In this day and age of neurobiology (understanding of brain chemistry and neuro-anatomy), it is shocking to have an organization such as the Heritage Foundation release a report called “Adult Time for Adult Crimes – Life Without Parole for Juvenile Killers and Violent Teens.” It is not “compassionate conservatism;” it shows a lack of knowledge in regard to basic brain development.

I am not so naïve that I believe if a juvenile commits murder at 16 years old, that the day he or she reaches 21 they should be a get-out-of-jail-free card. But life sentences for a child or teen that commits an act of even horrendous violence when they are a teenager? Why keep them in for life? It is highly improbable that a disturbed young person who is in the prison system 24/7 can control his or her behavior for years at a time to “fool” the prison staff that they are remorseful and non-violent when they actually are not. There are cases where people have been freed and then commit horrible crimes, but juveniles are generally studied and evaluated frequently while incarcerated. By the time they reach adulthood, the criminal justice system knows a lot about them. The offenders who remain capable of violence years after committing the crime should be placed in a humane and structured prison/mental hospital facility.

According to the Heritage Foundation report, 43 states, the District of Columbia and the federal government have laws allowing for life without parole for juveniles. Although I think these laws in themselves are horrendous, why, if it is law in a super majority of states, is this is an issue now? The Heritage report states that it is because there is coordinated lobbying going on to change this. Maybe that is true, but more likely it is another way for conservatives to get on the “tough on crime” bandwagon as it always stirs up the base. It worked in California and drove voters to the polls. California prisons are now filled beyond human capacity due to the three strikes law. They can’t afford to keep their prison system in operation, but the voters were happy that California would not be “soft on crime.”

This entire proposal ignores how these young people became violent in the first place. Authors Robin Karr-Morse and Meredith S. Wiley in their book about violent and murderous juveniles, “Ghosts From the Nursery,” studied incarcerated young people. They write, “We can see that there are many kinds of ghosts from the nursery. Some result from biological factors such as head injuries or learning disabilities. Others emerge from familial experiences such as child abuse, domestic violence, or the impact of maternal depression or rejection. As children grow older, larger societal factors, such as chronic community violence, may compound the damage from earlier experiences. One factor by itself rarely creates antisocial outcomes in human development … a majority take root in the nursery, where few people are looking.”

The fact is that most juveniles who commit crimes have been abused, dropped or shaken in their early years or may have some congenital form of mental illness. That does not translate to the notion that society should let offenders out to roam free. It does mean that giving a life sentence to a juvenile is not justice; it is barbaric.

A psychologist I know said the rental car companies are about the only entities that understand brain development. They don’t rent cars to people who are younger than 25. The part of the brain that makes thoughtful decisions is not fully developed until the mid-20s. Therefore, putting someone in jail for life at the age of 16 or younger makes no sense except to the “tough on crime” crowd.

My advice is for the authors of the Heritage Foundation report to spend some time learning and understanding the roots of violent behavior and to study brain development before they continue to tout “life without parole” for even the most violent criminal acts by adolescents. Our laws that allow 14-year-olds to be incarcerated for life are at odds with other Western countries and put us in the company of countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Hopefully those are not countries we want to emulate in terms of how they treat other humans. It is time our criminal justice system adjusted itself to what we know about human behavior and the brain. It is time we acted based on science and not just pure retribution.

My friend, Kate Taylor, turned 60 on Saturday, and I went to Martha’s Vineyard to celebrate with her. She has a birthday that coincides with the anniversary of Woodstock. Kate was 20 at the time, but being a musician from a musical family, she was part and parcel of the time. We sat around the breakfast table this weekend discussing the meaning and legacy of Woodstock. Just in case you haven’t been listening to your local rock station this week, Aug. 15 was the 40th anniversary of the music festival.

