees.
Many of these public sector workers are making three and four time the wages that someone in the private sector makes. That inequity should not be allowed to happen. In addition these public sector workers are building up tremendous retirement and pension packages that the average John and Jane Doe will never even be able to come close to, let alone enjoy.
Currently across the United States the public employee powerful unions browbeat the politician and lawmakers into large cost of living increases, bonuses, merit pay, free medical care, large and early retirements and super generous pensions and all of this is given to these public employees in exchange for their votes and backing of the lawmakers. The politicians are giving away the store to the public employees on the backs of the hard working people in the private sector.
There are a number of city, county and state governments that are teetering on the verge of bankruptcy only because of the outrageous demands made by these public employees but no lawmaker wants to layoff any of these people or take a chance of offending the public employee unions.
If you truly believe that these "temporary" taxes are going to be temporary, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you. Remember the Federal Income tax? That income tax was put on the American peoples back in the 1930's and it too was supposed to be a "TEMPORARY TAX." Yeah, right!
I submit that these so-called temporary taxes and levies never go away. Once they are introduced and go into effect they are here to stay. My view is that once the lawmakers get a "temporary" tax and get their hands on that money they do not want to let it go and will use excuse after excuse to avoid letting the "temporary" tax expire.
Right now there are some states that imposed a "temporary" tax early on in the recession and some of those tax deadlines are about to expire. I would bet that Maryland, New Jersey, New York and North Carolina who enacted such a "temporary" tax fix will not allow the deadlines to expire. We'll see!
Do you really think that your state legislature and those greedy lawmakers will say: "Hey, we don't need any more money," so let's let that temporary tax expire? I'll take odds on that bet. Why? Because those public employee unions have a stranglehold on those legislators. The public employees want the little guy to continue to subsidize their over generous retirement and pay for their health plan for the rest of their lives.
I don't know about you but, yes- I also would like to retire early like these public sector workers. Personally, I don't want to work for a long time to pay for" others" to retire early and enjoy free health, fat pensions and obscene retirement benefits while I have to pay for my families health care and have no retirement or pension.
A "temporary" tax? I doubt that.-And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Friday, May 21, 2010
Obama Bad Mouths America Again: On Immigration
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
When it comes to the immigration issue President Obama is forfeiting quite a bit of his goodwill, trust and credibility with the American people. It seems to me that he's ashamed of Americans, particularly the American citizen. It wasn't too long ago when he flew across the world and make apologies for possible sins that the Americans committed abroad. Now, he stands on a stage with Mexican president Felipe Calderon and slams and slams away at all Arizona residents for supporting a state law that makes it illegal to be in the USA illegally.He condemned Arizona' s crackdown on illegal aliens. Obama showed strong solidarity with Mr. Calderon.
The Mexican president was treated to a majestic welcome on the South Lawn and 200 people were invited to the event where president Obama showed and voiced strong USA support for Calderon's government.
The Mexican President was smiling and showed approval that President Obama chose to scold and belittle the politicians and residents of Arizona and the citizens of the United States. Instead of criticizing those "illegal aliens" who crawl and slither into our country and place a very large burden on our American schools, social system and health care he chose to cozy up to Calderon.
Calderon says that he disagrees very strongly with the Arizona immigration law. He said "it is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree but also introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement." And believe it or not all of the Democrats in the audience rose with loud cheers of agreement. In this case, I agree with Senator McCain and other lawmakers when they say that: "it was unfortunate and disappointing that the president of Mexico chose to criticize the state of Arizona by weighing in on a U.S. domestic policy issue during a trip that was meant to reaffirm relationships between our two countries.
Even in light of the majority of the polls showing that most Americans and even those of Mexican heritage (who came here legally) support the Arizona law President Obama intends to have his Justice Department intimidate the state of Arizona and it residents who want nothing more than to have our immigration laws enforced.
Obama and Calderon pledged to create a safer border. Oh yeah, where have you heard that before? Most every time representatives of the two countries meet they say the same thing. First thing out of their mouth is: "We need safer borders." But it's been all talk and no action and that has been the operating procedure since President Reagan gave amnesty to millions of "illegal aliens" decades ago.
I submit that if you believe that President Obama is really interested or serious about stemming the massive flow of illegal aliens invading our sovereign borders, you're wrong!
There are a number of his political advocates and supporters who embrace the illegal border invasion. What has the Mexican government ever did to stop the illegal alien from illegally entering the USA? Nothing! In fact, the Mexican Foreign Ministry actually handed out booklets and maps showing all" illegal aliens" how to get by once they had illegally entered our country. They were given instruction on how to abuse and use our welfare system, our hospitals and schools.
It really would have been a breath of fresh air if Obama would have publicly told Mr. Calderon that the American people doesn't have to apologize to anyone or any country for seeking to secure a secure southern border. He also should have told Calderon that there will be no apologizes for being concerned about the outrageous costs of illegal alien immigration that is being brought down on our institutions and services in the USA.
In winding up his cozy, fuzzy talks with Mr. Calderon Obama should have presented a bill and/or statement asking Mexico, (an oil rich) nation to reimburse the American taxpayers for those costs--with payment on demand and immediate.
In addition to Obama's bowing and catering to Calderon he had the audacity to stand before an audience not too long ago and actually make jokes about the Arizona immigration law. His joke went something like this: Senator McCain couldn't make it tonight because he said he is or is not a maverick and we all know what happens in Arizona "Adios Amigo." Here is a man that is supposed to look out for the best interests of the United States and is joking and slamming the state of Arizona and agreeing that"illegal aliens" entering this country is okay. Shame on him!
I personally do not appreciate having our president invite another president from another country here and lecture us United States citizens. President Obama was standing next to Calderon on the lawn of our Whiter House and continually nodding in agreement with every word and statement this incompetent Mexican president said.
It's somewhat surprising that president Obama, the Attorney General of the United States and a number of people in the White House and administration choose to bad mouth the Arizona immigration law yet when asked point blank if he, president Obama has read the law, his answer was "no," and that same response was elicited from the Attorney General of the United States as well as other lawmakers. To me, that really tells me something about how the president and lawmakers go about their every day duties in Washington. They appear to only cherry pick what laws they want to abide by depending on the amount of votes from specific groups and demographics. The president and most of these people are attorneys yet rather than read the law they have already taken a prejudiced stand on an issue. What does that tell you about governing?
Let me elaborate on some information both about the United States and Mexico.
1. Mexico's immigration laws are much, much more severe and punitive that any of the United States law. The law enforcement in Mexico (local, state and federal) have the authority to ascertain the immigration status of "anyone" those police officer may come in contact with.
2. If "anyone" is found to be in Mexico illegally, you are deported as quickly as possible. The kicker, if anyone is found to be have been caught illegally in Mexico for the second time you can will in all likelihood receive a ten year prison sentence.
3. If a person wants to immigrate to Mexico to live (for the sake of me, I don't know why) that person has to prove they have enough money to live on so the person will not be a burden to Mexico's society. Side note: Burden on Mexico's society and system? Are they kidding? Look what Mexico's illegal aliens are doing to our system and society here in the USA.
4. In Mexico, if you sign a document with a name other than your own, you will be sent to prison.
5. You cannot work in Mexico with papers, no exceptions, no excuses.
The above is just a few of the rules you would have to abide by if you went to Mexico. There are many other immigration rules and regulations in Mexico that clearly show their immigration laws are much more stricter than ours here in the USA.
Now, a word about papers that are a requirement in Mexico and that can be asked for at anytime by Mexican law enforcement. I know this specifically because in the past I have traveled to Mexico and I can attest to the local, state and federal police and Mexican military stopping my person and friends and demanding that we show our papers. I and my friends and relatives complied and we didn't bitch about it either.
In regards to our federal immigration law and how it applies to documents the law reads:
[ Every alien, eighteen years of age and over shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration receipt card issued to him.]--
People, that is the language already in our own federal immigration law but when a state like Arizona only wants to enforce the law that is already in existence, president Obama and his minions (without actually reading the Arizona law) take a stand that asking for documents is a bad thing.
Obama smiling and nodding, like a little bobble head, agreed with Mexico's president Calderon and allowed this man to try to dictate USA domestic policy.
Hell, it wasn't too many months ago that president Obama went on his "Apologize and Blame America tirade." Now, he's playing blame games again and continues to belittle the state of Arizona and the rest of the country.Why? For a corrupt government that we continue to shore up with billions of dollars each year?
The Mexican government whose two major exports are drugs and it's poor, uneducated, impoverished citizens has the nerve to lecture the United States and its citizens while our president stands by agreeing wholeheartedly. Calderon sends his illegal aliens into the United States of which 10 percent of all Mexican citizens live in the USA illegally.These illegal aliens at the bequest of Calderon send back to Mexico billions of dollars that keeps Mexico from going under and collapsing.
It wasn't to many decades ago that we forgave Mexico's debt to the United States worth billions of dollars. Mexico begged and pleaded with the USA for decades asking for more and more money. Mexico built up a massive debt and promised to repay any loans and our squeamish politicians didn't even put any strings on the massive amounts of money we were giving to Mexico even though Mexico is one of the most oil rich countries in the world. Result? Mexico reneged on the debt and we taxpayers took the hit as our lawmakers decided to forgive the debt to Mexico. I think that we have been propping up Mexico for much too long now. What do you think?
To rub salt in the wound of all Americans regarding the Arizona immigration law president Obama met with the Director of Homeland Security and made a decision not to have ICE pick up and process any illegal aliens that are arrested in Arizona. With this selfish move by the administration and Homeland Security I can only conclude that this refusal to have ICE pick up and process illegal aliens a under SB1070 is vindictive and an act of spite leading to Obama's desire to enact amnesty for illegal aliens. It looks like that the United States goal is to erase the border between the USA and Mexico and that is a bad idea.
Mr.President, Mr. Attorney General and White House administrators and to all lawmakers (mostly Democrats in this case) I would suggest before you add your two cents to any issue that all of you at least read the law and/or issue before opening your mouth for or against it. Do not deny and acknowledge that the Feds already have a documents and "show me your papers" law on the books. Maybe you should read that too. I submit that Arizona is doing nothing more that enforcing the laws that currently exist, laws that the administration has chose to ignore in favor of voting blocs. Amnesty, like prohibition, doesn't work. It has been tried by a past president and it failed miserably through lies and deception on the part of our lawmakers.- And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
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?
