Friday, April 4, 2014


News Clips For The Day


Vets, Docs Worry Fort Hood Shootings Will Deepen PTSD Stigma – NBC
By Bill Briggs
First published April 3 2014

The word “PTSD” had barely left the mouth of Fort Hood’s commander late Wednesday when, across the nation, many veterans with those symptoms and doctors who treat the malady understood they faced a renewed battle: a resurgence of the stigma that comes with that diagnosis.

The Fort Hood tragedy –- 16 wounded and four killed, including identified shooter Ivan Lopez, a soldier being evaluated for PTSD –- is precisely the type of event that makes combat veterans cringe. Many worry they’ll be further mislabeled as dangerous time bombs, as the next to snap, and that post-traumatic stress will again be misrepresented and misunderstood as a condition that sparks public, violent outbursts.
“That is not what post-traumatic stress is or what it does,” said Ingrid Herrera-Yee, a clinical psychologist in the Washington, D.C. area who treats veterans diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and other mental health issues as well as their family members and civilians. Her husband, Army National Guard Staff Sgt. Ian Yee, spent three combat deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Yes, there is anger and irritability (associated with PTSD), but it’s usually internalized. You’re more likely to see it as someone who is withdrawn, anxious and numb, who’s lost interest in life. Some veterans explain it to me this way: ‘The last thing you want is to go out and lash out,” said Herrera-Yee, adding: “Just like any victims of a trauma –- rape or domestic violence -– they can become fearful of their surroundings, but they’re not going to react angrily toward their surroundings. For them, it’s all about avoidance.”

For years, Pentagon brass and branch commanders have urged troops and veterans to seek mental-health help if they feel the need, while repeating the message that, if they do see a doctor, they will not be viewed as weak but as strong. That campaign seems to have finally dented the macho-military mantra that every soldier can handle his or her own business. Many veterans are turning to doctors to begin addressing post-service anxiety issues, often fueled by repeated or long deployments.

But they usually do it quietly and privately. PTSD still seems to carry an unspoken social scar, veterans say, and it is still largely misunderstood by many civilians.
“This is very taboo and many vets feel more (like) outcasts when something like this happens because they have weapons (and) they have PTSD, and they aren't going to go shoot anyone,” said Logan Edwards, a Marine veteran from Iowa who served eight months in Iraq and who later was diagnosed with PTSD.

“They manage their symptoms and can handle firearms around them without shooting anyone or themselves,” said Edwards, 26.

"I have been given every anti-depressant that’s on the market and all most all of them made me more aggressive, anxious, short tempered, suicidal and (gave me) homicidal thoughts -- within two or three doses."

Doctors employed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs prescribed Edwards with Oxycontin, benzodiazepines and anti-depressants for three years, he said, adding the pills only heightened his symptoms. After considering suicide, he admitted himself into a VA hospital for three months but that, too, failed to cure him. Edwards ultimately turned to marijuana which, he said, instantly soothed his post-combat anxiety symptoms and allowed him to rebuild his life.

“I have been given every anti-depressant that’s on the market and almost all of them made me more aggressive, anxious, short tempered, suicidal and (gave me) homicidal thoughts -- within two or three doses,” Edwards said.

“I remember calling the VA after a few days of trying to manage on (the pills). It got to the point I was breaking things and ripping doors off the hinges in my house because my anger would just go zero to 100 within seconds," he added, blaming the drugs not the PTSD.

Fort Hood commander Lt. Gen. Mark Milley told reporters late Wednesday that Lopez, who served four months in Iraq during 2011, was being treated for “behavior health (and) mental health issues” and that “he was currently under diagnosis for PTSD but he had not yet been diagnosed for PTSD.”

In her practice, Herrera-Yee said she has seen conventional pharmaceutical medicines help some veterans with PTSD. But she also is aware that some of those drugs “can cause extreme side effects” including suicidal ideation.

Lopez shot and killed himself after allegedly committing the base attacks.
“The Fort Hood headlines everywhere today are using the words 'PTSD' and 'troubled.' I completely understand that, as human beings, we all search to find an answer around something this tragic," said Herrera-Yee, the 2014 National Guard Military Spouse of the Year. "But focusing on PTSD could affect service members who would otherwise seek help for these symptoms in the future -– and those who are carrying the diagnosis today.

“This rush to judgment is unfair. There are so many unknowns about this soldier. But (veterans and troops) woke to the news blaming PTSD as the cause," Herrera-Yee said. "And so, yet again, they’re being looked at as people who may have the potential to act out violently which, by and large, is not the experience. By and large, they are suffering in silence, usually within their homes, often alone.”