Most of the Woodstock generation, also known as baby boomers, came from the generation known as the builders. The builders have been defined by two major events in their lives: The Depression and World War II. Our parents grew up with the ethic of a moral war and a government that aimed to take care of its own with Social Security, the Works Progress Administration and the G.I. bill. Women got out of the house and worked in factories and desk jobs for the war effort. Men came home, went to college and were able to purchase homes. We were a prosperous nation and extremely powerful. The boomers grew up hearing of our parents’ hardships, but also of their faith in our government to wage wars that were necessary and to take care of our citizens.

For many of us, the first chink in the full cup was the JFK assassination. Other than a rather odd kid in my class who was saying to all of our classmates that this was a conspiracy, we all bought the line for a few days until we witnessed Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald. It was too odd, even if we believed the view of the day: the lone gunman theory. Then came the Warren report, and it was the beginning of the end of blind trust in our government for the boomers. The Vietnam War and the deaths of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King also defined the boomers and the tail end of the builder generation.

The builder leaders, such as Martin Luther King and the Kennedys, gave us hope and inspiration to sit at the lunch counters and to march. On the anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the Smithsonian had an exhibit of a lunch counter and signs of protest. Included were the protest signs from movements spurred by the racial rights protests of the late 1950s and early 1960s, including Vietnam and women’s, gay and disability rights. Juxtaposing the marches was Woodstock, another defining moment for our generation. It not only defined our generation, like the protest marches, it also gave America another push toward knitting together our rich diversity.

When the heavy rains came to Woodstock, the U.S. military helped out. For a group of young college students who flashed peace signs and said, “Peace baby, pigs off campus,” it gave a new respect for our country’s institutions. For the tea baggers of the current right wing, America learned that there was “power to the people” and that we now had the numbers of citizens to make that difference.

Television and radio were ubiquitous, as transistor radios made news easy to access. Television spread pictures of what was taking place with all these young people. When food ran low, Wavy Gravy delivered the famous, “What we had in mind was breakfast in bed for 400,000 people,” which became a mantra of what could happen when people cooperated in a spirit of peace and fun. The Woodstock generation also learned to “seize the power,” and young people began to think about running for office. Woodstock showed our generation’s strength. One of my friends said that for him it meant being outside of the Pentagon for a Vietnam protest and handing wet rags to protesting vets so that they could withstand the tear gas.

Woodstock changed America, all of America. Rock music moved people, and every Christian rock band has Woodstock to thank. Forty years ago, Woodstock reflected the spirit of our country, and it still does today.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is a genius. You do not have to like him, but he designed the 50-state strategy that won the House majority and helped get President Obama elected. Everyone thought his scream scene in Iowa would write him off, and it did for president. But it did not stop his becoming chairman of the Democratic National Committee. His supposed confrontation with now-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is legendary, and there is much speculation that it prevented him from getting a plum job in the Obama administration.

However, Howard Dean has made his mark again and has penned his thoughts in a new book “Howard Dean’s Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform” published by Chelsea Green. (I must make full disclosure here: Chelsea Green has also published one of my books.) He successfully makes his case and shoots down the naysayers. He does it in few words, and he makes his arguments elegantly.

Most important is his argument that “reform without a public health insurance option is not real reform.” He is 100 percent right on this. Many from my side of the fence are fearful that the Democrats are going to cave on this, and then we will be left with a partial solution that will take the country nowhere in the long run. Yes, the public option may look somewhat like Medicare, says Howard Dean, but the advantages in administrative expenses and cost control outweigh the negatives. The insurance companies are camped out on Capitol Hill trying to make sure there is no public option. They don’t want the competition and would like to be able to run their operations in the inefficient manner they have for decades. A public option where everyone, public and private, plays by the same rules would ruin their silent conspiracy. Contrary to the “socialist” health care mantra, it would provide for real competition.

There are other areas that Howard Dean, a physician, knows from experience. One is that we can cut costs of health care by prevention. One statistic he cites is that in one year $132 billion was spent on diabetes but only $70 billion on the prevention of all diseases. If all children were to receive recommended vaccinations then the costs of health care would fall by $40 billion over time. These kinds of interventions are easy to implement, and the savings could insure millions of people.

