Friday, July 11, 2014


News Clips For The Day


Girl who survived Texas family shooting is "hero," grandfather says
CBS NEWS July 10, 2014

HOUSTON - The 15-year-old Texas girl who survived the slaughter of her familyby playing dead is "our hero" for alerting authorities in time to prevent more killings, her grandfather said Thursday.

Cassidy Stay and her family were tied up and shot execution-style Wednesday in their home in Spring, a Houston suburb. Police say the shooter, Ronald Lee Haskell, 33, was the ex-husband of Cassidy's mom, Katie Stay.

When the Stays refused to tell Haskell where his ex-wife was, police say he shot them all. Only Cassidy survived.

The teen's head was grazed by a bullet. She pretended to be dead until the shooter left the house, then called 911, police said. Authorities said she was able to identify the attacker and warned police that he was looking for more members of the family.

"We are in awe of her bravery and courage in calling 911, an act that is likely to have saved all of our lives. She is our hero," Cassidy's grandfather, Roger Lyon, said in a statement late Thursday.

Cassidy's parents, Stephen Stay, 39, and Katie Stay, 33, were killed along with their four younger children. Neighbors identified the children as Bryan, 13; Emily, 9; Rebecca,7, and Zach, 4, the Houston Chronicle said.

Cassidy, the eldest child, "is expected to make a full recovery," said Lyon, the father of Katie Stay.

He said the Stays were "an amazing and resilient family."

"They lived to help others, both at church and in their neighborhood. We love them beyond words," he said. "We are shocked and devastated by this tragedy that has taken these precious souls away from us."




Cassidy Stay, 15 years old, survived after being shot by playing dead until her mother's ex-husband Roger Haskell left the shooting scene. She then used her cell phone to call the police and notified them that Haskell was on his way to kill more family members. The police were able to find and apprehend Haskell, who has been apprehended. Her grandfather Roger Lyon told the CBS reporter that “'We are in awe of her bravery and courage in calling 911, an act that is likely to have saved all of our lives. She is our hero.'” Tragically, she has lost her mother, stepfather and four siblings. Haskell's motive is not disclosed in this article.





GOP takes first step toward suing Obama – CBS
AP  July 11, 2014

WASHINGTON -- House Republicans took the initial step on Thursday to sue President Obama over the administration's decision to delay the employer mandate of the health care law.

Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced that Republicans had released a draft resolution that would authorize the House to file suit amid GOP criticism that the president has declined to faithfully execute the laws of the country.

"In 2013, the president changed the health care law without a vote of Congress, effectively creating his own law by literally waiving the employer mandate and the penalties for failing to comply with it," Boehner said in a statement. "That's not the way our system of government was designed to work. No president should have the power to make laws on his or her own."

The House Rules Committee has scheduled a hearing on the resolution next week, with a House vote later this month.

Mr. Obama has called the GOP effort a "stunt" and criticized lawmakers for inaction on legislation such as a stalled bill to overhaul the nation's immigration system.

Boehner's actions on the lawsuit come as some Republicans are demanding a far more formidable step – impeachment.

Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and others have called for Mr. Obama's impeachment. Boehner said Thursday that he disagrees with those calls, but asserts that others can make a determination on their own whether the chief executive deserves it.



The following action by Obama is the source of the Republicans' complaint against him”

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101393331

Delayed: Obamacare’s employer mandate for small businesses – NBC
Dan Mangan | @_DanMangan
Monday, 10 Feb 2014

The federal government announced yet another delay in Obamacare's rules for employers on Monday, and also weakened requirements for complying with the law.

The government will now exempt companies employing between 50 and 100 full-time workers from complying with the mandate that they offer employees affordable health insurance by another year, until 2016.

Companies that have 100 or more full-time workers, defined as employees who work more than 30 hours per week, still will have to begin complying with the mandate to offer such coverage in 2015 or face financial penalties of at least $2,000 and up to $3,000 per worker.