When it comes to the immigration issue President Obama is forfeiting quite a bit of his goodwill, trust and credibility with the American people. It seems to me that he's ashamed of Americans, particularly the American citizen. It wasn't too long ago when he flew across the world and make apologies for possible sins that the Americans committed abroad. Now, he stands on a stage with Mexican president Felipe Calderon and slams and slams away at all Arizona residents for supporting a state law that makes it illegal to be in the USA illegally.He condemned Arizona' s crackdown on illegal aliens. Obama showed strong solidarity with Mr. Calderon.
The Mexican president was treated to a majestic welcome on the South Lawn and 200 people were invited to the event where president Obama showed and voiced strong USA support for Calderon's government.
The Mexican President was smiling and showed approval that President Obama chose to scold and belittle the politicians and residents of Arizona and the citizens of the United States. Instead of criticizing those "illegal aliens" who crawl and slither into our country and place a very large burden on our American schools, social system and health care he chose to cozy up to Calderon.
Calderon says that he disagrees very strongly with the Arizona immigration law. He said "it is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree but also introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement." And believe it or not all of the Democrats in the audience rose with loud cheers of agreement. In this case, I agree with Senator McCain and other lawmakers when they say that: "it was unfortunate and disappointing that the president of Mexico chose to criticize the state of Arizona by weighing in on a U.S. domestic policy issue during a trip that was meant to reaffirm relationships between our two countries.
Even in light of the majority of the polls showing that most Americans and even those of Mexican heritage (who came here legally) support the Arizona law President Obama intends to have his Justice Department intimidate the state of Arizona and it residents who want nothing more than to have our immigration laws enforced.
Obama and Calderon pledged to create a safer border. Oh yeah, where have you heard that before? Most every time representatives of the two countries meet they say the same thing. First thing out of their mouth is: "We need safer borders." But it's been all talk and no action and that has been the operating procedure since President Reagan gave amnesty to millions of "illegal aliens" decades ago.
I submit that if you believe that President Obama is really interested or serious about stemming the massive flow of illegal aliens invading our sovereign borders, you're wrong!
There are a number of his political advocates and supporters who embrace the illegal border invasion. What has the Mexican government ever did to stop the illegal alien from illegally entering the USA? Nothing! In fact, the Mexican Foreign Ministry actually handed out booklets and maps showing all" illegal aliens" how to get by once they had illegally entered our country. They were given instruction on how to abuse and use our welfare system, our hospitals and schools.
It really would have been a breath of fresh air if Obama would have publicly told Mr. Calderon that the American people doesn't have to apologize to anyone or any country for seeking to secure a secure southern border. He also should have told Calderon that there will be no apologizes for being concerned about the outrageous costs of illegal alien immigration that is being brought down on our institutions and services in the USA.
In winding up his cozy, fuzzy talks with Mr. Calderon Obama should have presented a bill and/or statement asking Mexico, (an oil rich) nation to reimburse the American taxpayers for those costs--with payment on demand and immediate.
In addition to Obama's bowing and catering to Calderon he had the audacity to stand before an audience not too long ago and actually make jokes about the Arizona immigration law. His joke went something like this: Senator McCain couldn't make it tonight because he said he is or is not a maverick and we all know what happens in Arizona "Adios Amigo." Here is a man that is supposed to look out for the best interests of the United States and is joking and slamming the state of Arizona and agreeing that"illegal aliens" entering this country is okay. Shame on him!
I personally do not appreciate having our president invite another president from another country here and lecture us United States citizens. President Obama was standing next to Calderon on the lawn of our Whiter House and continually nodding in agreement with every word and statement this incompetent Mexican president said.
It's somewhat surprising that president Obama, the Attorney General of the United States and a number of people in the White House and administration choose to bad mouth the Arizona immigration law yet when asked point blank if he, president Obama has read the law, his answer was "no," and that same response was elicited from the Attorney General of the United States as well as other lawmakers. To me, that really tells me something about how the president and lawmakers go about their every day duties in Washington. They appear to only cherry pick what laws they want to abide by depending on the amount of votes from specific groups and demographics. The president and most of these people are attorneys yet rather than read the law they have already taken a prejudiced stand on an issue. What does that tell you about governing?
Let me elaborate on some information both about the United States and Mexico.
1. Mexico's immigration laws are much, much more severe and punitive that any of the United States law. The law enforcement in Mexico (local, state and federal) have the authority to ascertain the immigration status of "anyone" those police officer may come in contact with.
2. If "anyone" is found to be in Mexico illegally, you are deported as quickly as possible. The kicker, if anyone is found to be have been caught illegally in Mexico for the second time you can will in all likelihood receive a ten year prison sentence.
3. If a person wants to immigrate to Mexico to live (for the sake of me, I don't know why) that person has to prove they have enough money to live on so the person will not be a burden to Mexico's society. Side note: Burden on Mexico's society and system? Are they kidding? Look what Mexico's illegal aliens are doing to our system and society here in the USA.
4. In Mexico, if you sign a document with a name other than your own, you will be sent to prison.
5. You cannot work in Mexico with papers, no exceptions, no excuses.
The above is just a few of the rules you would have to abide by if you went to Mexico. There are many other immigration rules and regulations in Mexico that clearly show their immigration laws are much more stricter than ours here in the USA.
Now, a word about papers that are a requirement in Mexico and that can be asked for at anytime by Mexican law enforcement. I know this specifically because in the past I have traveled to Mexico and I can attest to the local, state and federal police and Mexican military stopping my person and friends and demanding that we show our papers. I and my friends and relatives complied and we didn't bitch about it either.
In regards to our federal immigration law and how it applies to documents the law reads:
[ Every alien, eighteen years of age and over shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration receipt card issued to him.]--
People, that is the language already in our own federal immigration law but when a state like Arizona only wants to enforce the law that is already in existence, president Obama and his minions (without actually reading the Arizona law) take a stand that asking for documents is a bad thing.
Obama smiling and nodding, like a little bobble head, agreed with Mexico's president Calderon and allowed this man to try to dictate USA domestic policy.
Hell, it wasn't too many months ago that president Obama went on his "Apologize and Blame America tirade." Now, he's playing blame games again and continues to belittle the state of Arizona and the rest of the country.Why? For a corrupt government that we continue to shore up with billions of dollars each year?
The Mexican government whose two major exports are drugs and it's poor, uneducated, impoverished citizens has the nerve to lecture the United States and its citizens while our president stands by agreeing wholeheartedly. Calderon sends his illegal aliens into the United States of which 10 percent of all Mexican citizens live in the USA illegally.These illegal aliens at the bequest of Calderon send back to Mexico billions of dollars that keeps Mexico from going under and collapsing.
It wasn't to many decades ago that we forgave Mexico's debt to the United States worth billions of dollars. Mexico begged and pleaded with the USA for decades asking for more and more money. Mexico built up a massive debt and promised to repay any loans and our squeamish politicians didn't even put any strings on the massive amounts of money we were giving to Mexico even though Mexico is one of the most oil rich countries in the world. Result? Mexico reneged on the debt and we taxpayers took the hit as our lawmakers decided to forgive the debt to Mexico. I think that we have been propping up Mexico for much too long now. What do you think?
To rub salt in the wound of all Americans regarding the Arizona immigration law president Obama met with the Director of Homeland Security and made a decision not to have ICE pick up and process any illegal aliens that are arrested in Arizona. With this selfish move by the administration and Homeland Security I can only conclude that this refusal to have ICE pick up and process illegal aliens a under SB1070 is vindictive and an act of spite leading to Obama's desire to enact amnesty for illegal aliens. It looks like that the United States goal is to erase the border between the USA and Mexico and that is a bad idea.
Mr.President, Mr. Attorney General and White House administrators and to all lawmakers (mostly Democrats in this case) I would suggest before you add your two cents to any issue that all of you at least read the law and/or issue before opening your mouth for or against it. Do not deny and acknowledge that the Feds already have a documents and "show me your papers" law on the books. Maybe you should read that too. I submit that Arizona is doing nothing more that enforcing the laws that currently exist, laws that the administration has chose to ignore in favor of voting blocs. Amnesty, like prohibition, doesn't work. It has been tried by a past president and it failed miserably through lies and deception on the part of our lawmakers.- And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Republican Party and Their Sex Problems
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Republicans can be a bunch of hypocrites. They have been proving that over and over again. Republicans have been earning the name (The party of "NO") and rightly so. They have refused to work across the aisle with Democrats since day one of President Obama's presidency . But now these hypocrites extend that party of "no" to their family values and Christian platform. It appears that they also say "no" when it comes to upholding sacred vows.
Many Republican's have fallen by the wayside and many have been protected by their party when they commit adultery, attend sex orgy shows, hire prostitutes, etc., and now, Rep. Mark Souder, (R-Ind) has proven that those that protest too much against some behavior, mores' and morals and lifestyle get caught with their pants down.
Power corrupts and many politicians feel they have the power to commit sex crimes as well as other crimes even though they yell from the mountain top that they are true and faithful and honest. They say that they abhor anyone that commits said crimes , but?
Souder told the Republican Leadership that he will resign from Congress because of the extramarital affair with one of his staffers. I say, good riddance. But the Republican should go further and clean house of the other Republicans that have talked out of both sides of their mouth and lied and committed adultery. Why do they circle the wagons and give some sexual offending adulterers a "pass" and take no action against them but force other creepy offenders to resign?
Look at Ensign, look at Vitter, those creeps did the same thing as Souder and maybe even more bad things but their colleagues make excuses for them and protect them. Republicans, what's your story? Politicians committing adultery or some other form of sexual illegal misbehavior should be gone, no exceptions.- And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
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?
Republicans can be a bunch of hypocrites. They have been proving that over and over again. Republicans have been earning the name (The party of "NO") and rightly so. They have refused to work across the aisle with Democrats since day one of President Obama's presidency . But now these hypocrites extend that party of "no" to their family values and Christian platform. It appears that they also say "no" when it comes to upholding sacred vows.
Many Republican's have fallen by the wayside and many have been protected by their party when they commit adultery, attend sex orgy shows, hire prostitutes, etc., and now, Rep. Mark Souder, (R-Ind) has proven that those that protest too much against some behavior, mores' and morals and lifestyle get caught with their pants down.