The other factoids that Howard Dean cites are nothing less than staggering. “Approximately one-third of individuals seeking medical care is likely to experience a medical error such as a medication mistake or the wrong lab results.” He also points out that only about half of the time does an American get the appropriate care.

Most of the readers of this column would never believe the above figures, but I have had direct experience with those numbers. I headed up an effort to get an alcohol and drug treatment center accredited by the hospital and treatment facility accreditation agency. It was an eye-opening experience.

There are a mind-numbing amount of rules and standards. However, real and innovative measures of outcome and treatment protocols are not the main focus of their accreditation procedures. This needs to be the focus if we are going to see differences in costs and be able to exact health care reform.

Dr. Dean also addresses what other countries have done and the results they have obtained. He is honest about wait lists and what the United States can do to not have a repeat of its mistakes. He also points out 11 myths that we are hearing over and over again from those opposed to real change in our system. He points out that citizens will have more choice, not less, that we will strengthen our employer-based system, and that research into treatment effectiveness will mean that health care will not be rationed. He takes on the biggest boogey man that the GOP has been using: that health care reform will eliminate jobs. Not so says Howard Dean, Massachusetts corporations have not dropped coverage, and most large companies already provide coverage.

Boogey man by boogey man, Dean dissects the arguments. It is worthwhile to read what he has to say as he understands the arguments from both provider and political side. Just like he took on the 50 states to provide a win for the Democrats, he takes on the health care lobbies in the only way he knows how: clearly and concisely.

Stress And Suicide In The Military

One great thing about the current state of journalism is that it is impossible to sweep things under the rug. Some blogger somewhere is going to take up the cause. It is, however, information explosion, and so some things go unnoticed and do not receive the attention they deserve. There is one issue that has reached both bloggers and the mainstream press. It is psychological stress and military suicide. The New York Times is running a series of articles, and the House Armed Services subcommittee on Military Personnel had a hearing about it on Wednesday.

In a statement released by Chairman Ike Skelton’s office, the Representative addressed the problem not as an end point but as a chain of events. He said, “It is the final step an individual takes when they can no longer deal with the stressors in their life.” He said that it was important to determine why the suicide rate has increased and what stressors led to it.

Some of the testimony came from Gen. Peter Chiarelli, vice chief of staff for the Army. His main point was that they couldn’t just focus on reducing the number of suicides; they have to address the stress and anxiety faced by the military and the results of that stress such as increased substance abuse, infidelity and even reckless driving. The numbers are not pretty. Last year in the Army alone there were 140 suicides, translating into a rate of 20.2 per 100,000 soldiers. In January and February there were 41 suicides compared with 16 in 2008. By anyone’s standards that is a whooping amount of suicides.

My view is that part of the problem lies with recruitment. Recruiters are rewarded with how many bodies they can bring in to the all-volunteer military. I once asked the head of recruiting for one of the military branches if he had one wish for training potential recruits before they signed up for active duty what would it be? He replied, “financial literacy.” He said they get credit cards, get a girlfriend or wife and start charging. Soon they are up to their necks in debt, and it adds huge pressure to their military service.

In the Air Force they found that young enlisted men with a rank of E1 to E4 and between the ages of 21 and 25 have the highest risk of suicide. That is not surprising given that brain development is more complete by age 25. The pre-frontal cortex, which helps reason over impulse, is more fully formed by then. There is a reason car companies don’t rent cars to people younger than 25 without a surcharge. The young adult brain is just not fully developed.

Other factors in the Air Force suicide rate include relationships gone awry and poor coordination among professionals. Weekends were the prime time for suicides, and there was also poor communication between the treating mental health providers and commanders. There is always tension in the military between confidentiality and the need to communicate with supervisors. This is now being addressed so that soldiers can discuss personal issues without being worried about facing discharge.