Marine Logan Edwards said, “I have been given every anti-depressant that’s on the market and all most all of them made me more aggressive, anxious, short tempered, suicidal and (gave me) homicidal thoughts -- within two or three doses." Most depressives are given relief from symptoms when they take the anti-depressant that works best for them. Anti-depressants aren't all alike and a trial period when various drugs are taken one after the other until the right one is found is often necessary. He was prescribed “ Oxycontin, benzodiazepines and anti-depressants. Oxycontin is a narcotic pain killer, and benzodiazepine is given for the treatment of anxiety and panic attacks. This soldier credits marijuana alone for alleviating his symptoms. He doesn't sound like a firm believer in mental health treatment, to me, but one who wants a quick drug fix instead. Unfortunately, marijuana is still mainly a street drug, which compounds the soldier's problems.

I would like to see some articles related to current research on marijuana, since we are admitting it for some medical uses nowadays. It certainly does have psychological effects, though from my experience with it in the past, it is mainly a mild hallucinogen and creates a destabilizing effect which can take the form of a good case of the giggles or a crying jag, and is capable of causing paranoia. It does make rock music sound eerily wonderful, though.

I wonder if PTSD is not a form of brain damage rather than a chemically related mood disorder. Many soldiers from the two World Wars of the 1900s came back deranged, too, and it was called “Shell Shock.” There is also mental illness induced by traumatic experiences of any kind, such as rape or incest, which causes the patient to “break down” in their ability to think logically and clearly, and shatters their self-confidence. I think close and long-term talk therapy is needed for many people along with drugs, and some of them need anti-psychotic drugs rather than simply anti-depressants, as do schizophrenics.

Military experiences can be very gory and scarring to some people. The macho image does not allow the patient to explore and think through his harmful experiences, but rather demands that he must stifle his “weak” thoughts and soldier on. The army has been slow to allow men to seek therapy without stigmatizing them, sometimes even calling them cowards. American society in general often argues against mental health treatment, too, especially in the “conservative” but poverty-stricken parts of the country such as the West and the South.

The psychologist Ingrid Herrera-Yee said that most PTSD patients are not violent and aggressive like the marine Edwards claims to be under anti-depressant drugs, and that many of them are in fact helped by the right anti-depressant. Lopez, the Fort Hood shooter had not yet been diagnosed, though he was being treated for a mental disorder. He could have had another mental condition entirely. Herrera-Yee stresses that PTSD patients are not all dangerous, and that mental health treatment does often help them.




McDonald's Closes Crimea Branches Due to 'Reasons Beyond Our Control'
By Alexander Smith

McDonald's has closed its restaurants in Crimea, the fast food giant said on Friday, the latest international company to scale back operations in the peninsula recently annexed by Russia.

The company said in a statement that its three branches in the region were shuttered because of "operational reasons beyond our control."

McDonald's said it hoped to re-open the restaurants in the cities of Simferopol, Sevastopol and Yalta as soon as possible. In another statement posted on its Ukrainian website, the company offered to relocate staff to other branches in Ukraine.
"The company has provided an opportunity to all employees ... to transfer to any other McDonald's restaurants in Ukraine preserving their positions, salaries and fees and paying to relocate employees and their families," the Reuters translation of the Ukrainian-language statement said.

Crimea was annexed by Russia last month after a referendum sparked by regime change in the Ukrainian capital Kiev.

Deutsche Post, the world's largest courier company and owner of DHL, announced on Thursday that it would no longer accept letters destined for Crimea after its counterpart there, Universal Postal Union (UPU), said delivery to the region could not be guaranteed.




Two more domino pieces fall, as daily life activities become more limited in Crimea. As the refugee in yesterday's news article reflected, the question of how to register your child in school has no answer now. Hopefully the remaining population will return to normal within the next few months. Also, I hope that all Ukrainian speaking people who want to cross the border and head toward Kiev will do so. Somehow this move by McDonald's makes me sad, because it's so ordinary to go get a Big Mac here in the US, but no longer available to people there.




FBI Still Reviewing Indiana Man's Artifacts Stash – NBC
The Associated Press
First published April 3 2014,

FBI agents on Thursday were still removing thousands of artifacts ranging from arrowheads to shrunken heads and Ming Dynasty jade from a house in rural central Indiana.

A 91-year-old man amassed the vast collection over several decades, perhaps since he began digging up arrowheads as a child.

