Podcast appearances and mentions of Joseph P Bradley

Interview with Eytan A. David, MD, author of Patient-Reported Disability After Computerized Posturographic Vestibular Retraining for Stable Unilateral Vestibular Deficit. Hosted by Joseph P. Bradley, MD.

Interview with Eytan A. David, MD, author of Patient-Reported Disability After Computerized Posturographic Vestibular Retraining for Stable Unilateral Vestibular Deficit. Hosted by Joseph P. Bradley, MD.

Interview with Ilana Doweck, MD, author of Association Between the BNT162b2 Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccine and the Risk of Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss, and Eric J. Formeister, MD, MS, author of Assessment of Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss After COVID-19 Vaccination Hosted by Joseph P. Bradley, MD.

Interview with Ilana Doweck, MD, author of Association Between the BNT162b2 Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccine and the Risk of Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss, and Eric J. Formeister, MD, MS, author of Assessment of Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss After COVID-19 Vaccination Hosted by Joseph P. Bradley, MD.

Interview with Ilana Doweck, MD, author of Association Between the BNT162b2 Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccine and the Risk of Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss, and Eric J. Formeister, MD, MS, author of Assessment of Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss After COVID-19 Vaccination Hosted by Joseph P. Bradley, MD.

State actor doctrine Before United States v Cruikshank, (1876) was decided by the United States Supreme Court, the case was decided as a circuit case (Federal Cases No. 14897). Presiding of this circuit case was judge Joseph P Bradley who wrote at page 710 of Federal Cases No. 14897 regarding the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: It is a guarantee of protection against the acts of the state government itself. It is a guarantee against the exertion of arbitrary and tyrannical power on the part of the government and legislature of the state, not a guarantee against the commission of individual offenses, and the power of Congress, whether express or implied, to legislate for the enforcement of such a guarantee does not extend to the passage of laws for the suppression of crime within the states. The enforcement of the guarantee does not require or authorize Congress to perform 'the duty that the guarantee itself supposes it to be the duty of the state to perform, and which it requires the state to perform'. The above quote was quoted by United Supreme Court in United States v Harris, (1883) and supplemented by a quote from the majority opinion in United States v Cruikshank, (1876) as written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite: The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, but it adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guarantee against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. The duty of protecting all its citizens in the enjoyment of an equality of rights was originally assumed by the States, and it still remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right. This the Amendment guarantees, but no more. The power of the National Government is limited to the enforcement of this guarantee. Individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution, other than the Thirteenth Amendment's ban on slavery, protect not against actions by private persons or entities, but only against actions by government officials. Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelley v Kraemer (1948): "The action inhibited by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States. That Amendment erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful." The court added in Civil Rights Cases (1883): "It is State action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all State legislation, and State action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws."

Judicial interpretation In contrast to the other "Reconstruction Amendments", the Thirteenth Amendment was rarely cited in later case law. As historian Amy Dru Stanley summarizes, "beyond a handful of landmark rulings striking down debt peonage, flagrant involuntary servitude, and some instances of race-based violence and discrimination, the Thirteenth Amendment has never been a potent source of rights claims." Black slaves and their descendants United States v Rhodes (1866), one of the first Thirteenth Amendment cases, tested the constitutionality of provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that granted blacks redress in the federal courts. Kentucky law prohibited blacks from testifying against whites—an arrangement which compromised the ability of Nancy Talbot ("a citizen of the United States of the African race") to reach justice against a white person accused of robbing her. After Talbot attempted to try the case in federal court, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled this federal option unconstitutional. Noah Swayne (a Supreme Court justice sitting on the Kentucky Circuit Court) overturned the Kentucky decision, holding that without the material enforcement provided by the Civil Rights Act, slavery would not truly be abolished. With In Re Turner (1867), Chief Justice Salmon P Chase ordered freedom for Elizabeth Turner, a former slave in Maryland who became indentured to her former master. In Blyew v United States, (1872) the Supreme Court heard another Civil Rights Act case relating to federal courts in Kentucky. John Blyew and George Kennard were white men visiting the cabin of a black family, the Fosters. Blyew apparently became angry with sixteen-year-old Richard Foster and hit him twice in the head with an ax. Blyew and Kennard killed Richard's parents, Sallie and Jack Foster, and his blind grandmother, Lucy Armstrong. They severely wounded the Fosters' two young daughters. Kentucky courts would not allow the Foster children to testify against Blyew and Kennard. Federal courts, authorized by the Civil Rights Act, found Blyew and Kennard guilty of murder. The Supreme Court ruled that the Foster children did not have standing in federal courts because only living people could take advantage of the Act. In doing so, the Courts effectively ruled that the Thirteenth Amendment did not permit a federal remedy in murder cases. Swayne and Joseph P Bradley dissented, maintaining that in order to have meaningful effects, the Thirteenth Amendment would have to address systemic racial oppression.

Interview with Heather Jacene MD, and Jonathan D. Schoenfeld, MD, MPH, authors of Use of Fluoro-[F]-Deoxy-2-D-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography to Predict Immunotherapy Treatment Response in Patients With Squamous Cell Oral Cavity Cancers Hosted by Joseph P. Bradley, MD.