Officials said that any business claiming they are eligible for the new one-year delay because they have fewer than 100 workers must certify, under penalty of perjury, that it had not reduced its workforce merely to qualify for that exemption.

Monday's announced delay for smaller employers comes after last summer's bombshell announcement by the Obama administration that the so-called employer mandate compelling companies with more than 50 full-timers to offer them insurance would be delayed from 2014 until 2015. Companies with fewer than 50 full-timers are totally exempt from the Obamacare mandate to offer health insurance to workers.

In another rule change, the Treasury Department announced that larger companies with 100 or more workers will only have to offer affordable insurance coverage to 70 percent of their full-time workers in 2015 to comply with the law or face penalties, instead of 95 percent, as originally proposed by regulations.

Employers must increase that offer to 95 percent of workers by 2016 under the final rule announced Monday.

That phase-in is being done to give a break to employers who might offer coverage to workers who log 35 more hours per week, but not to ones who work between 30 and 34 hours, officials said.

Treasury officials also revealed that volunteers at government or tax-exempt entities, such as volunteer firefighters and EMTs, will not be considered full-time workers for the sake of the Obamacare mandate's calculations.

On the other hand, educational workers, such as teachers, will not be treated as part-time employees "simply because their school is closed or operating on a limited schedule during the summer," the Treasury said.

Officials Monday said that the one-year delay in the Obamacare mandate for companies with between 50 and 99 full-timers will affect 50 percent of the businesses that were supposed to be complying by 2015.

About 7.8 million workers are employed by the affected businesses.

(Read more: Social Security computer outage to affect HealthCare.gov)

However, those officials also took pains to note that the so-called employer mandate to offer affordable health insurance to workers does not affect 96 percent of the employers in the U.S., because they have fewer than 50 full-time employees. Officials also pointed out that the vast majority of companies with more than 100 workers—which comprise about 75 million workers—already offer affordable health insurance to their employees.

"We've gotten a lot of requests to give some more time to some small businesses that would otherwise be subject to this, and we're responding to that by addressing these businesses," a senior Treasury official told reporters when asked the rationale for the delay.

"We think a phase-in approach is a way to administer the law better, and enhance overall compliance with the law," said the official.

Another official noted when asked what legal authority the administration had to give the year reprieve to smaller businesses, said it was within the discretion of administration officials to issue regulations that tweaked the timing of the law's full effect.

And, "We've done it in a bunch of other areas" before, the official noted.

Last summer's announced delay in the employer mandate was greeted by yowls from Republicans in Congress who objected to the administration making such a change without congressional approval.

It was also met with calls to postpone enforcement of the individual mandate requiring nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a tax penalty next year. The administration rejected that demand.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader and Kentucky Republican, said, "The White House seems to have a new exemption from its failed law for a different group every month."

"It's time to extend that exemption to families and individuals—not just businesses. The real answer is to repeal Obamacare and replace it with reforms that lower costs and that Americans support," McConnell said.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., scoffed about the phase in, saying "Another day, another delay."

"If unilateral delays were an Olympic sport, the White House would sweep the gold, silver, and bronze," said Upton. "Despite the president's many promises, rate shock, cancellations, and lost access to trusted doctors have become a harsh reality for countless Americans. The law's most ardent supporters are now running scared, and this latest delay comes just days after the nonpartisan CBO chief proclaimed the health law 'created a disincentive for people to work.' But we are still left to wonder, what's next? The White House is in full panic mode, and rather putting politics ahead of the public, it is time for fairness for all."

But, a leading retail organization had a different,Olympic-themed spin on the Obama Administration's move.

Neil Trautwein, a vice president of the National Retail Federation, said, "The administration should receive a gold medal for recognizing the enormous complexities of the Affordable Care Act, and it's agility and flexibility in working with retailers and others in crafting these much-needed and common sense reforms and revisions."