People who had toured Don Miller's Rush County home years before the FBI's arrival Wednesday described it as a homemade museum containing diverse items including fossils, Civil War memorabilia and what the owner claimed to be a chunk of concrete from the bunker in which Adolf Hitler committed suicide toward the end of World War II.

"It was just like a big chunk of cement from when they demolished it or whatever," said Joe Runnebohm, whose plumbing business did work in one of Miller's houses several years ago.

Agents of the FBI's art crime team began loading trucks with artifacts that Donald Miller acquired over the decades from sites as varied as China, Russia and New Guinea. However, the FBI was careful not to say whether they believed Miller had knowingly broken any laws. The FBI's aim is to catalog the artifacts and return them to their countries of origin.

"We're collecting and analyzing with the goal of repatriation," FBI Special Agent Drew Northern said.

The laws regarding the removal or collection of cultural artifacts are extremely complex. State, federal and international laws are involved, Patty Gerstenblith, a professor of law at DePaul University in Chicago. Much depends on whether objects are considered stolen or were imported with a license, and international treaties dating back as far as 1987 come into play. The United States has various agreements with 15 countries that prohibit importation of items that were illegally acquired, she said, and some nations such as Egypt forbid the export of any cultural objects that were dug from the ground.

Phone calls to a number listed in Miller's name rang busy or out of service Thursday.
It wasn't immediately clear how Miller acquired some of the items, but those who know him said he had been collecting since childhood.

"He's been digging, I'm sure, since he was old enough to dig," said Andi Essex, whose business repaired water damage in Miller's basement a few years ago. None of the artifacts was damaged, she said.

Miller was known as a world traveler, and those who know him said his visitors included Australian aborigines.

Miller made no secret of his collection, those who know him said. He took schoolchildren on tours of his amateur museum, which even contained human remains, they said. A 150-foot underground tunnel linking two homes on Miller's property in Rush County, a rural Indiana area whose largest city has a population of about 6,000 people, was adorned with a 60-foot, 4-foot-wide anaconda snakeskin, Runnebohm said. Carefully labeled glass showcases boasted hundreds of Native American arrowheads, along with human skulls — including one with an arrowhead stuck in it. Upstairs was a pipe organ that Miller played for visitors.

"He never tried to hide anything," Runnebohm said. "Everything he had he was real proud of, and he knew what everything was."




A 60-foot, 4-foot-wide anaconda snakeskin – I have never heard of a 60 foot snake. Arrowheads are pretty commonly found in many parts of the US, but I thought it was illegal to possess human bodily parts. Native Americans of today are strongly opposed to such things, even when archaeologists are the collectors, as they want to give a ceremonial burial to the remains when they are found. That one with an arrowhead stuck in it is a dramatic find, and I can see how an enthusiast might want to keep it. I wonder how the FBI found out about him and started to investigate his activities. Maybe his “museum” made the news. I'm sorry for Miller, as he undoubtedly loved his collection, but it is only fair that the things be returned to their place of origin.




Gang Rapists Sentenced to Death In India as 'Strong Signal' – NBC
Reuters
First published April 4 2014

Three men were sentenced to death on Friday for two gang rapes last year in Mumbai, including an attack on a photojournalist that sparked protests in the city and raised fresh questions about attitudes to women in the world's largest democracy.

A Mumbai court on Friday sentenced Vijay Jadhav, Kasim Bengali and Mohammed Salim Ansari to death, the first time capital punishment has been given for rape not involving the death of the victim.

"There was no chance of reformation in these men and this sends a strong signal to society," special prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam told reporters outside the court.

INDRANIL MUKHERJEE / AFP - Getty Images
Kasim Bengali prepares to spit at photographers from inside a police van in Mumbai, India, on Friday. He was sentenced to death.

Women's safety in India has been under the spotlight since the gang rape and murder of a student on a bus in Delhi in 2012, which provoked nationwide protests and the introduction of tougher sexual assault laws.

But a stream of high-profile attacks has raised concerns that little has changed.
"I think the court has given a distinct, definite and welcome verdict," said Himanshu Roy, joint commissioner of police in Mumbai.

The attack on the photojournalist provoked a public outcry partly because Mumbai, India's financial capital is considered one of the country's safest cities for women.




Vijay Jadhav, Kasim Bengali and Mohammed Salim Ansari have been sentenced to death, the first time in India for a rape that did not include killing the victim. Special Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam is “sending a strong signal” to would be rapists. It is long overdue. Those names all have a resemblance to Muslim names, but Hindu men are no better in their relationship with women. It was in India a decade or so ago that a string of “wife burnings” occurred because the wife's family couldn't pay her dowry. I would never marry a man from anywhere east of Europe, even if I had the wealth and connections to be a “world citizen.” I am very glad to see this verdict. Hopefully it will be the first of many changes in attitudes that hold women down.




