Friday, May 22, 2015
BIRTH TOURISM SCAM- DROPPING A BABY ON U.S. SOIL FOR BENEFITS
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
There is a scheme running rampant that allows pregnant Chinese women to come to the U.S. on bogus visas. And, the Congress and Fed's sit back and let this happen. But occasionally they do bust some of the fraud rings. Recently in southern California the Feds decided to target "BIRTH TOURISM" where Chinese pregnant women travel to the U.S. on fraudulent visas so that their children will be born in the United States. The illegal operators charge the Chinese women tens of thousands of dollars that guide expectant mothers through the process of obtaining fraudulent tourist visas and coaching them on how to successfully make their way into the U.S. and then housing them for months as they wait to give birth.
Many agencies advertise out in the open and run an ad stating: "maternity hotels OR birthing centers" offering the women assistance in getting their newborns a U.S. passport and telling the women of all the wonderful things that come with American citizenship, public education and immigration benefits for parents.The illegal operators help the pregnant women falsify records for their visa screening and coach them on how to lie to say they are traveling to the U.S., as tourists.
Folks, just one affidavit from the Feds indicated that about 40,000 of 300,000 children born to foreign citizens in the U.S. each year were products of "Birth Tourism." Note: many of the women were told to enter the United States through popular destinations such as Hawaii, Los Angeles and Las Vegas, make and book tour packages, hotel reservations to make their stories convincing, according to a southern California based operation known as: "YOU WIN USA."
Keep in mind this BIRTH TOURISM scam is not only Chinese women, even through they are one of the biggest offenders. Women from Korea, Turkey Taiwan have also been caught up i the round up. And, lets not forget the Hispanics from Mexico that continually shove pregnant women though the wire, fences, and in car trunks at the U.S. southern border so their babies can be born in the United States. The people from Mexico and South America set the standard for fraudulent birth tourism years ago. Is it any wonder that immigrants from other nations followed suit?
People, my personal feelings is that Congress should finally get together and sing from the same hymn book and make it law of the land that anchor babies are no longer citizens of the U.S. They should be made a citizen of their ORIGIN country and their parents birth country. I say, ENOUGH is ENOUGH. It's time for our lawmakers to act and stop this unwarranted assault on our soil by cheating, lying immigrants who expect all the benefits and freebies of being a citizen of these United States. Plus, we, in America CANNOT keep absorbing the flow of the hundreds of thousands a year of the BIRTHING TOURISM scam.
I would suggest that all of my readers write, email and telephone their lawmakers in Washington and DEMAND that Congress close the loophole which allows a baby to become a citizen of the U.S. just because a mother comes here pregnant and drops the baby on our soil. And, -- that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
BRADLEY W., KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Sunday, May 3, 2015
FDA ENDS BLOOD BAN ON GAYS and BISEXUALS -THAT'S CRAZY.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
The FDA ended a blood ban on donations made by gays and bisexuals and also added a celibacy rule. What? Regulators will "recommend" those gay potential donors remain "celibate for a year BEFORE giving blood. What a poor, crazy rule is this? How does one monitor and determine if the gay person has indeed been celibate for a year? How does one prove it?
It should be noted that from some of my sources there are a number of gay men who donate blood and intentionally lie when asked about their sexual orientation. That's bad news, wouldn't you say?
Are the blood banks that hard up for blood donations? Personally, I would like to see the ban on donated blood from gays and bisexuals remain in place. One reason would be " Better safe, than sorry." I submit the ban on donations from gays and bisexuals has been working great and why the FDA wants to change it is beyond my thinking process.
I do not want to receive any tainted blood should I require it during a surgery. Do you? It's bad enough that a number of gays and bisexuals donate blood and intentionally lie during the screening process. Why would they want to do that? A few reasons come to mind but I'll let the reader come up with their own reasons.
With all of the bad diseases and viruses out there in the world threatening to kill the population I think it's a stupid move by the FDA to allow possible HIV/AIDS to be running rampant in our blood supply. It appears the FDA removed the ban because of pressure from various groups and lawmakers in the country who want to promote the political correct agenda. That's sad!