Brian Haile, senior vice president for health-care policy at tax preparation firm Jackson Hewitt, said, "This final rule may seem like an obscure accounting matter, but it gets to the heart of whether and how employers hire new workers—and whether these workers will have the opportunity to transition from part time to full time or seasonal to permanent employment."

"All employers in all economic sectors will be reviewing these [announcement] to determine the impact—and how they reduce the marginal cost to their businesses when they add new jobs," Haile said.





“Republicans ...released a draft resolution that would authorize the House to file suit … 'In 2013, the president changed the health care law without a vote of Congress, effectively creating his own law by literally waiving the employer mandate and the penalties for failing to comply with it,' said Boehner today. “The House Rules Committee has scheduled a hearing on the resolution next week, with a House vote later this month.”

The February 10, 2014 news article also presented above gives the background for this proposed lawsuit. Republicans complaint is that Obama had no legal authority to make changes in the law without Congressional approval. They also have complained that the February 10 changes were the second time he did the same thing. They didn't state that the nature of the change, which affected only small businesses, was the problem.

Administration officials stated that the action is in response to many requests from small businesses for relief. They said that they thought a “phase-in approach” would be easier to meet. “Another official noted when asked what legal authority the administration had to give the year reprieve to smaller businesses, said it was within the discretion of administration officials to issue regulations that tweaked the timing of the law's full effect.” This will be the crux of the lawsuit, so perhaps there will be a court ruling on the matter for future use.







Shades of polar vortex: Unusually cold weather could hit East, Midwest
CBS NEWS July 11, 2014

Forecasters say the U.S. could see some extreme weather next week - thanks to "a giant trough in the jet stream" expected to dip down from Canada, according to CBS Boston chief meteorologist Eric Fisher.

It's expected to happen starting Sunday in the Upper Midwest, then keep digging into Tuesday across the central and eastern portions of the nation.

What would that mean?

Very cool air for July taking over the middle and eastern U.S. with 60s and 70s for highs, lots of 40s and maybe even some 30s for lows near the Canada border.

And a lot of stormy weather - possibly severe - Monday and Tuesday in particular, with a heavy rain threat for the East that may pan out Tuesday and Wednesday with a flash flood risk.

"This is a pattern very similar to what we saw all winter," Fisher said. "It really hasn't gone anywhere since then - just a few interruptions here and there, but it keeps re-establishing itself."

The National Weather Service's Storm Prediction Center says, "A substantial severe risk may develop across the Northeast Megalopolis on Tuesday. Over 60 million people (could have) at least a 30 percent probability of severe storms."

The West could see the opposite - higher-than-usual temperatures, especially in the Pacific Northwest, Fisher said.




Here we go again, only last time this happened it was winter, so it was normal. Down from Canada comes "'a giant trough in the jet stream' with highs in the 60's and 70's and lows in the 40's. That won't feel too bad, but it may require a jacket. Predictably that will bring heavy rains on Monday and Tuesday, across the center and eastern parts of the country, with potential of flash floods. According to Boston Meteorologist Eric Fisher, it was present all winter and is now “reestablishing itself.” I assume we'll have a very cool week here in Florida, too, if it's like this last winter. It was colder for a longer period in 2013 here in Jacksonville. If this is a representative sample, we will have a cool summer, possibly with lots of storms. I'm beginning to think it's a very good thing I moved down here from Washington, DC.





Why small biz owners back a higher minimum wage
By AIMEE PICCHI MONEYWATCH July 11, 2014

When it comes to raising the minimum wage, employees aren't the only ones who want a boost -- small-business owners want it as well.

Sixty-one percent of small-business owners with employees say they support increasing the baseline wage in three stages over two-and-a-half years and adjusting it after that to keep pace with increases in the cost of living. That's a finding in a new study from the American Sustainable Business Council and Business for a Fair Minimum Wage.

Given that raising the baseline wage would mean higher employment costs for small-business owners, what's prompting the support? Most said boosting it would increase consumer purchasing power and help the economy, the poll found. And for their own businesses, they said they expected less turnover and better productivity.