Power corrupts and many politicians feel they have the power to commit sex crimes as well as other crimes even though they yell from the mountain top that they are true and faithful and honest. They say that they abhor anyone that commits said crimes , but?
Souder told the Republican Leadership that he will resign from Congress because of the extramarital affair with one of his staffers. I say, good riddance. But the Republican should go further and clean house of the other Republicans that have talked out of both sides of their mouth and lied and committed adultery. Why do they circle the wagons and give some sexual offending adulterers a "pass" and take no action against them but force other creepy offenders to resign?
Look at Ensign, look at Vitter, those creeps did the same thing as Souder and maybe even more bad things but their colleagues make excuses for them and protect them. Republicans, what's your story? Politicians committing adultery or some other form of sexual illegal misbehavior should be gone, no exceptions.- And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Obama Drops The Ball Again- I Thought He Was A Good Ball Player: I Guess He's Slipping in Oil.
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
President Obama is letting the country down when it come to the Gulf oil spill disaster. It's been approximately thirty-two(32) days since this catastrophe occurred.
From day one of this oil spill Obama has been pampering and coddling British Petroleum. He has consistently relied on BP to solve the problem and stop the oil leak.
This Gulf oil leak is still gushing 5,000 barrels of oil a day( and according to BP it may even be much more than that) while at the same time telling the administration that the new fix (a tube) inserted into the leak is stopping 5,000 barrels of oil a day. However, BP's own video of the leak beneath the ocean shows an enormous amount of oil still gushing out. If 5,000 barrels of oil is leaking per day and the BP fix says that it is stopping 5,0000 barrels a day - -my math should read, zero oil leaking. I would suggest that BP's fuzzy math is wrong. Still, Obama puts his faith in British Petroleum.
Obama accepts BP's figures on the measurements and quantities of oil leaking. This President failed to send the administrations own government people to the scene and calculate the measurements. He just recently called on the head of the Coast Guard the other day and that person said: We will send our own measurement devices to the ocean floor if and when we know how to do that. Can you believe it? The Coast Guard has no knowledge of how to send a measuring device into the ocean depths but the administration was confident enough to let British Petroleum sink oil wells miles beneath the ocean without any sort of plan to measure and safely monitor the wells.
Now Obama is letting BP release millions of gallons of oil dispersant into the ocean without even considering the effect that this dispersant will have on the sea life and environment and the ocean as a whole. The dispersant BP is currently using is called Corexit 9500 and this chemical cocktail being dumped on the sea floor is very, very toxic and the ocean has to put up with this garbage.
The chemical companies in collusion with big oil has been using this chemical for decades and it is even more difficult to really know what makes up this chemical time bomb because the chemical companies keep their formula secret. Even with this scary situation the Obama administration lets BP and these chemical companies abuse and pollute our waters without ever knowing what is being dumped and spewed into the ocean. Me, and many scientists are alarmed and surprised that the EPA allowed British Petroleum to use these dispersants on the Gulf floor because their use in deep water has never, ever been tried before.
The United Kingdom banned the same dispersant that BP is now dumping into the sea. This dispersant is also being manufactured and sold by affiliates of British Petroleum. Talk about a conflict of interest, wow! Allowing BP and it's oil and chemical partners supervise this Gulf spill is having the fox guard the hen house.
The dispersant that was used in the Exxon Valdez 1989 oil spill was hundreds of times less toxic but even that mild dispersant caused residents of Alaska to come down with respiratory problems, kidney problems and liver problems. Dumping this toxic dispersant into the oceans waters is like a doctor giving medication to a patient looking for a cure but instead kills the patient. The old story- "the operation was a success BUT the patient died."
All of these CEO's and administrator's with British Petroleum and the other oil companies involved in this spill should be in jail, right now? Where are all of the subpoenas and charges and handcuffs sucking up these bad guys. Where is Obama and his justice department when we need them? Talk about staying in the shadows? Wow! It looks like Obama doesn't want to come out and play.
First and foremost, Obama should have, from day one, arrested all of the players with British Petroleum and the oil oil giants who took part in this oil rig disaster. If what they did was not a crime I would like Obama to tell me what it is. He then should have not allowed anyone from British Petroleum to advise and/or act in the resolution in any attempts to stop the oil leak. Instead, he should have used all the technology and might of the government to do their own measurements of the oil being released into he sea. He should have and could have called on the oceanographic institutes and scientists in the private sector to solve the problem. Some of these scientists and institutions even said they would offer their services for FREE but Obama still ties himself to BP. What a shame.
It is evident that the established and recognized scientists and institutes world-wide would be an independent body and would not have an ax to grind like British Petroleum and the oil cartels and some politicians clearly have.
As I stated in previous articles, when all else fails we have the technology, the ability, the might and science of our Navy and NASA to draw upon. Just utilizing the expertise of some NASA scientists who had hands on dealing in deep space would be leaps and bounds over the lame ideas ideas of British Petroleum.
I once said that exploring the deep depths of the ocean floor is not much different that exploring the depths of deep space.In the case of this Gulf oil disaster a fitting phrase comes to mind that is often used when it comes to fixing and/or repairing something. The phrase: "It doesn't take a rocket scientist." My opinion, In this case, yes it does. We have developed more things in the space program that has been a benefit to mankind that one can imagine. So, I say to President Obama, cut British Petroleum loose completely from the attempted oil rig repair and get off your duff and use the Navy and NASA and the experts and scientists from the oceanographic institutes. These are people that deal with problems of such magnitude.
This oil disaster will take decades to clean up and it will cost billions of dollars so there is no further reason for President Obama to drag his feet and pamper the oil execs.
It is a known fact that Congress and the White House has an ongoing "Lewinsky" type relationship with these big oil companies but it has got to stop, if for no other reason but the good of the country and our environmental survival.
Mr. President, if you want to do something with British Petroleum and the oil giants involved in this fiasco I suggest you immediately issue subpoenas and jail the CEO's and their colleagues as quickly as possible. No more Hmm-hawing around.
Mr. President, you need to take charge and take a tough stand. Stop this nonsense of appointing commissions at this point in time. Now is not the time to have a commission and dog and pony show by camera loving politicians spouting off offering their views on what and how this disaster happened. Now is the time to concentrate on STOPPING these leaks below the sea. Mr. President, after the leaking oil is stopped a commission can look into the how's and why's and the politicians can then play the blame games. Now is the time to protect the fragile coastline. Do not continually say Congress will take care of things.- And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
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 is letting the country down when it come to the Gulf oil spill disaster. It's been approximately thirty-two(32) days since this catastrophe occurred.
From day one of this oil spill Obama has been pampering and coddling British Petroleum. He has consistently relied on BP to solve the problem and stop the oil leak.
This Gulf oil leak is still gushing 5,000 barrels of oil a day( and according to BP it may even be much more than that) while at the same time telling the administration that the new fix (a tube) inserted into the leak is stopping 5,000 barrels of oil a day. However, BP's own video of the leak beneath the ocean shows an enormous amount of oil still gushing out. If 5,000 barrels of oil is leaking per day and the BP fix says that it is stopping 5,0000 barrels a day - -my math should read, zero oil leaking. I would suggest that BP's fuzzy math is wrong. Still, Obama puts his faith in British Petroleum.
Obama accepts BP's figures on the measurements and quantities of oil leaking. This President failed to send the administrations own government people to the scene and calculate the measurements. He just recently called on the head of the Coast Guard the other day and that person said: We will send our own measurement devices to the ocean floor if and when we know how to do that. Can you believe it? The Coast Guard has no knowledge of how to send a measuring device into the ocean depths but the administration was confident enough to let British Petroleum sink oil wells miles beneath the ocean without any sort of plan to measure and safely monitor the wells.
Now Obama is letting BP release millions of gallons of oil dispersant into the ocean without even considering the effect that this dispersant will have on the sea life and environment and the ocean as a whole. The dispersant BP is currently using is called Corexit 9500 and this chemical cocktail being dumped on the sea floor is very, very toxic and the ocean has to put up with this garbage.
The chemical companies in collusion with big oil has been using this chemical for decades and it is even more difficult to really know what makes up this chemical time bomb because the chemical companies keep their formula secret. Even with this scary situation the Obama administration lets BP and these chemical companies abuse and pollute our waters without ever knowing what is being dumped and spewed into the ocean. Me, and many scientists are alarmed and surprised that the EPA allowed British Petroleum to use these dispersants on the Gulf floor because their use in deep water has never, ever been tried before.
The United Kingdom banned the same dispersant that BP is now dumping into the sea. This dispersant is also being manufactured and sold by affiliates of British Petroleum. Talk about a conflict of interest, wow! Allowing BP and it's oil and chemical partners supervise this Gulf spill is having the fox guard the hen house.
The dispersant that was used in the Exxon Valdez 1989 oil spill was hundreds of times less toxic but even that mild dispersant caused residents of Alaska to come down with respiratory problems, kidney problems and liver problems. Dumping this toxic dispersant into the oceans waters is like a doctor giving medication to a patient looking for a cure but instead kills the patient. The old story- "the operation was a success BUT the patient died."
All of these CEO's and administrator's with British Petroleum and the other oil companies involved in this spill should be in jail, right now? Where are all of the subpoenas and charges and handcuffs sucking up these bad guys. Where is Obama and his justice department when we need them? Talk about staying in the shadows? Wow! It looks like Obama doesn't want to come out and play.
First and foremost, Obama should have, from day one, arrested all of the players with British Petroleum and the oil oil giants who took part in this oil rig disaster. If what they did was not a crime I would like Obama to tell me what it is. He then should have not allowed anyone from British Petroleum to advise and/or act in the resolution in any attempts to stop the oil leak. Instead, he should have used all the technology and might of the government to do their own measurements of the oil being released into he sea. He should have and could have called on the oceanographic institutes and scientists in the private sector to solve the problem. Some of these scientists and institutions even said they would offer their services for FREE but Obama still ties himself to BP. What a shame.
It is evident that the established and recognized scientists and institutes world-wide would be an independent body and would not have an ax to grind like British Petroleum and the oil cartels and some politicians clearly have.
As I stated in previous articles, when all else fails we have the technology, the ability, the might and science of our Navy and NASA to draw upon. Just utilizing the expertise of some NASA scientists who had hands on dealing in deep space would be leaps and bounds over the lame ideas ideas of British Petroleum.