What do you think the hospital and/or physicians or the blood banks are going to say to anyone that contracts HIV/AIDS from tainted blood during an operation? Oops, we're sorry. That's about it people. They will rationalize and make excuses why you, your relative, friend, etc., contracted the HIV/AIDS virus. - And, that my opinion. Make you own decisions. You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
The FDA ended a blood ban on donations made by gays and bisexuals and also added a celibacy rule. What? Regulators will "recommend" those gay potential donors remain "celibate for a year BEFORE giving blood. What a poor, crazy rule is this? How does one monitor and determine if the gay person has indeed been celibate for a year? How does one prove it?
It should be noted that from some of my sources there are a number of gay men who donate blood and intentionally lie when asked about their sexual orientation. That's bad news, wouldn't you say?
Are the blood banks that hard up for blood donations? Personally, I would like to see the ban on donated blood from gays and bisexuals remain in place. One reason would be " Better safe, than sorry." I submit the ban on donations from gays and bisexuals has been working great and why the FDA wants to change it is beyond my thinking process.
I do not want to receive any tainted blood should I require it during a surgery. Do you? It's bad enough that a number of gays and bisexuals donate blood and intentionally lie during the screening process. Why would they want to do that? A few reasons come to mind but I'll let the reader come up with their own reasons.
With all of the bad diseases and viruses out there in the world threatening to kill the population I think it's a stupid move by the FDA to allow possible HIV/AIDS to be running rampant in our blood supply. It appears the FDA removed the ban because of pressure from various groups and lawmakers in the country who want to promote the political correct agenda. That's sad!
What do you think the hospital and/or physicians or the blood banks are going to say to anyone that contracts HIV/AIDS from tainted blood during an operation? Oops, we're sorry. That's about it people. They will rationalize and make excuses why you, your relative, friend, etc., contracted the HIV/AIDS virus. - And, that my opinion. Make you own decisions. You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Sunday, April 26, 2015
REVIEW: "PAUL BLART: MALL COP 2."- A REAL STINKER
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Jamie, from Tucson, AZ asked me to give my opinion on the recently released movie: " Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2".
Jamie, here is 94 minutes of boring, boring, boring snoozeville matetrial. There's not much comedy in this flick. This is a sad excuse for a movie. Wow! The title: "Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 took no effort either. They should have stopped at the first " Mall Cop." Actor Kevin James goes to Vegas for a security convention where her looks over all the toys being sold.The security convention was held at the Wynn Hotel/Casino and the entire movie was nothing more that an advertisement for the Wynn resort. Why Steve Wynn lowered himself to allow this non-comical, bad movie to be made on his property is a mystery? Maybe an advertisement factor.
Kevin James runs around with the cast of actors that can't carry the film . He acts more like a Disneyland cartoon character and there certainly is no laughs in this fiasco passing itself off as a movie. Kevin James cant carry off material that was intended as a joke. The so-called comedy lines missed their mark and were not funny at all. This movie should have been called "Dull, Mall Cop."My sources tell me some audience goers actually walked out on this loser film.
So, Jamie: My grade for this bomb, stinkeroo is a big fat F. - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions.You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Jamie, from Tucson, AZ asked me to give my opinion on the recently released movie: " Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2".
Jamie, here is 94 minutes of boring, boring, boring snoozeville matetrial. There's not much comedy in this flick. This is a sad excuse for a movie. Wow! The title: "Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 took no effort either. They should have stopped at the first " Mall Cop." Actor Kevin James goes to Vegas for a security convention where her looks over all the toys being sold.The security convention was held at the Wynn Hotel/Casino and the entire movie was nothing more that an advertisement for the Wynn resort. Why Steve Wynn lowered himself to allow this non-comical, bad movie to be made on his property is a mystery? Maybe an advertisement factor.