Forty-three percent of the respondents identified themselves as Republican, while only 28 percent said they were Democrats. Another 19 percent identified as independent.

While it may be surprising that so many small-business owners favor giving employees pay hikes, their support still lags that of the general public. About 71 percent of Americans support a higher federal minimum wage, according to a Gallup poll from March.

The debate over the minimum wage comes at a time when incomes for many Americans have stagnated. Hourly wages in the U.S. are increasing 2 percent this year, barely ahead of inflation. Wages have hardly budged upwards over the past three decades, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

While some opponents of the hike say it's designed for entry-level employees, such as teenagers just getting their foot in the door, most low-wage workers today are adults. Only one in 10 are actually teens, while 37 percent are between 35 to 64 years old.

Small business backing for a higher minimum wage varied slightly by region, with owners in the Northeast expressing the strongest support, at 67 percent. About 61 percent of those in the Midwest were in support and 60 percent in the West. Small-business owners in the South showed the least backing, at 58 percent, but still a majority think it's a good move.




“Sixty-one percent of small-business owners with employees say they support increasing the baseline wage in three stages over two-and-a-half years and adjusting it after that to keep pace with increases in the cost of living. That's a finding in a new study from the American Sustainable Business Council and Business for a Fair Minimum Wage.” I hope the Republicans are paying attention to this. The goal is to increase purchasing power in the American economy and promote growth as businesses get more customers. They also predict that the higher wages will promote higher productivity by the workers.

Forty-three percent of the businessmen polled identify as Republicans, 28 percent as Democrats and 19 percent as Independents. According to a Gallup poll in March, 71 percent of citizens want a higher minimum wage. The highest support for increasing the minimum wage occurs in the Northeast, with the lowest being in the South, but even in the South it has 58 percent support. “While some opponents of the hike say it's designed for entry-level employees, such as teenagers just getting their foot in the door, most low-wage workers today are adults. Only one in 10 are actually teens, while 37 percent are between 35 to 64 years old.” Something tells me Mr. Obama's minimum wage hike is going to pass, in some form at least. I'll clip any other articles I see on the subject.







Women See Other Gals Dressed in Red as Sexual Threat, Study Finds – ABC
By Susan Donaldson James
Good Morning America
July 11, 2014

So that lady in red stirs up passion in men -- “dancing with me, cheek to cheek ... the beauty by my side,” as the Chris DeBurgh song goes.

But how does her dress color affect the women around her? A recent study from the University of Rochester with collaborators from Trnava University in Slovakia and the Slovak Academy of Sciences say not so positively.

In fact, it makes them fiercely guard their man.

A study, published today in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, finds that female onlookers, when shown photos of another woman wearing red, jumped to the conclusion that she would be a sexual threat.

In the study, researchers did three experiments, showing female subjects photos of other women dressed in red and in white dresses, and then in red versus green shirts. They hypothesized that the color red would be a “sexual receptivity cue and that this perception would be accompanied by rival derogation and intentions to mate-guard," according to the study.

“We tend to take color for granted,” said the study's lead author Adam Pazda, a graduate student from the University of Rochester. “It’s not just a pretty thing in our environment that adds to the aesthetic experience in the world. Behind the scenes, it can affect us psychologically in the way we perceive others or ourselves.”

“It helps us make sense of other people’s behavior when women are out in red and they are getting the cold shoulder from other women," he told ABC News. "Maybe they are giving off the perception of a romantic competitor."

Pazda said the study “essentially replicated” a 2008 study on male subjects that found men perceive the color red on a woman to be a “signal of sexual receptivity.”

Researchers did three experiments on several hundred women, using a photo of a woman in a dress that was Photoshopped in white and red, then an image of a woman in a green versus a red shirt. In all photos, the face was blurred out.

“Everything was identical, except for the color,” Pazda said.