I once said that exploring the deep depths of the ocean floor is not much different that exploring the depths of deep space.In the case of this Gulf oil disaster a fitting phrase comes to mind that is often used when it comes to fixing and/or repairing something. The phrase: "It doesn't take a rocket scientist." My opinion, In this case, yes it does. We have developed more things in the space program that has been a benefit to mankind that one can imagine. So, I say to President Obama, cut British Petroleum loose completely from the attempted oil rig repair and get off your duff and use the Navy and NASA and the experts and scientists from the oceanographic institutes. These are people that deal with problems of such magnitude.
This oil disaster will take decades to clean up and it will cost billions of dollars so there is no further reason for President Obama to drag his feet and pamper the oil execs.
It is a known fact that Congress and the White House has an ongoing "Lewinsky" type relationship with these big oil companies but it has got to stop, if for no other reason but the good of the country and our environmental survival.
Mr. President, if you want to do something with British Petroleum and the oil giants involved in this fiasco I suggest you immediately issue subpoenas and jail the CEO's and their colleagues as quickly as possible. No more Hmm-hawing around.
Mr. President, you need to take charge and take a tough stand. Stop this nonsense of appointing commissions at this point in time. Now is not the time to have a commission and dog and pony show by camera loving politicians spouting off offering their views on what and how this disaster happened. Now is the time to concentrate on STOPPING these leaks below the sea. Mr. President, after the leaking oil is stopped a commission can look into the how's and why's and the politicians can then play the blame games. Now is the time to protect the fragile coastline. Do not continually say Congress will take care of things.- And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Richard Blumenthal "Misspoke"? He Wants To Be A Senator?
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Connecticut Attorney General and Democratic Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal says that he "misspoke" when he said he fought in the Vietnam war. Blumenthal has been the state's top law enforcement officer since 1991. But as is often said, in the age of Youtube and the internet a person can't hide or disavow statements they have made in the past. In 2008, this guy very clearly and precisely said: "when I served in Vietnam."
Blumenthal also said that "on a few occasions," I have misspoken about my service and I regret it." Really, a few occasions? He also said: "I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country." Blumenthal said that when he "misspoke, "it was" absolutely unintentional.He said they were a few misplaced words: "in" instead of "during."
A New York Times story said that Blumenthal repeatedly distorted his military service. The newspaper went on to say that Blumenthal intimated more than once that he was a victim of the abuse heaped on Vietnam vets upon their return home. There is nothing I can see that even resembles "accidental" when he stand up in front of hundreds of military families and says: "When we returned, we saw nothing like this - leaving the impression that he had once returned from Vietnam. He did not!
This guys insinuation that he served at combat service that didn't happen is a slap in the face and is total disrespect for the sacrifice for those who risked their lives. This folks, is a serious matter.
{CITE:) 2008, Connecticut Post story- While speaking to vets in Shelton, Conn., he said: " When "we" returned from Vietnam, I remember the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse "we" encountered."
Blumenthal received at least five military deferments and joined the Reserves to avoid being sent into combat.This puts him in a class with Dick Cheney. Those five deferments enabled him to stay out of the military between 1965 and 1970. During that time he went to Harvard, studied in England and snagged a cozy job in the Nixon White House and while in the Reserve he worked with the USMC "Toys for Tots" program.
Those men and women who fought and died in Vietnam didn't have any choice as to whether to serve. They had to go. It wasn't a voluntary army like today. But Mr. Blumenthal chose to continually get deferments rather than serve in Vietnam. If he really wanted to serve in Vietnam he could have, without a doubt. So he has no say or right to even infer that he was in Vietnam. A lie is a lie is a lie no matter how much you try to tell everyone you misspoke.
No one is impugning Mr. Blumenthal's service to the country.He like millions of others served in the military, that's a fact. He was a Marine. I and others recognize his service and have no quarrel with that. What I am having a tough time with is his alleged lying about where he served. He did not fight and serve in Vietnam.
His "misspoken" words, as he likes to call them are what I and other would call "lies". When a person who served in the military and then brags, embellishes and even confabulates their service by making statements that they served in a specific unit or theater or received a medal that they did not earn that is wrong. As example,there have been some military vets that claimed they earned a purple heart or bronze star etc., when in fact they did not and that is wrong. It should be noted that some of those vets that did misrepresented their military service was convicted and incarcerated.
In this case Mr. Blumenthal made the statements that he served in Vietnam, when he did not. And now, we have some Democratic lawmakers like Senator Christopher Dodd trying to tell the public what Mr. Blumenthal "meant" to say. Dodd says, What Blumenthal "meant to say", and then Dodd gives his impression of another persons actual statement.
What is this? Someone else telling the public what another person "meant to say?" Blumenthal said what he meant to say. Christ, he said it. He said it not once, not twice but a number of times. I submit that if a person makes a statement and wants to clarify that statement, the person who made the statement should be the one to clarify their own words. They do not need someone else saying "what he meant to say", blah, blah, blah.
It appears he, like some military veterans before him did embellish and elaborate a military service record " above and beyond" of what it really was. So, again, I submit that lawmakers and citizens are not claiming or denying that Mr. Blumenthal served in the U.S.M.C.,I personally commend him for his service but his embellishments relating to his service is what presents a problem for me.
People, I pose this to you: Here is a man that is an attorney. He deals in words and statements, every day, for a living. As an attorney, especially as the top law enforcement officer in his state his words are accepted and expected by the citizens to be clear, accurate and precise. The voters rely on this man to interpret words so as to enforce the laws of the state of Connecticut.
As an attorney he is sworn to tell the truth. Now there is a big question mark as to whether Mr. Blumenthal can be trusted. It's like him asking a witness on the stand " You lied then, so how can we believe you now?" "Were you lying then or are you lying now"? Over his legal career Mr. Blumenthal has probably asked those two questions of hundreds of people in the witness chair in a courtroom.
One misstatement can be seen as a mistake, but, as he says: "On a few occasions I have misspoken about my service," and now he follows that up with- "I regret it."
How many times is a mistake? Two, three, four? How many bites of the apple does one get before it is no longer a mistake. This man is an attorney that clearly learned the difference between the words "in" and "during" while studying law. Now,he regrets it. Only after the truth came out does he regret it. He even tries to rationalize his statements by parsing words like "in" instead of "during"
People that is why we little people seek out the advice of attorneys. We let them review complicated contracts, business dealing and criminal matters to search out each and every word for our protection. If I had an attorney that was so lose with words and failed to think before they made a statement, possibly in court, and then have him tell me that he just misspoke I would be concerned about the man's credibility. I guess we can say Mr. Blumenthal is taking a page from President Clinton's play book when he said something like: I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
The bottom line for me is that if Mr. Blumenthal on more than one occasion did embellish and go so far as to confabulate his military record, for whatever reason, can I trust him and his statements, speeches, etc., to be forthright and true without embellishment or exaggeration? I'd really have to give a lot of thought to this mans misleading claims. These misleading claims tell me a lot about this man's character. - And, that is my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
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?
Connecticut Attorney General and Democratic Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal says that he "misspoke" when he said he fought in the Vietnam war. Blumenthal has been the state's top law enforcement officer since 1991. But as is often said, in the age of Youtube and the internet a person can't hide or disavow statements they have made in the past. In 2008, this guy very clearly and precisely said: "when I served in Vietnam."
Blumenthal also said that "on a few occasions," I have misspoken about my service and I regret it." Really, a few occasions? He also said: "I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country." Blumenthal said that when he "misspoke, "it was" absolutely unintentional.He said they were a few misplaced words: "in" instead of "during."
A New York Times story said that Blumenthal repeatedly distorted his military service. The newspaper went on to say that Blumenthal intimated more than once that he was a victim of the abuse heaped on Vietnam vets upon their return home. There is nothing I can see that even resembles "accidental" when he stand up in front of hundreds of military families and says: "When we returned, we saw nothing like this - leaving the impression that he had once returned from Vietnam. He did not!
This guys insinuation that he served at combat service that didn't happen is a slap in the face and is total disrespect for the sacrifice for those who risked their lives. This folks, is a serious matter.
{CITE:) 2008, Connecticut Post story- While speaking to vets in Shelton, Conn., he said: " When "we" returned from Vietnam, I remember the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse "we" encountered."
Blumenthal received at least five military deferments and joined the Reserves to avoid being sent into combat.This puts him in a class with Dick Cheney. Those five deferments enabled him to stay out of the military between 1965 and 1970. During that time he went to Harvard, studied in England and snagged a cozy job in the Nixon White House and while in the Reserve he worked with the USMC "Toys for Tots" program.
Those men and women who fought and died in Vietnam didn't have any choice as to whether to serve. They had to go. It wasn't a voluntary army like today. But Mr. Blumenthal chose to continually get deferments rather than serve in Vietnam. If he really wanted to serve in Vietnam he could have, without a doubt. So he has no say or right to even infer that he was in Vietnam. A lie is a lie is a lie no matter how much you try to tell everyone you misspoke.
No one is impugning Mr. Blumenthal's service to the country.He like millions of others served in the military, that's a fact. He was a Marine. I and others recognize his service and have no quarrel with that. What I am having a tough time with is his alleged lying about where he served. He did not fight and serve in Vietnam.
His "misspoken" words, as he likes to call them are what I and other would call "lies". When a person who served in the military and then brags, embellishes and even confabulates their service by making statements that they served in a specific unit or theater or received a medal that they did not earn that is wrong. As example,there have been some military vets that claimed they earned a purple heart or bronze star etc., when in fact they did not and that is wrong. It should be noted that some of those vets that did misrepresented their military service was convicted and incarcerated.
In this case Mr. Blumenthal made the statements that he served in Vietnam, when he did not. And now, we have some Democratic lawmakers like Senator Christopher Dodd trying to tell the public what Mr. Blumenthal "meant" to say. Dodd says, What Blumenthal "meant to say", and then Dodd gives his impression of another persons actual statement.
What is this? Someone else telling the public what another person "meant to say?" Blumenthal said what he meant to say. Christ, he said it. He said it not once, not twice but a number of times. I submit that if a person makes a statement and wants to clarify that statement, the person who made the statement should be the one to clarify their own words. They do not need someone else saying "what he meant to say", blah, blah, blah.
It appears he, like some military veterans before him did embellish and elaborate a military service record " above and beyond" of what it really was. So, again, I submit that lawmakers and citizens are not claiming or denying that Mr. Blumenthal served in the U.S.M.C.,I personally commend him for his service but his embellishments relating to his service is what presents a problem for me.