Kevin James runs around with the cast of actors that can't carry the film . He acts more like a Disneyland cartoon character and there certainly is no laughs in this fiasco passing itself off as a movie. Kevin James cant carry off material that was intended as a joke. The so-called comedy lines missed their mark and were not funny at all. This movie should have been called "Dull, Mall Cop."My sources tell me some audience goers actually walked out on this loser film.
So, Jamie: My grade for this bomb, stinkeroo is a big fat F. - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions.You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Sunday, March 15, 2015
REVIEW OF CSI- CYBER TELEVISION SHOW
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Evelyn, from Austin, Texas asked my opinion and review of the new CBS television show, "CSI-CYBER.
Patricia Arquette recently made news with her impressive speech at the Oscars when she made a plea for equal pay for women as she picked up her Oscar for best supporting actress in " "Boyhood." The CSI Cyber show is currently on Wednesday's at 10:00 P.M.It is about a group of criminal investigators that look into crimes relating to the world-wide web, the Internet. Personally, I believe Arquette took this part in the CSI series just to keep her face in the public eye, worldwide. I also think she is not suited for this series. Fact is, I don't think this Cyber series is suited for the CSI franchise either. The show is too muddled and has a tendency to overdo the special effects of computer geek stuff, it's also short on good story lines and dialogue.
The previous CSI spin-offs which created this franchise were great.They had very good story lines regarding various crimes and the actors played the parts well, but this Cyber show tries too hard. Maybe it's because they rely to heavily on the character the show is supposedly based on, Mary Aiken, a cyber psychologist, who also acts as consultant on the series and is supposedly involved in "every" aspect of the series. The field Ms. Aiken's, works in and around as a cyber-psychologist is trying to get across a weaved, tangled pattern of what she chooses to call cyberanalytics, which is only in its infancy and not clearly understood. Thus, because Ms. Aikens is a psychologist it appears she tries to combine computers and the Internet into still another field of psychology.
I submit that if a law enforcement agency wants to know the operational facets and workings of computers and how to deter hacking and crimes using computers and the Internet just call on the brainiac whiz kids that know the in's and outs of the computer and not any psychologist(s) who try to use questionable mental solutions to determine who is guilty or not guilty of a crime
I would suggest that a person is either a psychologist that can offer an opinion to law enforcement when they ask for assistance or the person is a sworn law enforcement officer/agent who carries weapons and is in the field shooting it out with the criminals.
Arquette's character is too serious, dry and sometimes silly. She is acting more like a mind reader coming across like a swami solving situations to close the case. She also roams around with a grim expression on her face but yet tries to portray a tough FBI agent. Really?, Also the show tries to make everything look technical with computer symbols and text flashing across the screen to much and the actors try to explain what technical stuff they are doing but in all, the show comes across very dry, boring and displaying some of the most childish dialogue and acting I've seen in a long time in a supposed crime show.
Charly Koontz, Hayley Kiyoko, Peter MacNicol, James Van Der Beek and Shad Moss the other actors appearing with Arquette look like a bunch of keystone cops and to top it off Arquette's character is supposed to solve the crime by looking at the suspects and proclaiming from high that she knows when a person is telling the truth and who's not guilty while some of the supposed computer techs go on and on about explaining to Arquette and others on the show how the computers work-- BORING! DULL! The story lines are "kid stuff." The show also has the cast babbling and babbling on about how they arrived at retrieving something from the Internet. WOW! Again BORING, DRY and DULL! The show drags on and one of the silly parts is where the entire team goes out with bullet proof vests and guns drawn,running through the streets, breaks down doors and arrests the criminal. Come On. Most law enforcement agencies have sworn trained officers and agents who conduct the arrests and take down the criminals. They don't have a mind reading psychic/psychologist leading a tactical team, running around the city screaming orders and arresting the culprits.