Each branch of service is engaging in suicide prevention programs. In Iraq they deal with post traumatic stress right away, not when someone gets home. Programs are set up so that there is immediate intervention before the trauma is replayed over and over by the less-advanced part of the brain.

There are some issues that go right back to engagement strategies, including too many back-to-back tours of duty and the fact that National Guard duty has become synonymous with active service. It was never intended to be that way, but it functions that way. The other problem is young wives who have not had parenting education and are raising children as a single parents because their loved ones are on active duty across the oceans. This puts enormous stress on them and their husbands who are alone and enlisted.

The military is doing its best to try and address these problems and has engaged in the lives of these soldiers in ways that have been previously unheard of. However, little of the testimony on Wednesday dealt with recruitment. It was a glaring deficit in the hearings and must be addressed by a more complete assessment of incoming recruits.
There also needs to be less focus on getting bodies in and more focus on finding recruits who can handle stress, as well as financial and family problems. It is time our military began to look at what happens before someone enters the service, not just after. The other option is the draft, and some liberals including Chairman Charlie Rangel thinks that would make a military more like the rest of America. It is worthy of consideration and may make a stronger and healthier military.

Before I launch into my analysis of the health care reform debate, I’d like to introduce myself to you, the talkradionews.com users. I am a native Washingtonian who grew up in nearby Montgomery County, Md., and attended the University of Maryland. Before coming to Talk Radio News Service earlier this summer, I worked for several years as a producer for a news/talk station in Washington. I can safely say that I am somewhat familiar with what goes on in our nation’s capital. I enjoy covering politics (and sports as well) and I really enjoy getting a chance every so often to play the role of correspondent. I also enjoy blogging, something I haven’t done a whole lot of lately (I’m working on convincing our web guys to start one on this site). Having said all that, this is my initial foray into the world of op-ed writing. So don’t worry, if you think this column is terrible, well…..um…..hey, did I mention that Ellen will be back on Monday? All right, now that we’ve taken a minute to get to know each other, on with the show…

I am one of the millions of fortunate Americans who receive health insurance through their jobs. I understand, however, that for every Geoff Holtzman, there’s a man or a woman out there who would like to be covered, but isn’t. I also understand that even some folks who ARE employed don’t have insurance because it’s too expensive for their employer to provide and it’s too expensive for them to buy on their own. In fact, I used to be one of these people back when I was working two part-time jobs, before I landed my first real full-time gig. We as a nation have a huge problem on our hands, I get it. This is why, even though I align myself with most conservatives, I feel it is important for Washington to do something about reforming the system. Maybe not today, maybe not even by the end of the week. But, ideally by the end of 2009, so this issue doesn’t die in an election year.

I applaud President Obama for taking initiative on this issue. For God’s sake, our country has needed health reform since the 60’s. However, I think he’s been hurting reform efforts more than helping them of late. And as a result, his approval ratings, both on the way he’s handled health care reform and as a whole, have slipped recently. In my opinion, Obama started off with the right approach. He told Congress he wanted legislation (albeit by the August recess, but whatever), he laid out a few items he wanted included on the table, and then he basically let Congress go to work. I think most Americans appreciated this approach as opposed to the way the Clintons tried to shove Billarycare down Congress’s throat. But, to paraphrase the administration that came before Obama, he hasn’t stayed the course.

Lately, he’s been touring the country, campaigning for reform like it’s 2008 all over again. Mr. President, please, we get it. We get the fact that you really really really want health care legislation passed. We understand what it will do for you, both in 2012 and for your legacy. But you’re smothering us. Listen, this thing has a good chance of passing by the end of the year, regardless of whether conservatives rail against it or Blue Dogs take time to address fiscal concerns. You need to stop stumping. Trust me, every time you go out and try to “sell” this plan to the public, they see it as exactly that, a sales pitch! What you ought to do is take your foot off the gas and let your operatives take care of winning hearts and minds in Congress. Rahm Emanuel’s closed door meeting with members of the Blue Dog coalition in Nancy Pelosi’s office that produced a subsequent compromise should tell you something.