People, I pose this to you: Here is a man that is an attorney. He deals in words and statements, every day, for a living. As an attorney, especially as the top law enforcement officer in his state his words are accepted and expected by the citizens to be clear, accurate and precise. The voters rely on this man to interpret words so as to enforce the laws of the state of Connecticut.
As an attorney he is sworn to tell the truth. Now there is a big question mark as to whether Mr. Blumenthal can be trusted. It's like him asking a witness on the stand " You lied then, so how can we believe you now?" "Were you lying then or are you lying now"? Over his legal career Mr. Blumenthal has probably asked those two questions of hundreds of people in the witness chair in a courtroom.
One misstatement can be seen as a mistake, but, as he says: "On a few occasions I have misspoken about my service," and now he follows that up with- "I regret it."
How many times is a mistake? Two, three, four? How many bites of the apple does one get before it is no longer a mistake. This man is an attorney that clearly learned the difference between the words "in" and "during" while studying law. Now,he regrets it. Only after the truth came out does he regret it. He even tries to rationalize his statements by parsing words like "in" instead of "during"
People that is why we little people seek out the advice of attorneys. We let them review complicated contracts, business dealing and criminal matters to search out each and every word for our protection. If I had an attorney that was so lose with words and failed to think before they made a statement, possibly in court, and then have him tell me that he just misspoke I would be concerned about the man's credibility. I guess we can say Mr. Blumenthal is taking a page from President Clinton's play book when he said something like: I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
The bottom line for me is that if Mr. Blumenthal on more than one occasion did embellish and go so far as to confabulate his military record, for whatever reason, can I trust him and his statements, speeches, etc., to be forthright and true without embellishment or exaggeration? I'd really have to give a lot of thought to this mans misleading claims. These misleading claims tell me a lot about this man's character. - And, that is my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Message To Obama: Disaster In the Gulf
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
The politicians and the Obama administration is still catering to big oil even after the worst environmental disaster in history. For weeks now the lawmakers and the administration have been allowing British Petroleum to call the shots on the supposed clean up in the Gulf of Mexico. As a scientist I disagree with these tactics.
It appears the administration and the politicians that have been gorging at the trough and bowing at the feet of the oil companies in exchange for millions of dollars in contributions are still pandering.
The Interior Department's MMS (Minerals Management Service) has been letting big oil write rules and regulations and the provisions offered for safety on oil rigs. The Wall Street Journal found that the safety record of the U.S. is way off when compared to other nations. That's sad.
The MMS told big oil and drilling firms repeatedly that they had to have a backup system on their (BOP) blowout preventers but the orders were ignored by big oil. The MMS and the administration and law makers allowed big oil to set their rules when it related to safety.
Now the result, the devastation below and on the surface of the sea is enormous. The scope of the damage cannot even be calculated to any certainty. This crude oil spill had permanently infected the world environment. The sea life and even the small organisms that sustain the oceans life source have been harmed beyond comprehension. The food chain from the smallest Amoeba and plankton will cause havoc on seafood all over the world. The large sea creature will eat the smaller ones that are polluted with the oil residue and eventually that will affect people eating the seafood. Need I remind everyone of just one pollutant already in fish? One word, "Mercury."
But what does President Obama and the administration do? They continue to rely on the same people that caused this catastrophic situation, BIG OIL! They continue to ask BP to stop the leak and the Administration is relying on BP to have the answers. What a joke!
What does BP do? They "try" to cover the leak with a large box. That didn't work so they decided to "try" a smaller box called a top hat. That didn't work so they inserted a tube into the leak to recover the oil. They say it is working but it has been estimated that this fix can only recover way less than two percent of the 210,000 plus gallons of oil that is being released into the ocean each and every day. British Petroleum's many attempts to stop this leak is something out of a cartoon movie.
British Petroleum has even considered stuffing golf balls into the leak opening. They also seriously considered stuffing garbage and cut up old tires into the leak. This is business? This is how a company worth billions and billions of dollars approach a serious problem? British Petroleum had their chance. Get them out of the way and let someone else do the job.
I would say that even before these oil companies were allowed to drill deep beneath the ocean the administration should have had the oil companies present a definitive plan showing how they would respond to a deep ocean leak. However, the lawmakers turned a blind eye and accepted BP's word and money as gospel.
If I were in charge this is what I would do: (a) I would immediately put a hold on any deep water drilling anywhere off United States shores. (b) I would tell BP to stand down and get out of the way and let them know that their comic book and cartoon solutions to the problem is not appreciated. (c) I would advise BP that the government would step in, clean up "their" mess and send them a bill when the task is completed. (d) I would go outside the oil industry and hire "independent" scientists and business and industry. I submit that there is more than enough individuals and business in the private sector to quickly clean up British Petroleum's fiasco.
There are excellent scientists and organizations that have been dealing with deep water situations for decades. There are a number of private organizations that have taken exploration and research vehicles to the same ocean depths where this oil leak is occurring. There have been a number of deep diving spheres, diving bells and oceanographic submarines in operation for years and some have submerged themselves to explore the ocean floor for such things as large passenger ships, sunken treasure ships, mapping the ocean floor, etc.
There are oceanographic institutes operating around the world that has the expertise and is more than capable of resolving this problem in a prompt, efficient manner. Sure, it will cost money but hire this technology and expertise and send the bill to British Petroleum.
When all else fails we have our military. We have the technology and ability to attack this problem. Our Navy has various classes of submarines up to and including nuclear capability.
Another suggestion: There have been a number of oil rig explosions over the decades around the world and the solution consistently been to use an explosive device to cap and seal the well.
One of the suggestions I would offer is that an explosive charge being inserted into this underwater oil rig would and could possibly seal the well, stopping the leak. We have explosive warheads and explosive devices that can be interjected into this oil rig by the mentioned scientific submersibles and/ or Navy ships. The United States and other nations have the scientific capability of using robotic devices with arms to safely handle and deliver a package of explosives into the oil rig well.
Remember we in the United States have put robots and devices on the moon to rove about and to gather and collect scientific information. Our space program has used robotic devices to operate both in and outside of the space shuttles and space station. The devices have completed their tasks with reliability and accuracy.
I predict that if the administration would call up the independent scientists, institutes and business industry who actually have the experience of working deep under the ocean and with the backup of the Navy and NASA's space program the problem would be solved in a very short time.
For those that doubt my views and opinions in this matter I would say to them that operating in the deep depths of the ocean is not much different than operating in the deep depths of space.Procedures that were used in space can be adapted to work miles below the oceans surface.
Side Note: A few days ago on a television show, on one of the major channels, the host interviewed a person that had worked for over 30 years in the oil industry. That person also gave his opinion on how BP conducted business and how oil spills of such magnitude could possibly be cleaned up. He said that the current British Petroleum solution is years out of date. The skimmers being used to corral the oil is outdated by decades. The man showed the difference between how Canada handles oil clean up vs. the United States. He displayed one of his gloved hands holding large globules of oil and then he held out his other hand (bare, no glove) and showed oil that was in a powdered form. He held both hands up to the camera and asked the program host, something like: "Which method would you prefer?"
My question-if Canada can have a smooth, clean way to handle oil spills, why not the USA? Does big oil have such a stranglehold on our lawmakers who are collecting millions in contribution dollars that they refuse to act in the best interests of the country. Money talks, everything else walks.
My message to President Obama and the administration: Stop relying on British Petroleum and the big oil industry. Big oils sole interest is only the bottom line, Money! The sooner this administration looks to "independent" scientists and industry with backup from the Navy and NASA, this horrendous situation will come to a prompt conclusion.- And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
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 politicians and the Obama administration is still catering to big oil even after the worst environmental disaster in history. For weeks now the lawmakers and the administration have been allowing British Petroleum to call the shots on the supposed clean up in the Gulf of Mexico. As a scientist I disagree with these tactics.
It appears the administration and the politicians that have been gorging at the trough and bowing at the feet of the oil companies in exchange for millions of dollars in contributions are still pandering.
The Interior Department's MMS (Minerals Management Service) has been letting big oil write rules and regulations and the provisions offered for safety on oil rigs. The Wall Street Journal found that the safety record of the U.S. is way off when compared to other nations. That's sad.
The MMS told big oil and drilling firms repeatedly that they had to have a backup system on their (BOP) blowout preventers but the orders were ignored by big oil. The MMS and the administration and law makers allowed big oil to set their rules when it related to safety.
Now the result, the devastation below and on the surface of the sea is enormous. The scope of the damage cannot even be calculated to any certainty. This crude oil spill had permanently infected the world environment. The sea life and even the small organisms that sustain the oceans life source have been harmed beyond comprehension. The food chain from the smallest Amoeba and plankton will cause havoc on seafood all over the world. The large sea creature will eat the smaller ones that are polluted with the oil residue and eventually that will affect people eating the seafood. Need I remind everyone of just one pollutant already in fish? One word, "Mercury."
But what does President Obama and the administration do? They continue to rely on the same people that caused this catastrophic situation, BIG OIL! They continue to ask BP to stop the leak and the Administration is relying on BP to have the answers. What a joke!
What does BP do? They "try" to cover the leak with a large box. That didn't work so they decided to "try" a smaller box called a top hat. That didn't work so they inserted a tube into the leak to recover the oil. They say it is working but it has been estimated that this fix can only recover way less than two percent of the 210,000 plus gallons of oil that is being released into the ocean each and every day. British Petroleum's many attempts to stop this leak is something out of a cartoon movie.
British Petroleum has even considered stuffing golf balls into the leak opening. They also seriously considered stuffing garbage and cut up old tires into the leak. This is business? This is how a company worth billions and billions of dollars approach a serious problem? British Petroleum had their chance. Get them out of the way and let someone else do the job.
I would say that even before these oil companies were allowed to drill deep beneath the ocean the administration should have had the oil companies present a definitive plan showing how they would respond to a deep ocean leak. However, the lawmakers turned a blind eye and accepted BP's word and money as gospel.
If I were in charge this is what I would do: (a) I would immediately put a hold on any deep water drilling anywhere off United States shores. (b) I would tell BP to stand down and get out of the way and let them know that their comic book and cartoon solutions to the problem is not appreciated. (c) I would advise BP that the government would step in, clean up "their" mess and send them a bill when the task is completed. (d) I would go outside the oil industry and hire "independent" scientists and business and industry. I submit that there is more than enough individuals and business in the private sector to quickly clean up British Petroleum's fiasco.