Evelyn, the CSI franchise is a good idea but they are reaching in this case with CSI-Cyber. Regarding this show I would think it's like the horse fell and broke it's leg. They should shoot the horse and put it out of it's misery. The CSI series should have stuck to the original format: Crime being committed; the crime scene techs piece together forensic evidence to assist and help the investigating officers solve the crime and if the investigators require something pertaining to Internet and computers the investigators should consult with a computer savvy person. Hundreds are available all over the country. That's the way investigating and solving crimes is usually done, It doesn't take a psychologist ( a none sworn police officer) who allegedly is in command of trained FBI agents(never happen) and a bunch of nerd techiees to gear up with weapons and armor and use firearms fighting crime.
The CSI producers should have continued the CSI series related to different cities like the original. Example - -the producers and franchise could have used. CSI- Atlanta; CSI- Dallas, and other cities carrying on the same theme as the first show. I believe the producers of the CSI franchise strayed too far afield in this case. It reminds me of the many movie sequels that are put out following the original. You know what I'm talking about --For example, The return of _____ or, ____, Part II, or, Sea Creature I, II and III. They never live up to their hype and usually disappoint.
Well Evelyn, you asked me for my opinion and review so to apply some sort of rating for CSI-Cyber, on a scale of A to F, I would rate this show a C-, and that's being generous.And, that's my opinion and review. You decide. Make your own decisions.
BRADLEY W, KUHNS, Ph.D. O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Evelyn, from Austin, Texas asked my opinion and review of the new CBS television show, "CSI-CYBER.
Patricia Arquette recently made news with her impressive speech at the Oscars when she made a plea for equal pay for women as she picked up her Oscar for best supporting actress in " "Boyhood." The CSI Cyber show is currently on Wednesday's at 10:00 P.M.It is about a group of criminal investigators that look into crimes relating to the world-wide web, the Internet. Personally, I believe Arquette took this part in the CSI series just to keep her face in the public eye, worldwide. I also think she is not suited for this series. Fact is, I don't think this Cyber series is suited for the CSI franchise either. The show is too muddled and has a tendency to overdo the special effects of computer geek stuff, it's also short on good story lines and dialogue.
The previous CSI spin-offs which created this franchise were great.They had very good story lines regarding various crimes and the actors played the parts well, but this Cyber show tries too hard. Maybe it's because they rely to heavily on the character the show is supposedly based on, Mary Aiken, a cyber psychologist, who also acts as consultant on the series and is supposedly involved in "every" aspect of the series. The field Ms. Aiken's, works in and around as a cyber-psychologist is trying to get across a weaved, tangled pattern of what she chooses to call cyberanalytics, which is only in its infancy and not clearly understood. Thus, because Ms. Aikens is a psychologist it appears she tries to combine computers and the Internet into still another field of psychology.
I submit that if a law enforcement agency wants to know the operational facets and workings of computers and how to deter hacking and crimes using computers and the Internet just call on the brainiac whiz kids that know the in's and outs of the computer and not any psychologist(s) who try to use questionable mental solutions to determine who is guilty or not guilty of a crime
I would suggest that a person is either a psychologist that can offer an opinion to law enforcement when they ask for assistance or the person is a sworn law enforcement officer/agent who carries weapons and is in the field shooting it out with the criminals.
Arquette's character is too serious, dry and sometimes silly. She is acting more like a mind reader coming across like a swami solving situations to close the case. She also roams around with a grim expression on her face but yet tries to portray a tough FBI agent. Really?, Also the show tries to make everything look technical with computer symbols and text flashing across the screen to much and the actors try to explain what technical stuff they are doing but in all, the show comes across very dry, boring and displaying some of the most childish dialogue and acting I've seen in a long time in a supposed crime show.
Charly Koontz, Hayley Kiyoko, Peter MacNicol, James Van Der Beek and Shad Moss the other actors appearing with Arquette look like a bunch of keystone cops and to top it off Arquette's character is supposed to solve the crime by looking at the suspects and proclaiming from high that she knows when a person is telling the truth and who's not guilty while some of the supposed computer techs go on and on about explaining to Arquette and others on the show how the computers work-- BORING! DULL! The story lines are "kid stuff." The show also has the cast babbling and babbling on about how they arrived at retrieving something from the Internet. WOW! Again BORING, DRY and DULL! The show drags on and one of the silly parts is where the entire team goes out with bullet proof vests and guns drawn,running through the streets, breaks down doors and arrests the criminal. Come On. Most law enforcement agencies have sworn trained officers and agents who conduct the arrests and take down the criminals. They don't have a mind reading psychic/psychologist leading a tactical team, running around the city screaming orders and arresting the culprits.