In the first, they asked the study participants, “How interested in sex is she?” and “How seductive is she?” More women said the woman in the red dress was “more open to sexual encounters" than the one in white. They responded along a “sliding scale” from "No, not at all" to "Yes, definitely."

In the second experiment, researchers wanted to see if women would “derogate” or make negative comments about the woman in red.

“We asked about two subjects, sexual fidelity and how faithful a woman is, and their financial resources -- how much money they had and if they drive a nice car,” Pazda said.

Participants again made more derogatory comments toward the woman in the red dress.

In the third part of the study, the color was switched from white to green, to rule out perceptions about virginity and purity normally associated with the color white. The woman in the photo was wearing a shirt, not a dress. Researchers also only questioned study participants who were currently involved in romantic relationships.

“We asked how likely they would be to introduce their boyfriend, and these women were reluctant to leave a man alone with a woman in a red shirt,” he said.

But several women interviewed by ABC News who were not study subjects drew more positive conclusions as to how the color red is perceived.

Amy Wolfe, 35, of Berkshire, Massachusetts, says that for her, red suggests “confidence.”

Hillary Mains, 32, from Pepperell, Massachusetts, agrees that “red definitely evokes someone who wants to be seen -- confidence and pride.”



http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201301/red-alert-science-discovers-the-color-sexual-attraction

Red Alert: Science Discovers The Color of Sexual Attraction
by Noam Shpancer, Ph.D.
January 10, 2013

In many people’s minds the sources of sexual attraction--the vaunted 'chemistry,' the elusive ‘electricity’--are shrouded in mystery. Indeed, much remains unknown about why two people are attracted to each other. Nevertheless, in recent decades science has revealed many secrets about heterosexual attraction. We know for example that women around the world are attracted to symmetrical male bodies and faces, to the physical manifestations of testosterone (a strong chin, broad shoulders, deep voice), and to a man’s social status, intelligence, and sense of humor. We know that men all over the world are attracted to signals of youth in a female (smooth skin, lush hair, generous lips), to the 'hourglass' figure (a waist to hips ratio of 0.7) and so on. Now, many studies point to another fundamental source of attraction: the color red.

In ancient societies, red often served as a symbol of status, power, and virility--the masculine traits considered sexy by women. Throughout history, kings, cardinals and judges were often red-robed. Way back in the middle ages, the symbol of the Christian church was a red cross. In ancient Rome, leaders were called coccinati – ‘wearing red.’ Even today, the 'power tie' is red. Red Baron is a sexy macho brand; someone super sexy is ‘red hot;’ a red Corvette is practically a sex toy.

These anecdotes and cultural associations are fascinating but inconclusive. In recent years, a number of experimental studies have set out to dig deeper and elucidate the nature and mechanisms of the association between the color red and sexual attraction.

Cumulatively, the research shows that the effect of the color red is significant, unique, and that it operates at a sub-conscious level. Red is experienced as attraction booster by both sexes, although the mechanisms that mediate the effect of red on attractiveness ratings appear to differ for men and women.




The prejudice that women who wear red are not moral and modest women was well-known to me growing up in the South in the 1950's. The background on it seems to be due to deeply ingrained psychological characteristics, which – interestingly – affect both women and men. There is no doubt that it is stimulating to the senses and probably causes a generalized arousal in the viewer. Desmond Morris on the TV documentary called The Human Sexes said that when highly aroused and during the sex act, women (and probably men) have a reddening of the face, chest and lips as blood flows more freely through their body. I know that many men have a preference for women who, when teased or embarrassed, will blush. When the face is flushed, the eyes, lips and eyebrows will appear more colorful and marked as well, which makes the person look “prettier” or more striking. It only makes sense that a woman or man will be more attracted to someone who is apparently attracted to them. The interaction between them progresses from that point onward, or so we hope. If the attraction is mutual, they may both feel that they are “falling in love.”