George W. Bush: World leader portrait artist – CBS
By Stephanie Condon CBS News April 4, 2014

Former President George W. Bush, who took up painting after leaving the White House, is putting on display some of the portraits of world leaders he has painted. The works of art, shown in an exhibit at the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum, give insight into the relationships Mr. Bush had with the likes of Russian President Vladimir Putin and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

"I think I told Tony I was painting him, and he brushed it off so to speak," Mr. Bush said in an interview with his daughter, Jenna Bush Hager, for NBC. He clarified to his daughter, "That was an art pun."

Mr. Bush said the painting of Blair "conveys a compassionate person and a strong person and a reliable friend."

Former first dog Barney dies, Bush honors with oil painting
George W. Bush painting featured on Christmas ornament

The painting of Putin, Mr. Bush said, was intended to reflect the Russian leader's competitive nature.

"Vladimir's a person who in many ways views the U.S. as an enemy," he said. "And although he wouldn't say that, I felt that he viewed the world as either the U.S. benefits and Russia loses, or visa versa. I, of course, tried to dispel him of that notion."

When Putin met Mr. Bush's beloved Scottish Terrier Barney, the former president recalled, "Putin kind of dissed him, like, 'You really call that a dog?'" A year later in Moscow, Putin introduced Mr. Bush to his hound. Mr. Bush recalled Putin saying, "Bigger, stronger and faster than Barney."

Mr. Bush also painted his father, former President George H.W. Bush. "I tried to convey a sense of strength and kindness" in that painting, he said.

He also commented on his self portrait: "This is an improvement from the first one I did of myself, the one that makes me look like Alfred E. Neuman," Mr. Bush said, referring to cartoon character on the cover of Mad magazine.




About Vladimir Putin, Bush says “... I felt that he viewed the world as either the U.S. benefits and Russia loses, or visa versa. I, of course, tried to dispel him of that notion." He has been quoted as saying that he likes Putin, but apparently was not totally taken in by him.

On the TV news this morning I saw three other portraits and two of his pets. His rendition of Jay Leno really looked just like him, and the use of some contrasting colors in the face highlighted Leno's strong features. It looked much better than I would have expected from a painter who has only been studying for two years. The one of Tony Blair was also very good, and his father didn't look quite like I remembered him, but if he has aged considerably and gained a bit of weight it could be a good likeness. His Scottish terrier Barney and his two tabby cats were very realistic looking – flawless, as far as I could tell.

I'm truly impressed. Good painting is not easy. I had seen glimpses of more than the classic “conservative” personality in Bush before. Once he was on the camera doing a digging job on his ranch, perspiring and dirty, and he has often cracked jokes effectively enough to soften my attitude toward him. He's a well-rounded person with a humanistic side. I think I like him a good bit more now.




Mississippi governor signs controversial religious practices bill
AP / April 4, 2014

JACKSON, Miss. -- Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed a bill Thursday that supporters say will assure unfettered practice of religion without government interference but that opponents worry could lead to state-sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The bill, called the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act, will become law July 1. It also will add "In God We Trust" to the state seal.

An early version of the bill, considered weeks ago, was similar to one Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, vetoed after business groups said it could hurt that state's economy. Supporters say the final Mississippi bill bears little resemblance to the failed Arizona measure.

Outside the state Capitol on Thursday, more than 75 gay-rights supporters protested against the bill. Jeff White of Waveland, a founder of the Mississippi Gulf Coast Lesbian and Gay Community Center, said as someone who is gay and Jewish, he worries such a new law could make him more vulnerable to unfair treatment.

"It's the first time in my life that I've actually considered moving out of Mississippi," said White, 32. "It made me physically ill the past few days, realizing what they're trying to do."

Bryant signed the measure within hours of receiving it Thursday, during a private ceremony. The bill says government cannot put a substantial burden on the practice of religion. Though the bill is vaguely worded, supporters said an example of would be a zoning law to limit the location of a church, mosque or synagogue but not limiting the location of a secular business.

The small signing ceremony was attended by a few elected officials, lobbyists for the state's influential Southern Baptist Convention and Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council. The council, a conservative Washington-based group, has pushed states to enact laws that mirror the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act that President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.

Perkins said Mississippi becomes the 19th state to enact its own religious-practices law since 1996.

"Those who understand the importance and cherish the historic understanding of religious freedom are grateful for leaders who respond to fact and not fictitious claims of those who are trying to quarantine faith within the walls of our churches or homes," Perkins said in a statement.