Evelyn, the CSI franchise is a good idea but they are reaching in this case with CSI-Cyber. Regarding this show I would think it's like the horse fell and broke it's leg. They should shoot the horse and put it out of it's misery. The CSI series should have stuck to the original format: Crime being committed; the crime scene techs piece together forensic evidence to assist and help the investigating officers solve the crime and if the investigators require something pertaining to Internet and computers the investigators should consult with a computer savvy person. Hundreds are available all over the country. That's the way investigating and solving crimes is usually done, It doesn't take a psychologist ( a none sworn police officer) who allegedly is in command of trained FBI agents(never happen) and a bunch of nerd techiees to gear up with weapons and armor and use firearms fighting crime.
The CSI producers should have continued the CSI series related to different cities like the original. Example - -the producers and franchise could have used. CSI- Atlanta; CSI- Dallas, and other cities carrying on the same theme as the first show. I believe the producers of the CSI franchise strayed too far afield in this case. It reminds me of the many movie sequels that are put out following the original. You know what I'm talking about --For example, The return of _____ or, ____, Part II, or, Sea Creature I, II and III. They never live up to their hype and usually disappoint.
Well Evelyn, you asked me for my opinion and review so to apply some sort of rating for CSI-Cyber, on a scale of A to F, I would rate this show a C-, and that's being generous.And, that's my opinion and review. You decide. Make your own decisions.
BRADLEY W, KUHNS, Ph.D. O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Sunday, March 1, 2015
I WILL NOT WATCH " INSIDE EDITION" ANYMORE
THE KUHNS REPORT
Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
It's bad enough when there is too may commercials during television programs but when the network and/or television show begins to run commercials under the guise of a news segment, that takes the cake. Personally, I will not watch television show INSIDE EDITION, again. Let me explain.
A couple months ago while watching the show the host went into a segment praising a skin serum that was said to be a breakthrough. It was called Boots N o 7 Intense Serum.It was not presented during a commercial break. The host presented a TV clip as an interview with a spokesperson telling ladies not to use their own home remedies to enhance their skin but instead use the Boots No 7, Intense skin serum. I, probably like millions of other viewers though the interview segment was part of the reporting news program. A month or two late, on the same television show, Inside Edition, I saw the exact same TV segment and again, it was not during a commercial break. The host went right into the segment as if she were actually reporting an event like the rest of her show. Then, two days ago while watching INSIDE EDITION, -- Guess What? Same TV clip, word for word, and the same spokesperson promoting this skin serum, saying it's available at Target stores. At the end of the show I briefly caught mention at the bottom of the screen that so and so was the spokesperson for Boots, No 7 serum.
People, the networks and TV shows are already speeding up many shows so they make extra time for additional commercials, raking in millions of extra dollars in revenue. The shows are sped up by seconds and minutes. If one looks closely at many of the TV shows, sitcoms, etc., they will see how fast people move. They may hear garbled speech or erratic jumps and pauses in the film. Just speeding up a 30 minute sitcom by seconds those networks can realize additional commercial revenue but they fail to alert or tell the consumer what they are doing. Their thinking is the viewer will never notice the difference between an original show and one that has been sped up or cut.
My point,- with all the manipulation of the television programs already being done by the networks and shortchanging us viewers for the sake of revenue and additional commercial time we clearly don't need television networks using hidden, covert and/or embedded commercials in a show when they already have commercials every ten minutes or so during their half hour program.