A Growing Number Of Veterans Struggles To Quit Powerful Painkillers – NPR
by QUIL LAWRENCE
July 10, 2014

There are antlers everywhere on the walls of Bryan and Mike McDonel's place near Pine Bluff, Ark. The house is hardly big enough for all their hunting trophies. Both are good shots with their hunting bows; Bryan and Mike, his father, served in the Arkansas National Guard and deployed together to Iraq, twice.

The McDonel family has served in the military for generations. But Bryan, 35, is out of the service now. He is one of thousands of troops and veterans who struggle with addiction to prescription drugs.

During wartime, doctors and medics need to treat troops for pain, and often use prescription opiates to solve that problem. Americans in the military are prescribed narcotic painkillers three times as often as civilians. This year, the Department of Veterans Affairs is treating about 650,000 veterans by giving them opiates.

And that can end up creating a new problem for patients with pain: addiction. Abuse of prescription drugs is higher among troops than civilians, and the rate soared throughout the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Both the Pentagon and the VA fear this drug use contributes to suicide and homelessness among the men and women who have served in the military.

In the lead-up to his second tour in Iraq, Bryan McDonel got hit in the back by a trailer hitch while loading heavy equipment and wound up getting back surgery. He missed some training, but his company needed his expertise with satellites and radios, so they made sure he was classified as "fit to deploy."

"We knew the deployment was coming up, and I didn't want to let my team down," McDonel says. "You know that whole, 'I'm not gonna get left behind.' ... I was hard-headed. I ended up probably reinjuring it before it had time to heal."

Bryan McDonel got through his second Iraq deployment popping six Vicodin, the powerful opiate painkiller, per day, as his doctor had prescribed. When he got home, his doctor kept him on opiates, which is not uncommon.

"It's a national problem," says Dr. Gavin West, who heads the Opioid Safety Initiative at the Department of Veterans Affairs. West says prescriptions for narcotic medications have skyrocketed inside and outside the military, but that combat veterans have more pain to deal with than most.

"We have a very large number of people coming home," West says. "We have people coming back that maybe in the past would not have survived these injuries, that have really significant pain syndromes from their injuries sustained on the battlefield."

The VA set up the opiate safety program last year in response to alarming rates of drug dependency among veterans. The Pentagon also tracks substance abuse among troops, which tripled between 2005 and 2008.

Drug dependency can begin while troops are in the field — Bryan McDonel's father, Mike, says he saw plenty of that in Iraq.

"The troops, if they got hurt they'd just shove you a bag of pills," Mike says. "You never got a bottle and knew what was in it; you always got a baggie."

If the pain medications made a soldier drowsy on patrol, medics would give them a stimulant like Adderall. If that made it hard to sleep, Mike says there were medications for that, too. No matter what you needed, there was a pill.

"Everything under the sun, from Adderall to Percocet to hydrocodone, oxycodone, you name it," Mike says. " 'My knee is hurting.' 'Well here, here you go.' Well, several of them got dependent. And I guess there's that fine line between what's dependency [and] what's addiction."

Mike McDonel never thought his son had crossed that line.

Neither did Bryan — until his third deployment, this time to Afghanistan. He went on a two-week assignment to Kandahar airfield without enough pills. No big deal, he thought.

"The third or fourth day I was there, I didn't have any more [pills]," Bryan says. "I was OK. You know, it just hurt. My lower back hurt like hell. And I thought I'd hurt myself again, but then I started feeling real sick. I didn't want to get out of the bed, and I didn't understand what that was."

Bryan went to the medic who informed him that he was experiencing withdrawal from the Vicodin. She put him on Percocet.

Bryan finished up his last deployment, tired but proud. He had a chest full of medals and even a Bronze Star.

Back in Pine Bluff, he landed his dream job as an instructor with the Arkansas National Guard. But he also brought home a wicked tolerance to opiates, and the pills didn't work anymore.

"[I] would take as many as I needed to stop hurting, and I could function again normally," says Bryan. "That was the whole deal. I didn't want to be lazy. I didn't want to stop."

And then everything came apart.