Jeff White of Waveland, a founder of the Mississippi Gulf Coast Lesbian and Gay Community Center is paraphrased as saying “... as someone who is gay and Jewish, he worries such a new law could make him more vulnerable to unfair treatment.”

There has always been an anti-Jewish streak in Southern culture. I can remember an argument on the playground when I asked the girl who was a Baptist – I was a Methodist – why she didn't like Jews and she said, “Because they killed Jesus.” That was 2,000 years ago, and the Jewish people living today didn't do any such thing, so they shouldn't be punished for it.

As for gays, there is a place in the Bible where it talks about the very close and loving friendship between David and Jonathan, who were heroes in the story, without blaming them for their relationship, while it looks from the outside very much like a gay relationship.

Besides, going by what Jesus himself said, though he never mentioned any sexual activity between men, he only stressed that we should love everyone, even our enemies. I think that includes gays and lesbians, and they most certainly shouldn't be scapegoated, assaulted, thrown in jail or denied ordinary services by businesses or professionals.

The following pieces of information come from Wikipedia and from the news arm of Yahoo.com.


Religious Freedom Restoration Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion. The bill was introduced by Howard McKeon of California and Dean Gallo of New Jersey on March 11, 1993.[1] The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and was passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes.[2] It was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. But it continues to be applied to the federal government, for instance in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized. In response to City of Boerne v. Flores, some individual states passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to all religions, but is most pertinent to Native American religions that are burdened by increasing expansion of government projects onto sacred land. In Native American religion the land they worship on is very important. Often the particular ceremonies can only take place in certain locations because these locations have special significance.[5] This, along with peyote use are the main parts of Native American religions that are often left unprotected.


http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-religious-freedom-restoration-act-unconstitutional-110212395.html

Constitution Check: Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act unconstitutional?

Lyle Denniston looks at a claim that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is actually a law that advocates the establishment of religion and is unconstitutional.

America has always been, from the very Founding, somewhat ambivalent about religion and worship as constitutional matters.  While insisting that government and religion must not be joined or even closely allied, it has nurtured a very wide array of religious beliefs and practices, and it has allowed religious views to permeate its popular politics.  Periodically, it sees a revival of religion’s influence, and almost always, the result is quite divisive.

The Supreme Court has had its own part in that ambivalent attitude about religion.  Even today, it remains unsure how the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (maintaining the separation of church and state) can coexist comfortably with the same Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause (protecting private choice in matters of faith).  How far can the government go to enable the free exercise of religion without becoming, in effect and even in reality, its official partner or sponsor? How much toleration becomes endorsement?

Those questions have been raised over and over again, about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, since Congress passed that law in 1993 with the explicit aim of overruling a Supreme Court decision three years earlier.  In its 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, the Court upheld the power of government at all levels to pass laws that everyone had to obey, even if those laws imposed a burden on the specific religious practice of one sect.   Such general laws, the court concluded, did not violate that sect’s constitutional right to freely express  its faith.

The Smith decision caused a political uproar, challenged widely as a major threat to religious liberty.  Congress passed RFRA to overrule the decision, fashioning its own notions of what would be unconstitutional in general laws that impacted faith practices

But that very direct form of constitutional expression promptly stirred up some fundamental new issues.  Was RFRA a law that changed constitutional law from what the Supreme Court had said it meant, doing so by a simple enactment rather than a constitutional amendment, or was it merely a mandate on how to interpret the scope of laws that impact religious practice, and thus well within Congress’s power to legislate public policy norms?  Did it go too far to protect specific religious practices, thus crossing the line into endorsement?

Two combined appeals are tests of the government’s power to enforce the federal Affordable Care Act’s so-called “contraceptive mandate,” requiring employers to provide coverage for pregnancy-related services, including birth-control pills.   The appeals emerged out of scores of cases filed across the country by religiously devout business owners, or by religious colleges and charities.  The cases before the Court involve, at this point, only claims to RFRA protection by profit-making companies with Roman Catholic owners.

In the advocacy groups’ brief urging the court to decide the case by striking down RFRA altogether, the document contended that the law is a form of establishment of religion, is an attempt to revise constitutional law without pursuing a formal amendment, and is an invalid intrusion into the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.

This argument has arisen late in the cycle for written arguments, so it is unclear whether the Court will ultimately reach that argument, and even whether the federal government and the private businesses involved in the pending cases will respond to it.  The Court need not deal with it at all, but, if it does, it would be a daring use of judicial power to nullify the law.