Folks, if I want FAKE NEWS or INFORMATION I will watch the Jon Stewart show. He has never claimed his show was the real news . His show is very entertaining and a good play on the actual news occurring around the world and he does a bang up job in his presentations - -excellent, excellent show and we know what we are getting up front. But when a news/information show runs a so-called commercial that is disguised to look like a regular extension of a story -- WOW! That's unwarranted.
There was a time when you could watch television with NO commercials. How? Back in the early 1960's cable came into being. We consumes were told that the reason people were being charged for the cable service was because there were no commercials being played on cable. Even then people would pay for cable just to avoid the commercials. During that time a television commercial was run every 15 minutes and the commercial was only THREE minutes long. In an hour show the viewer saw only FOUR commercials. That was only TWELVE minutes of commercial time. Fast forward, present day - - now, there is no such thing as commercial free cable. So, we're still paying for cable but we have to endure commercials running at least FIVE minutes, sometimes, more after only TEN MINUTES of the television show. Folks, you get ten minutes of seeing the show and then are bombarded with five solid minutes of commercials, then ten minutes more of the show and another five solid minutes of commercials and this goes on throughout the half hour or hour show. I submit that if you count the commercials in that long, long five minutes you can count at least TEN commercials. And that's happening every ten minutes of viewing time. Now, the networks and television shows are squeezing out even more commercial time, ripping us consumers. If that's not enough we are seeing covert and hidden commercials between the actual commercials and I would suspect that the networks are being paid for these hidden segments. I say, when is enough, enough? - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
THE KUHNS REPORT
Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
It's bad enough when there is too may commercials during television programs but when the network and/or television show begins to run commercials under the guise of a news segment, that takes the cake. Personally, I will not watch television show INSIDE EDITION, again. Let me explain.
A couple months ago while watching the show the host went into a segment praising a skin serum that was said to be a breakthrough. It was called Boots N o 7 Intense Serum.It was not presented during a commercial break. The host presented a TV clip as an interview with a spokesperson telling ladies not to use their own home remedies to enhance their skin but instead use the Boots No 7, Intense skin serum. I, probably like millions of other viewers though the interview segment was part of the reporting news program. A month or two late, on the same television show, Inside Edition, I saw the exact same TV segment and again, it was not during a commercial break. The host went right into the segment as if she were actually reporting an event like the rest of her show. Then, two days ago while watching INSIDE EDITION, -- Guess What? Same TV clip, word for word, and the same spokesperson promoting this skin serum, saying it's available at Target stores. At the end of the show I briefly caught mention at the bottom of the screen that so and so was the spokesperson for Boots, No 7 serum.
People, the networks and TV shows are already speeding up many shows so they make extra time for additional commercials, raking in millions of extra dollars in revenue. The shows are sped up by seconds and minutes. If one looks closely at many of the TV shows, sitcoms, etc., they will see how fast people move. They may hear garbled speech or erratic jumps and pauses in the film. Just speeding up a 30 minute sitcom by seconds those networks can realize additional commercial revenue but they fail to alert or tell the consumer what they are doing. Their thinking is the viewer will never notice the difference between an original show and one that has been sped up or cut.
My point,- with all the manipulation of the television programs already being done by the networks and shortchanging us viewers for the sake of revenue and additional commercial time we clearly don't need television networks using hidden, covert and/or embedded commercials in a show when they already have commercials every ten minutes or so during their half hour program.
Folks, if I want FAKE NEWS or INFORMATION I will watch the Jon Stewart show. He has never claimed his show was the real news . His show is very entertaining and a good play on the actual news occurring around the world and he does a bang up job in his presentations - -excellent, excellent show and we know what we are getting up front. But when a news/information show runs a so-called commercial that is disguised to look like a regular extension of a story -- WOW! That's unwarranted.