Bryan failed a routine urine test in August 2011. Among the prescribed drugs in his system, he tested positive for morphine. Bryan says his wife, a nurse, had given him that pill.

His commander told Bryan he'd probably be kicked out of the military, possibly with a less than honorable discharge.

"Once it spiraled out of control, there was no gaining it back. I resigned my position," says Bryan. "The day I resigned, I called my wife and told her." She left.

By the time Bryan got home that evening, "she had done packed her crap and half our room was gone."

Bryan hasn't seen his ex-wife or son for two years. Without a job, he lost the house and moved in with his parents.

Bryan did a bunch of things he's not proud of to get drugs. He had some scrapes with the law. When he stole money from home, his parents kicked him out. He lived in his car. If he wasn't an addict before, he was now.

The VA says drug dependence contributes to homelessness among veterans like Bryan. And it is also a factor in the high rate of veteran suicide. Gavin West of the Opioid Safety Program says the VA is trying to change its approach, to stop offering opiates as a first option for pain.

"It's always easier to just prescribe a pill," West says. "[At the] VA we've really tried to work with other resources, other types of medications. These include acupuncture, aqua therapy, pool therapy, physical therapy. There really is a large arsenal for treating patients' pain."

Four VA pilot programs are pushing alternatives for treating chronic pain. The Pentagon is trying the same, and both have seen a modest decrease in use of opiates since last year.

But much of this may be a bit late for Bryan. His mother, Pam, says the damage is already done.

"[It's the] worse thing I've ever gone through," Pam says. "I love the military more than anything in this world, but I don't think it's been done right this time."

Still, at his discharge hearing, something finally went Bryan's way. The presiding officer looked at his record over 17 years. It was excellent. He'd served three combat deployments.

She saw that he got hooked on pain medications because the military had prescribed them. She insisted that Bryan McDonel had earned an honorable discharge — and that's what he got.

"Since then it's been one day at a time," Bryan says. "Looking daily to find work, every day, working hard to try and start relationships again."

Bryan hasn't found work yet, and says a sandwich shop just turned him down. The manager said he was afraid that, because Bryan had been to war, he might have PTSD and snap.




“During wartime, doctors and medics need to treat troops for pain, and often use prescription opiates to solve that problem. Americans in the military are prescribed narcotic painkillers three times as often as civilians.” It seems to me that this practice should be stopped, rather than simply discussed. Advil or Ibuprofen is a good pain killer in sufficient dosages, and some chronic pain can be treated with antidepressants. Military doctors are not the only ones who are getting their patients addicted, though. Some doctors have even been prosecuted for making the administering of opiate drugs a business. People will keep coming back to the same doctor if they are addicted individuals in need of drugs.

“Both the Pentagon and the VA fear this drug use contributes to suicide and homelessness among the men and women who have served in the military.... 'It's a national problem,' says Dr. Gavin West, who heads the Opioid Safety Initiative at the Department of Veterans Affairs.'... Gavin West of the Opioid Safety Program says the VA is trying to change its approach, to stop offering opiates as a first option for pain. 'It's always easier to just prescribe a pill,' West says. '[At the] VA we've really tried to work with other resources, other types of medications. These include acupuncture, aqua therapy, pool therapy, physical therapy. There really is a large arsenal for treating patients' pain.'"

“Drug dependency can begin while troops are in the field — Bryan McDonel's father, Mike, says he saw plenty of that in Iraq.... No matter what you needed, there was a pill.'” All of that is solely to keep the soldiers fighting. I have seen similar stories about football players and race horses. Wherever it occurs, it is unconscionable. If all doctors, in and out of the military, who do this were relieved of their license to practice medicine and jailed, there would be much less of it. Of course, as long as there are addicts seeking drugs, the temptation for those doctors who want to make lots and lots of money will be there. Still, I'd like to see laws put in place that effectively prevent this from being commonplace, as I fear it is now. Maybe the legislature will pass a bill to that effect if they read these articles.