There are excellent scientists and organizations that have been dealing with deep water situations for decades. There are a number of private organizations that have taken exploration and research vehicles to the same ocean depths where this oil leak is occurring. There have been a number of deep diving spheres, diving bells and oceanographic submarines in operation for years and some have submerged themselves to explore the ocean floor for such things as large passenger ships, sunken treasure ships, mapping the ocean floor, etc.
There are oceanographic institutes operating around the world that has the expertise and is more than capable of resolving this problem in a prompt, efficient manner. Sure, it will cost money but hire this technology and expertise and send the bill to British Petroleum.
When all else fails we have our military. We have the technology and ability to attack this problem. Our Navy has various classes of submarines up to and including nuclear capability.
Another suggestion: There have been a number of oil rig explosions over the decades around the world and the solution consistently been to use an explosive device to cap and seal the well.
One of the suggestions I would offer is that an explosive charge being inserted into this underwater oil rig would and could possibly seal the well, stopping the leak. We have explosive warheads and explosive devices that can be interjected into this oil rig by the mentioned scientific submersibles and/ or Navy ships. The United States and other nations have the scientific capability of using robotic devices with arms to safely handle and deliver a package of explosives into the oil rig well.
Remember we in the United States have put robots and devices on the moon to rove about and to gather and collect scientific information. Our space program has used robotic devices to operate both in and outside of the space shuttles and space station. The devices have completed their tasks with reliability and accuracy.
I predict that if the administration would call up the independent scientists, institutes and business industry who actually have the experience of working deep under the ocean and with the backup of the Navy and NASA's space program the problem would be solved in a very short time.
For those that doubt my views and opinions in this matter I would say to them that operating in the deep depths of the ocean is not much different than operating in the deep depths of space.Procedures that were used in space can be adapted to work miles below the oceans surface.
Side Note: A few days ago on a television show, on one of the major channels, the host interviewed a person that had worked for over 30 years in the oil industry. That person also gave his opinion on how BP conducted business and how oil spills of such magnitude could possibly be cleaned up. He said that the current British Petroleum solution is years out of date. The skimmers being used to corral the oil is outdated by decades. The man showed the difference between how Canada handles oil clean up vs. the United States. He displayed one of his gloved hands holding large globules of oil and then he held out his other hand (bare, no glove) and showed oil that was in a powdered form. He held both hands up to the camera and asked the program host, something like: "Which method would you prefer?"
My question-if Canada can have a smooth, clean way to handle oil spills, why not the USA? Does big oil have such a stranglehold on our lawmakers who are collecting millions in contribution dollars that they refuse to act in the best interests of the country. Money talks, everything else walks.
My message to President Obama and the administration: Stop relying on British Petroleum and the big oil industry. Big oils sole interest is only the bottom line, Money! The sooner this administration looks to "independent" scientists and industry with backup from the Navy and NASA, this horrendous situation will come to a prompt conclusion.- And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Is Sex Adiction A Real Disease?
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
To answer a question by Karyn, from Oklahoma., She asked: Is there such a thing as "sexual addiction?" And, what is my opinion on the subject?
So,-sex addiction. Is it for real? Recently Tiger Woods and Jesse James have claimed they are addicted to sex and that is the reason they committed adultery and bedded women other than their spouse. They went so far as to check themselves into a "sex addiction clinic." Does these clinics work? Do they "cure" a sexual addiction?
Karyn, there are many schools of thought when it comes to sex addiction. Some of these clinics that claim to treat and cure sexual addiction use the old tried and true (AA) Alcoholic Anonymous 12 step program using a tweak or two and substituting the word sex for alcohol while using a secular and religious based approach.
There have been many polls attempting to determine if sexual addiction is a psychiatric and/or psychological condition. The so-called experts across the country and world are sharply divided as to if such an ailment exists.
One poll conducted by Mediscape.com had 70 percent of respondents conclude that "sexual addiction" is not a real and valid psychiatric diagnosis. Another poll offered by Womenshealthmag.com showed that 63 percent of those polled actually believed that men just use that excuse to cheat. Those women rejected the idea that a cheater is really a victim or someone suffering from any disease.
To date, there is no such diagnosis that is recognized in the bible of the health professionals. That bible is the (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders.)
Some of the people treating a sexual addiction disorder sometime blame it on a chemical imbalance, usually dopamine,that occurs in the brain and they theorize the chemical provides a chemical high. Many of these practitioners that have treating clinics say that sex addiction is similar to being dependent on a drug.
Personally, I think these people making such statements are wrong. I have not seen, nor is there any evidence after nearly a century that any chemical change can determine if any one has a sexual addiction. The clinic in Mississippi where Tiger Woods sought treatment apparently favors the chemical dependence theory.
My school of thought is that there are those health care professionals that want to have sexual addiction classified and entered into the (DSM) Manual so they can say, "sexual addiction is a disease" so they have something again to provide another ready stream of money for those saying they can treat it.
I have always held the belief that there are a number of so called diseases currently listed in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual that should have never seen the light of day and classified as a disease in the DSM manual. However, once the alleged ailment is listed those diseases can be treated with psycho-pharmaceuticals by a prescribing physician who in turn can make tens of thousands of dollars or more treating an alleged addiction and/or disease while the drug companies make billions of dollars advertising and promoting an alleged cure-all for the ailment.In this case, if the mental health profession has a supposed diagnosis to cite there will be another drug on the market proclaiming a treatment or a magic bullet for sexual addiction.
My point of view is that when a person is classified with an addiction it gives that person license to gain empathy and sympathy from others and that in turn completely allows that person to distance themselves from taking any personal responsibility for their actions. As long as these clinics and doctors who may or may not have a personal or financial agenda continue to prescribe and medicate the person it provides a clear and present excuse for the person to avoid the reality and consequences of their acts while being enabled by both the public and health profession.
I've counseled many people in my lifetime and I have found that during my therapy sessions which usually include talk therapy, clinical hypnosis and group therapy many men tend to blame their ills on a sexual addiction.
I discuss areas in their life from birth to present time and explore any and all reasons why they themselves choose to have sexual intercourse with women other than their spouse. I have found that there are varied reasons for their actions. Here are just a few:
Something out of their past, even going back to their childhood may have affected their psyche; there have been those men that had early and detrimental interaction with family and friends while growing up; some men have been raised in a very dysfunctional family unit where they claimed and adopted the bad habits and behavior of one or more family members; there were some men that observed the behavior of family and friends which condoned adultery and felt that such acts were common place and acceptable; the man wants to prove to himself that he can attract other women and he wants to know other women see him as still handsome and that he has sexual attraction to other women; or, his complaint is that his marriage is in financial and personal or employment difficulties and he wants to look elsewhere for comfort; he may fear a pending divorce; the man is bored with his marriage and his sex life with his spouse usually saying it is the "same old, same old"; there are those men that are financially comfortable and well off and they love the power of money and know they can have sex with other women because the women have dollar signs in their eyes and the mans belief is money can get them anything they want. These type of men feel entitlement. They have no qualms about expressing that they feel they can have the sex because of their power and their money. There are many rich men in business and politics that exploit this power,---until they get caught.
After being outed these wealthy, powerful men look for a rationalization and there are many in the health community that are ready and willing to act as an enabler to the man and provide a crutch and excuse for the man and often provide a chemical solution by prescribing medications and then state that the man is sick with a disease and requires a rehab clinic. I disagree with that approach.
These men have to face their own reality and be responsible for their dysfunctional behavior. These acts that the man commits are not a disease. I submit that the sexual acts that these men knowingly commit are acts of poor, bad, irresponsible BEHAVIOR.
These men consciously decided to "behave badly" for whatever reason. They know what they are doing is wrong but they decided to choose the wrong path. That is where people like me come in. It is my job to use my therapy techniques to correct their bad, dysfunctional behavior and point out to them ways to correct that behavior while having them acknowledge the areas where they are running amok.
Once the man actually sees where he is using inappropriate behavior to satisfy his own sexual gratification we can actually begin to change his behavior for the better which usually will allow him to get a grip on his life and formulate ways to improve his life and live it to the fullest by avoiding the pitfalls that caused him to commit adultery.
Men watch porn or they go to a prostitute BECAUSE they want too. They have sex with women in addition to their spouse, BECAUSE they want too. Then when caught in those acts, they immediately look for a rationale and that rationalization rears its ugly head as: "I'm addicted, I need help." Help Me!
After being caught with their pants down and their cries of "I'm addicted" they enter a so-called sexual addiction clinic.In addition to unproven drug and medication therapy for a condition that "is not" recognized these clinics sometimes use a technique of porn movies that are shown over and over again to the alleged person suffering from sex addiction so as to desensitize any sexual urges. Does it help? I don't think so. These half baked treatment ideas are akin to treating the sexual pervert, pedophile and predator.
A sexual pervert, pedophile or predator continue to molest and abuse small children over and over again...until they are caught. Once again, they do it because THEY WANT TOO. They like what they are doing, they enjoy the sexual acts. They already know that once they are caught they will be sent to a facility where they are also given a treatment of watching movies and other programs to desensitize their urges.
These sexual pedophiles and predators also receive treatments by having a plethysmograph (a medical measurement device) attached to their private body part and when the man gets aroused they are subjected to a small electrical shock. Does these treatments work on the sexual predator? A resounding "NO."
It has been shown over and over again that a pedophile or predator cannot be "cured." These people actually like what they are doing. It's pleasure for them. Usually when the sexual predator is released from treatment they revert back to their old ways and commit sexual assaults again until they get caught again.
So, treatment for someone saying that they are a sex addict and proclaim that they have a disease? Personally, I think not. For that man claiming he has a sex addiction I suggest that he has to face his own failing and realize that he, in fact, does not have an ADDICTION, but instead, has a PROBLEM,a problem of his own making. What do you do with a problem? You solve a problem. We all learned that from first grade and we all know how to solve problems and we do that every day throughout our entire life. Granted, a person may need help solving a problem just as a student needs help solving a problem from their teacher in school but the problem can be and should be solved. That's where people like me enter the picture. We help you see your problem, we help you analyze your problem and we help you SOLVE your problem.