There was a time when you could watch television with NO commercials. How? Back in the early 1960's cable came into being. We consumes were told that the reason people were being charged for the cable service was because there were no commercials being played on cable. Even then people would pay for cable just to avoid the commercials. During that time a television commercial was run every 15 minutes and the commercial was only THREE minutes long. In an hour show the viewer saw only FOUR commercials. That was only TWELVE minutes of commercial time. Fast forward, present day - - now, there is no such thing as commercial free cable. So, we're still paying for cable but we have to endure commercials running at least FIVE minutes, sometimes, more after only TEN MINUTES of the television show. Folks, you get ten minutes of seeing the show and then are bombarded with five solid minutes of commercials, then ten minutes more of the show and another five solid minutes of commercials and this goes on throughout the half hour or hour show. I submit that if you count the commercials in that long, long five minutes you can count at least TEN commercials. And that's happening every ten minutes of viewing time. Now, the networks and television shows are squeezing out even more commercial time, ripping us consumers. If that's not enough we are seeing covert and hidden commercials between the actual commercials and I would suspect that the networks are being paid for these hidden segments. I say, when is enough, enough? - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
REVIEW FOR THE MOVIE "THE INTERVIEW."
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America and how is the world treating you?
I was asked by a few people to give a review of the movie "The Interview."
Okay, here it is folks: "The Interview" is a dumb, stupid comedy. It was aimed at fans and followers of the humor set down by Seth Rogen and his sometimes collaborator James Franco.
The film was eventually made available by Sony to a few Independent theaters and online. This movie, turns out, isn't as sharp or politically motivated as the producers and stars suggested. The movie is chock full of silly sight gags --- fifth grader comedy and raunchy jokes. The movie suggests that the talk show host named David Skylark (Franco) and his producer Aaron(Rogen) has a show that is one of Kim's (leader of North Korea) favorite shows. One day after a drug induced mind bender trip along comes an attractive CIA agent (Lizzy Caplan) who asks the two idiots to do the CIA and the country a big favor and "take Kim out."
The Interview doesn't stray much from a stupid, party-heavy scenario defined by these two men and is a repeat of prior comedies with Rogen (if you want to call them that). The movie is heavy on cameos, childish acting, vulgar language and crass material. For adult enjoyment, this is a loser.
The stunt where Kim's head graphically explodes could have been left out of the film and I think the use of Kim's name could have been changed for the movie. Why provoke and agitate people when it would have been so easy to make a few cosmetic changes.
Personally, these two guys brand of comedy is not funny to me. There used to be a time in show business when comedians could make a movie and/or do stand up comedy without resorting to vulgarity and filth in order to get a laugh.
My conclusion: This movie is 112 minutes of constant profanity, an attempt at crude, sexual humor, it has some drug use and bloody violent scenes. My rating for this film gets a big C-, at best. - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions, You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America and how is the world treating you?
I was asked by a few people to give a review of the movie "The Interview."
Okay, here it is folks: "The Interview" is a dumb, stupid comedy. It was aimed at fans and followers of the humor set down by Seth Rogen and his sometimes collaborator James Franco.
The film was eventually made available by Sony to a few Independent theaters and online. This movie, turns out, isn't as sharp or politically motivated as the producers and stars suggested. The movie is chock full of silly sight gags --- fifth grader comedy and raunchy jokes. The movie suggests that the talk show host named David Skylark (Franco) and his producer Aaron(Rogen) has a show that is one of Kim's (leader of North Korea) favorite shows. One day after a drug induced mind bender trip along comes an attractive CIA agent (Lizzy Caplan) who asks the two idiots to do the CIA and the country a big favor and "take Kim out."
The Interview doesn't stray much from a stupid, party-heavy scenario defined by these two men and is a repeat of prior comedies with Rogen (if you want to call them that). The movie is heavy on cameos, childish acting, vulgar language and crass material. For adult enjoyment, this is a loser.
The stunt where Kim's head graphically explodes could have been left out of the film and I think the use of Kim's name could have been changed for the movie. Why provoke and agitate people when it would have been so easy to make a few cosmetic changes.
Personally, these two guys brand of comedy is not funny to me. There used to be a time in show business when comedians could make a movie and/or do stand up comedy without resorting to vulgarity and filth in order to get a laugh.