Interview with Heather Jacene MD, and Jonathan D. Schoenfeld, MD, MPH, authors of Use of Fluoro-[F]-Deoxy-2-D-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography to Predict Immunotherapy Treatment Response in Patients With Squamous Cell Oral Cavity Cancers Hosted by Joseph P. Bradley, MD.

Interview with Rajarsi Mandal, MD, author of Association of Tumor Site With the Prognosis and Immunogenomic Landscape of Human Papillomavirus–Related Head and Neck and Cervical Cancers Hosted by Joseph P. Bradley, MD.

Interview with Rajarsi Mandal, MD, author of Association of Tumor Site With the Prognosis and Immunogenomic Landscape of Human Papillomavirus–Related Head and Neck and Cervical Cancers Hosted by Joseph P. Bradley, MD.

Cesar Chavez, Co-founder of The National Farm Workers Association   “Preservation of one's own culture does not require contempt or disrespect for other cultures.”   Let’s do the definition of disrespect. This time from the Urban Dictionary: a user called “this means“ defined it as: “the act of putting someone down, trying to make them feel low, treating someone in a horrible manner, showing a person they mean less than nothing to you, a hurtful act that is both rude and ignorant towards another person’s feelings.” Nicely done I think. That sums it up well.  Most of us belong to multiple cultures. Race, gender, religion, and myriad of other things that we each identify with makes us who believe we are. Embracing each of these makes us the complete person have become. If we are comfortable with who we are, there is no need to put someone else down who is different in their thinking and experiences. But are you truly comfortable with who you are? Feeling the need to put others down could be an indication that you really aren’t happy or comfortable with your own identity. Most of us can look back in history and find incidents that involve injustices perpetrated by by one cultural group on our own. This begs the question of what we personally decide to do with this information. One of my close friend is Scottish in ancestry, while mine is mostly English. There have been times in history when the English really lowered the boom and controlled the Scots. There are many stories of torture and other acts of brutality perpetrated on them in order to maintain that control with terror. In Europe there were centuries of conflict between Catholic and Protestant monarchs who actively persecuted each other with completely innocent people being tortured and abused on both sides, just because they had a different belief. With these two examples is it right for my Scottish friend to hate me, or for me to hate every Catholic I see? Of course not. There is one overriding reason for me to accept and be accepted by these two groups. I didn’t do anything of this sort to my Scottish friend, and the Catholics have never done anything to me personally. Each of us are individuals who rise and fall on our own acts, not on those of our forebears.  When we meet others, we should completely ignore what their grandfather may have done, and let them show who they are, and what they have become on their watch. We can only pay for our own sins, and can only succeed by the effort we have each put forth to make our own lives and those around us better.  There are so many wonderful people we are missing the opportunity to be friends with because of the limitations we place on those with whom we will associate. Please don’t make a snap judgments based on stereotypes. It all comes down to this: Don’t be a hater. Just don’t do it.   Cesar Chavez in Wikipedia   Cesar Chavez Foundation   United Farm Workers   ---------------------------------------- Giada De Laurentiis, Celebrity Chef   “Pasta doesn’t make you fat. How much pasta you eat makes you fat.”   Volume. In this application, Dictionary.com says, a mass or quantity, especially a large quantity, of something. Most things that are good in moderation are not so good when you go extreme with the volume. Music with too much volume can damage your eardrums, and too much of a good food can make you fat, in this case, pasta. For the record, pasta rocks. My wife, Dee is quite the cook, and she does Italian well. Her simple spaghetti with her home made sauce is totally excellent, and when she ups the ante with chicken parmesan, it is simply out of this world. I really do battle with volume when something that good to eat is available. As a result, I am not as svelte as I used to be. The concept is self control. According to Joyce Meyer, “I have learned that I really do have discipline, self-control, and patience. But they were given to me as a seed, and it's up to me to choose to develop them.” Learning to control your appetite for food, drink and other things is pretty hard to do if you really weren’t taught to do so. A lack of discipline is this area moves a little closer to the beasts, who act on instinct and impulse, and lack the human level of reason and self control. That is the major dividing line between a savage and a civilized human being.  Taking this a step further, there are many humans who have completely thrown off the shackles of self control, and have become anti social, even psychopathic. This type of human animal thinks of themselves first and foremost, with no room to spare a thought for anyone else. If they want something, obtaining it is the number one priority, and anyone who gets in the way is likely to get hurt. A quote from Joseph P. Bradley: “Brutes are governed by their appetites and impulses. Savages are but little removed in this respect from brutes. Brutish men and coarse natures are mostly led by their impulses, appetites and passions. The true nobility of our nature is evinced by self-control, which restrains, governs and subdues the impulses, appetites, passions and desires.” I don’t know of many people who would like to be known as a brute. Sure, many are macho and ACT like they don’t care what others think, but the very act of being macho shows that a person is attempting to hide from others what they know to be true about themselves. They feel inadequate, and are desperately trying to keep others from finding out.  Macho persons are not dangerous like the psychopath, but are merely clumsy at being brutes and acting like they don’t care. If you can, help the macho person gain confidence, and avoid the true brutes altogether. Your life may depend on it.   Giada De Laurentiis Main Site   Giada De Laurentiis on Facebook   Giada De Laurentiis on Twitter   -----------------------------------------------------   SUBSCRIBE!  iTunes  Stitcher  Tunein     CHECK US OUT ON   Facebook  Twitter  Tumblr