In conclusion - personally I side with the camp of professionals around the world that believe that a "sexual addiction" diagnosis is only a way for someone to rationalize their bad behavior and does not want to correct their own failings.
Remember, when dealing with the psyche and the mind in general and when all of the opinions, any diagnosis, explanations and reasoning presented by the psychiatrists and psychologists is all said and done, "it's all SUBJECTIVE." The mental health profession is a profession rift with "I think" and "In my professional opinion" along with other vague statements that cannot provide a definitive answer to any individuals " state of mind" and does not offer with any medical certainty any conclusions as to what another person is thinking.
There are those in the mental health community that say psychiatry and psychology is a SCIENCE. I take issue with that view. I submit that psychiatry and psychology is more of an ART instead of science. To prove my point,--just look at all of the battles that occur in the judicial system and played out in courtrooms all across this country each and every day. It's the battle of the so-called experts who command fees from at least $5,0000 to $10,000 a day for their testimony. When people say, "It's not about the money", my reply would be: "It's always about the money." - And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
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?
To answer a question by Karyn, from Oklahoma., She asked: Is there such a thing as "sexual addiction?" And, what is my opinion on the subject?
So,-sex addiction. Is it for real? Recently Tiger Woods and Jesse James have claimed they are addicted to sex and that is the reason they committed adultery and bedded women other than their spouse. They went so far as to check themselves into a "sex addiction clinic." Does these clinics work? Do they "cure" a sexual addiction?
Karyn, there are many schools of thought when it comes to sex addiction. Some of these clinics that claim to treat and cure sexual addiction use the old tried and true (AA) Alcoholic Anonymous 12 step program using a tweak or two and substituting the word sex for alcohol while using a secular and religious based approach.
There have been many polls attempting to determine if sexual addiction is a psychiatric and/or psychological condition. The so-called experts across the country and world are sharply divided as to if such an ailment exists.
One poll conducted by Mediscape.com had 70 percent of respondents conclude that "sexual addiction" is not a real and valid psychiatric diagnosis. Another poll offered by Womenshealthmag.com showed that 63 percent of those polled actually believed that men just use that excuse to cheat. Those women rejected the idea that a cheater is really a victim or someone suffering from any disease.
To date, there is no such diagnosis that is recognized in the bible of the health professionals. That bible is the (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders.)
Some of the people treating a sexual addiction disorder sometime blame it on a chemical imbalance, usually dopamine,that occurs in the brain and they theorize the chemical provides a chemical high. Many of these practitioners that have treating clinics say that sex addiction is similar to being dependent on a drug.
Personally, I think these people making such statements are wrong. I have not seen, nor is there any evidence after nearly a century that any chemical change can determine if any one has a sexual addiction. The clinic in Mississippi where Tiger Woods sought treatment apparently favors the chemical dependence theory.
My school of thought is that there are those health care professionals that want to have sexual addiction classified and entered into the (DSM) Manual so they can say, "sexual addiction is a disease" so they have something again to provide another ready stream of money for those saying they can treat it.
I have always held the belief that there are a number of so called diseases currently listed in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual that should have never seen the light of day and classified as a disease in the DSM manual. However, once the alleged ailment is listed those diseases can be treated with psycho-pharmaceuticals by a prescribing physician who in turn can make tens of thousands of dollars or more treating an alleged addiction and/or disease while the drug companies make billions of dollars advertising and promoting an alleged cure-all for the ailment.In this case, if the mental health profession has a supposed diagnosis to cite there will be another drug on the market proclaiming a treatment or a magic bullet for sexual addiction.
My point of view is that when a person is classified with an addiction it gives that person license to gain empathy and sympathy from others and that in turn completely allows that person to distance themselves from taking any personal responsibility for their actions. As long as these clinics and doctors who may or may not have a personal or financial agenda continue to prescribe and medicate the person it provides a clear and present excuse for the person to avoid the reality and consequences of their acts while being enabled by both the public and health profession.
I've counseled many people in my lifetime and I have found that during my therapy sessions which usually include talk therapy, clinical hypnosis and group therapy many men tend to blame their ills on a sexual addiction.
I discuss areas in their life from birth to present time and explore any and all reasons why they themselves choose to have sexual intercourse with women other than their spouse. I have found that there are varied reasons for their actions. Here are just a few:
Something out of their past, even going back to their childhood may have affected their psyche; there have been those men that had early and detrimental interaction with family and friends while growing up; some men have been raised in a very dysfunctional family unit where they claimed and adopted the bad habits and behavior of one or more family members; there were some men that observed the behavior of family and friends which condoned adultery and felt that such acts were common place and acceptable; the man wants to prove to himself that he can attract other women and he wants to know other women see him as still handsome and that he has sexual attraction to other women; or, his complaint is that his marriage is in financial and personal or employment difficulties and he wants to look elsewhere for comfort; he may fear a pending divorce; the man is bored with his marriage and his sex life with his spouse usually saying it is the "same old, same old"; there are those men that are financially comfortable and well off and they love the power of money and know they can have sex with other women because the women have dollar signs in their eyes and the mans belief is money can get them anything they want. These type of men feel entitlement. They have no qualms about expressing that they feel they can have the sex because of their power and their money. There are many rich men in business and politics that exploit this power,---until they get caught.
After being outed these wealthy, powerful men look for a rationalization and there are many in the health community that are ready and willing to act as an enabler to the man and provide a crutch and excuse for the man and often provide a chemical solution by prescribing medications and then state that the man is sick with a disease and requires a rehab clinic. I disagree with that approach.
These men have to face their own reality and be responsible for their dysfunctional behavior. These acts that the man commits are not a disease. I submit that the sexual acts that these men knowingly commit are acts of poor, bad, irresponsible BEHAVIOR.
These men consciously decided to "behave badly" for whatever reason. They know what they are doing is wrong but they decided to choose the wrong path. That is where people like me come in. It is my job to use my therapy techniques to correct their bad, dysfunctional behavior and point out to them ways to correct that behavior while having them acknowledge the areas where they are running amok.
Once the man actually sees where he is using inappropriate behavior to satisfy his own sexual gratification we can actually begin to change his behavior for the better which usually will allow him to get a grip on his life and formulate ways to improve his life and live it to the fullest by avoiding the pitfalls that caused him to commit adultery.
Men watch porn or they go to a prostitute BECAUSE they want too. They have sex with women in addition to their spouse, BECAUSE they want too. Then when caught in those acts, they immediately look for a rationale and that rationalization rears its ugly head as: "I'm addicted, I need help." Help Me!
After being caught with their pants down and their cries of "I'm addicted" they enter a so-called sexual addiction clinic.In addition to unproven drug and medication therapy for a condition that "is not" recognized these clinics sometimes use a technique of porn movies that are shown over and over again to the alleged person suffering from sex addiction so as to desensitize any sexual urges. Does it help? I don't think so. These half baked treatment ideas are akin to treating the sexual pervert, pedophile and predator.
A sexual pervert, pedophile or predator continue to molest and abuse small children over and over again...until they are caught. Once again, they do it because THEY WANT TOO. They like what they are doing, they enjoy the sexual acts. They already know that once they are caught they will be sent to a facility where they are also given a treatment of watching movies and other programs to desensitize their urges.
These sexual pedophiles and predators also receive treatments by having a plethysmograph (a medical measurement device) attached to their private body part and when the man gets aroused they are subjected to a small electrical shock. Does these treatments work on the sexual predator? A resounding "NO."
It has been shown over and over again that a pedophile or predator cannot be "cured." These people actually like what they are doing. It's pleasure for them. Usually when the sexual predator is released from treatment they revert back to their old ways and commit sexual assaults again until they get caught again.
So, treatment for someone saying that they are a sex addict and proclaim that they have a disease? Personally, I think not. For that man claiming he has a sex addiction I suggest that he has to face his own failing and realize that he, in fact, does not have an ADDICTION, but instead, has a PROBLEM,a problem of his own making. What do you do with a problem? You solve a problem. We all learned that from first grade and we all know how to solve problems and we do that every day throughout our entire life. Granted, a person may need help solving a problem just as a student needs help solving a problem from their teacher in school but the problem can be and should be solved. That's where people like me enter the picture. We help you see your problem, we help you analyze your problem and we help you SOLVE your problem.
In conclusion - personally I side with the camp of professionals around the world that believe that a "sexual addiction" diagnosis is only a way for someone to rationalize their bad behavior and does not want to correct their own failings.
Remember, when dealing with the psyche and the mind in general and when all of the opinions, any diagnosis, explanations and reasoning presented by the psychiatrists and psychologists is all said and done, "it's all SUBJECTIVE." The mental health profession is a profession rift with "I think" and "In my professional opinion" along with other vague statements that cannot provide a definitive answer to any individuals " state of mind" and does not offer with any medical certainty any conclusions as to what another person is thinking.
There are those in the mental health community that say psychiatry and psychology is a SCIENCE. I take issue with that view. I submit that psychiatry and psychology is more of an ART instead of science. To prove my point,--just look at all of the battles that occur in the judicial system and played out in courtrooms all across this country each and every day. It's the battle of the so-called experts who command fees from at least $5,0000 to $10,000 a day for their testimony. When people say, "It's not about the money", my reply would be: "It's always about the money." - And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Thursday, May 6, 2010
USA Is On The Same Slippery Slope As Greece-Wake Up!
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Today the Dow took a 1000 point plunge but finally leveled off and suffered a loss of 350 points.It was one of the biggest, if not the largest one day loss in the history of the DOW. Why? One word, GREECE.
Europeans efforts to bail out Greece, a country that has over spent and lied about their actual economic ratings for decades is ongoing. European countries like Germany having to bailout Greece to the tune of at least $145 billion dollars is ridiculous but countries like Germany say it has to be done. Germany's ante up is about $29.5 billion dollars and other countries have to pony up billions too.
The sad part about this situation in Greece is that it should never have occurred but because of Greece and its very lucrative and liberal "public-sector" employees salaries, pensions and bonus and benefits packages it literally bought the country to its knees.