My conclusion: This movie is 112 minutes of constant profanity, an attempt at crude, sexual humor, it has some drug use and bloody violent scenes. My rating for this film gets a big C-, at best. - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions, You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
NORTH KOREA IS NOT THE HACKER- LOOK INSIDE SONY.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
A supplemental note to my earlier blog regarding the SONY hacking and movie "The Interview."
Sony caved to president Obama's criticism. Obama, movie stars and politicians said Sony caved in to North Korea when they refused to release the movie. Obama also said it was a "mistake" for Sony to not release the film. Again, Obama and these talking heads automatically jumped to the conclusion that the cyberattack hack job of Sony came from North Korea. So now it appears Sony will show the movie in approximately 200 theaters in America. Keep in mind that most of these theaters are Independent exhibitors but there are still a number of large major movie chains that have not agreed to to reverse their decision about not showing the movie. I think these theaters are being prudent and using common sense because if there is a movie attack guess who will be liable-- yep, the theater owners - -NOT SONY.
And, get this. A national security official said U.S. authorities did not rate the threats by the hackers against theatergoers seriously, But I submit, the authorities did not rate the prior behavior of the killers involved in the 2012 mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado seriously, either. Wouldn't you think that the government would want to err on the side of caution? Apparently not.
As mentioned in my previous blog a couple days ago regarding the Sony breach I do not believe that North Korea is the culprit in this particular case. I certainly agree North Korea is a bad thug on the block and they are in fact, a rogue nation. But that is no reason for president Obama to make a blanket statement telling the world that North Korea hacked into Sony. I think he, president Obama got bad advice and is being fed bad advice by his circle around him. If that's not the case I would suspect he has a hidden agenda by targeting North Korea.
Folks, I said before and I say again that I believe the Sony cyberattack was an inside job. I would suggest Obama rethink the situation and have his so-called investigators and the FBI direct their attention to Sony rather that North Korea. If I had to offer a profile on who actually committed the cyberattack on Sony I would submit and offer some of the following: The person in charge of the cyberattack hack job is possibly a disgruntled ex-employee; an ex-employee that feels they were wronged by Sony (for whatever reason) possibly because the person may have been fired; a person who may want some sort of revenge; this person and/or persons had knowledge of Sony's servers; had access to protocol to infiltrate the servers and the capabilities to retrieve the information from Sony servers. I would also suggest that this person is a member and had or has connections to the group ("The Guardians of Peace") who released the private information. It would not surprise me if this person set up the Guardians of Peace so as to cover their possible connection to Sony.
I should also note that based on my experience as an investigator it is my opinion the person who selected the information to be released from Sony files in all probability is a FEMALE. I base that opinion on the type of information that was leaked. A female hacker, you say. I would say it's a good bet. I would also suggest that the female cyber thief is very well educated and clearly has knowledge of the programming language and techniques currently used world-wide by numerous hackers and hacking groups, thus, the selection of using the Korean connection to act as (red herring), a false lead to mislead investigators. Keep in mind the same techniques used to hack Sony are used frequently on a daily basis by global hackers. The type of cyberattack hacking used against Sony is clearly not unique ONLY to North Korea.
All in all, I predict that this is not the last anyone will hear from the "Guardians of Peace." Once the movie " The Interview" is released , the group will in all likelihood rear its ugly head to speak out again. I only hope that there will be no actual bombing because of the Sony decision reversal. I am delighted to see there still are many large movie chains that refuse to show the movie. I concur with those movie theaters owners decision.
My concern is, if in fact, any member of the "Guardians of Peace" and/or any of their followers do commit a heinous act, such as a bombing in and/on American theater or property(whether it be tomorrow, a week from now, a month from now , etc.) how will all of these same people which may include but not limited to: president Obama, named actors and actresses', media/television talk show gurus and lawmakers on the Hill in Washington explain their position of shouting from the highest hill: "North Korea did it!" "North Korea repressed our free speech." The blame game will run rampant and finger pointing will be the activity of the day. - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, PH.D., O.M.D.
__________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)