Greece made this disaster, their debt crisis, a global problems with implications that can't be measured as yet. Shame on Greece! They spent more on their "public- sector" that they could have ever expected to afford. After doing that the government actually lied about the situation. For example, last year Greece said that their deficit wasn't 3.7 percent of the gross domestic product as they promised it was. Instead, it was really 12.7 percent. What a lie to the countries of the world.--
Currently the "public-sector" employee wages, pensions, and retirements benefits eat up one-half of the Greek national budget. During the past decade these greedy public-sector employees have seen their pay double. These public-sector employees receive large bonuses, extra time off and they get an extra two months pay for whatever reason they choose to claim it for. Remember, this doesn't even take into account their fat pensions. There have been reports that some pubic-sector employees in Greece who had retired at about age 60, are receiving pension payments higher that the actual salary they were making when they left their job a few years earlier.
I say that when a debt ridden government like Greece Portugal and Spain pay public-sector employees the outrageous salaries, retirement benefits, bonuses and pensions they have been squandering for decades they deserve what they get.
The Greeks actions say a lot as to this "ONE WORLD ORDER that our leaders of the world want. These world leaders introduced the Euro (one currency) for the European community and now when Greece flops around like a dying fish out of water their governments actions effect all of Europe. The Euro dropped by leaps and bounds today putting the entire European community in a downward slide.
I would think that if the Euro was never introduced as "one currency" for all of Europe, it would be much better place today.
When each and every country had their own currency world trade and commerce was sailing along just fine. When each country relied on their own currency there were stable exchange rates and every country in the world adjusted and allowed for the exchange rates. If any country saw troubles on the horizon involving their currency it didn't affect an entire world community. But look at this so-called One World Order. I submit that there is no order in the world right now.
I would like to see each country in the world have their own secure borders and each country should have have their own currency and if and when another sloppy, incompetent government like Greece gets into trouble that they brought on themselves, they should be required to adjust their deficits, budgets and economy accordingly within their own sovereign country.
If Greece and other countries made the decision decades ago to over pay public-sector workers to such a degree that it brought its country to its knees it should be able to use its own government resources to cease such obscene payments and stabilize their country and currency.
The rest of the world shouldn't have to bailout out another country. These bailout actions will only put all countries on a slippery slope to economic devastation. If a country cannot stand on its own two feet that is their problem.
Side Note: If our country continues on the path it is walking right now, we could be another Greece. The USA is currently borrowing from countries like China as if we were a drunken sailor and as to the main problem that brought down Greece, which was obscene "public-sector" wages, retirements, bonuses, and pensions is why we too may be in the same financial and economic abyss.
Examples: Nevada pubic-sector employees are some of the highest paid in the nation, there are cities paying garbage men close to $200,000 a year, commuter rail workers in New York City make an average wage of $120,000 a year and those employees can retire with a full generous, fat cat pension at only 55 years old.
I would say that there are many states and localities here in the USA that are on the brink of bankruptcy only because of the obscene public-sector salaries, bonuses, retirement benefits and pensions. Their powerful unions set up contracts, in private, behind closed doors in collusion with lawmakers who allow these public-sector employees receive, annual step increases, annual cost of living increases ranging from 4 to 9 percent and manipulated retirement and pension benefits. And yes, like Greek pensioners some of these public-sector retirees in our cities and states after a few years off of the job are actually making more that they had been making in salary on their job. That shouldn't be!
Another example is the cash strapped state of California. They gave away the store to pubic-sector employees for decades "and continue" to do so. Now look where they are at! California is on the verge of bankruptcy.
California is whining to the Feds for a bailout for their state so that they can continue their large, bloated payouts to these greedy pubic employees. It appears the governor of California and/or the state lawmakers have no fortitude to reduce and stop the leeching of taxpayer money in favor of the public employees of the state. California wouldn't need additional money from the Feds if they would take control of their own budget and say "no" to the public employee demands. Instead, the Governor and state lawmakers continue to throw good money after bad.
People, public-sector employees in California like the teachers and corrections officers are the highest paid workers in the entire United States. These union groups gorge on these fat, lucrative,guaranteed wage,retirement and pension benefits like a vampire would gorge on a human.
We could be another Greece in the near future if our lawmakers does not start revising public-sector union contracts in most every city, county and state in the nation. The lawmakers have to immediately take steps:
*Set up reasonable starting wages with only two or three step increases over the years of employment for that public-sector worker.
* Let the Public-Sector employee retire at 65 years of age instead of of 55 years of age.
* Eliminate all annual cost of living increases (COLA's). The step increases should be more than sufficient. People working in the private sector cannot depend on annual cost of living increases.
* Revise any and all retirement/pension plans for all pubic-sector employees requiring them to go into a (401k) retirement plan like all those people who work in the private sector.
The government(s) Federal State, County and Municipal- have to bring wages, benefits and pension for all pubic-sector employees in line with what people in the private sector receive. No more, no less.
I suggest that if our government lawmakers take these few suggestions outlined herein and put them into action it would resurrect many ailing states and localities around the nation and put them back on the road to success and prosperity.-And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
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?
Today the Dow took a 1000 point plunge but finally leveled off and suffered a loss of 350 points.It was one of the biggest, if not the largest one day loss in the history of the DOW. Why? One word, GREECE.
Europeans efforts to bail out Greece, a country that has over spent and lied about their actual economic ratings for decades is ongoing. European countries like Germany having to bailout Greece to the tune of at least $145 billion dollars is ridiculous but countries like Germany say it has to be done. Germany's ante up is about $29.5 billion dollars and other countries have to pony up billions too.
The sad part about this situation in Greece is that it should never have occurred but because of Greece and its very lucrative and liberal "public-sector" employees salaries, pensions and bonus and benefits packages it literally bought the country to its knees.
Greece made this disaster, their debt crisis, a global problems with implications that can't be measured as yet. Shame on Greece! They spent more on their "public- sector" that they could have ever expected to afford. After doing that the government actually lied about the situation. For example, last year Greece said that their deficit wasn't 3.7 percent of the gross domestic product as they promised it was. Instead, it was really 12.7 percent. What a lie to the countries of the world.--
Currently the "public-sector" employee wages, pensions, and retirements benefits eat up one-half of the Greek national budget. During the past decade these greedy public-sector employees have seen their pay double. These public-sector employees receive large bonuses, extra time off and they get an extra two months pay for whatever reason they choose to claim it for. Remember, this doesn't even take into account their fat pensions. There have been reports that some pubic-sector employees in Greece who had retired at about age 60, are receiving pension payments higher that the actual salary they were making when they left their job a few years earlier.
I say that when a debt ridden government like Greece Portugal and Spain pay public-sector employees the outrageous salaries, retirement benefits, bonuses and pensions they have been squandering for decades they deserve what they get.
The Greeks actions say a lot as to this "ONE WORLD ORDER that our leaders of the world want. These world leaders introduced the Euro (one currency) for the European community and now when Greece flops around like a dying fish out of water their governments actions effect all of Europe. The Euro dropped by leaps and bounds today putting the entire European community in a downward slide.
I would think that if the Euro was never introduced as "one currency" for all of Europe, it would be much better place today.
When each and every country had their own currency world trade and commerce was sailing along just fine. When each country relied on their own currency there were stable exchange rates and every country in the world adjusted and allowed for the exchange rates. If any country saw troubles on the horizon involving their currency it didn't affect an entire world community. But look at this so-called One World Order. I submit that there is no order in the world right now.
I would like to see each country in the world have their own secure borders and each country should have have their own currency and if and when another sloppy, incompetent government like Greece gets into trouble that they brought on themselves, they should be required to adjust their deficits, budgets and economy accordingly within their own sovereign country.
If Greece and other countries made the decision decades ago to over pay public-sector workers to such a degree that it brought its country to its knees it should be able to use its own government resources to cease such obscene payments and stabilize their country and currency.
The rest of the world shouldn't have to bailout out another country. These bailout actions will only put all countries on a slippery slope to economic devastation. If a country cannot stand on its own two feet that is their problem.
Side Note: If our country continues on the path it is walking right now, we could be another Greece. The USA is currently borrowing from countries like China as if we were a drunken sailor and as to the main problem that brought down Greece, which was obscene "public-sector" wages, retirements, bonuses, and pensions is why we too may be in the same financial and economic abyss.
Examples: Nevada pubic-sector employees are some of the highest paid in the nation, there are cities paying garbage men close to $200,000 a year, commuter rail workers in New York City make an average wage of $120,000 a year and those employees can retire with a full generous, fat cat pension at only 55 years old.
I would say that there are many states and localities here in the USA that are on the brink of bankruptcy only because of the obscene public-sector salaries, bonuses, retirement benefits and pensions. Their powerful unions set up contracts, in private, behind closed doors in collusion with lawmakers who allow these public-sector employees receive, annual step increases, annual cost of living increases ranging from 4 to 9 percent and manipulated retirement and pension benefits. And yes, like Greek pensioners some of these public-sector retirees in our cities and states after a few years off of the job are actually making more that they had been making in salary on their job. That shouldn't be!
Another example is the cash strapped state of California. They gave away the store to pubic-sector employees for decades "and continue" to do so. Now look where they are at! California is on the verge of bankruptcy.
California is whining to the Feds for a bailout for their state so that they can continue their large, bloated payouts to these greedy pubic employees. It appears the governor of California and/or the state lawmakers have no fortitude to reduce and stop the leeching of taxpayer money in favor of the public employees of the state. California wouldn't need additional money from the Feds if they would take control of their own budget and say "no" to the public employee demands. Instead, the Governor and state lawmakers continue to throw good money after bad.
People, public-sector employees in California like the teachers and corrections officers are the highest paid workers in the entire United States. These union groups gorge on these fat, lucrative,guaranteed wage,retirement and pension benefits like a vampire would gorge on a human.
We could be another Greece in the near future if our lawmakers does not start revising public-sector union contracts in most every city, county and state in the nation. The lawmakers have to immediately take steps:
*Set up reasonable starting wages with only two or three step increases over the years of employment for that public-sector worker.
* Let the Public-Sector employee retire at 65 years of age instead of of 55 years of age.
* Eliminate all annual cost of living increases (COLA's). The step increases should be more than sufficient. People working in the private sector cannot depend on annual cost of living increases.
* Revise any and all retirement/pension plans for all pubic-sector employees requiring them to go into a (401k) retirement plan like all those people who work in the private sector.
The government(s) Federal State, County and Municipal- have to bring wages, benefits and pension for all pubic-sector employees in line with what people in the private sector receive. No more, no less.
I suggest that if our government lawmakers take these few suggestions outlined herein and put them into action it would resurrect many ailing states and localities around the nation and put them back on the road to success and prosperity.-And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)