(Deep breath)

Now, are there components of the legislation that bother me? Of course. I am wary of a public option. I don’t believe that it will make the health insurance industry more competitive. On paper, it makes sense. But its application will eventually bankrupt the private system, which will in turn do two things. First, it will cause enormous job loss. Secondly, it will create a single payer system. I can’t support a plan that does either of these things.

Do I support a co-op? Not necessarily, and for two reasons. First, the state of Massachusetts tried doing this in 2002. At first, it worked to bring more people into the system. However, eventually it led to massive costs and placed a huge financial burden on the state. (On a related side note, the beauty of the Massachusetts health care debacle is that you can blame both Democrats in the state legislature as well as Republican Governor Mitt Romney for being behind it.) Next, Blue Cross, one of the biggest health insurance mega corps in the country began as a co-op. What does that tell you? It tells me that at some point, a non-profit health insurance company is going to want/need to privatize, grow, and make some dough.

The only solution I’ve heard that makes sense to me so far is for Congress to get serious about tort reform. Why? Because the fewer number of medical lawsuits there are, the less doctors and physicians will charge their patients and/or order unnecessary tests, procedures and prescriptions in an attempt to protect themselves. Now, I am not a legal expert (can you tell?) nor do I pretend to be one, so I’m not going to elaborate on tort reform. But, that’s the purpose of op-eds, right? To get you all thinking…….

So, the bottom line is this: First, we need health care reform and we need it relatively soon. Next, President Obama needs to stop selling us on the idea of a public option and how it A) won’t negatively impact the private insurance industry and B) won’t increase the deficit by billions of dollars. And finally, Congress needs to come to terms that it might be time to start getting tough on lawyers in this country.

Does that make sense?

The Senate judiciary hearing room in the Hart building is a monument to power in our democracy.

In a series of seats fashioned like a horseshoe, senators sit with their aides behind them. Each seat has a microphone, and the Democratic chair sits in the middle with the Republican ranking senator sitting beside the chair. Next come the still photographers, then the witness table. Behind the witness sits their family members and sometimes their advisers. In back of them are a few more rows of seats and then long tables for the press to write longhand or type directly into their computers. In back of them sit the general public.

Unlike the older Senate hearing rooms, the Hart building has special balcony-type places for the radio and television journalists so they can do their reporting while looking down on the hearing room. With all of these delicately designed ways of holding hearings you would expect more from our democracy. In fact, we got a whole lot less this week.

I am referring to the Sotomayor hearings for Supreme Court justice. This is something that the American public has been part of for years, with much of the hearing the time being boring beyond comprehension. Sure there was the Clarence Thomas hearings and Anita Hill, but, in general, the hearings are a snore. This week was no exception to the snore rule.

Our Constitution provides for “advice and consent” by the Senate (Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2) of Supreme Court judges. This provision was a compromise between the founders who wanted a strong federal government and those who wanted a stronger legislative branch. It has become a place to address the folks at home and enrich the political platform upon which many senators operate. In fact, if you were going to teach high school civics, it would be shameful to show a video tape of the “questions” that were asked by many senators. The Republicans used the hearings this week as place to make the Democrats agenda look radical, and the Democrats used their questions as a kiss up opportunity. Our Supreme Court reporter, Jay Tamboli, a lawyer by training, just shook his head at the missed opportunity for having a real discussion about law and justice.

I was in the hearing room during the last day of the Sotomayor testimony and was pretty horrified that intelligent people were asking such dumb questions. Much of the concern from the Republican senators focused on personal experience of a judge and if it should influence decisions from the bench. They acted as if it never happens in true justice. It was hard to sit there and not laugh. A grade school child could tell you that the Supreme Court is filled with ideologies that impact on final decisions. If they had only had some basic interviewing skills, the Republican senators would have asked more probing questions that were designed to really get information. They could have asked questions like, “Tell me a time that you made a decision based on law but that you personally disagreed with the outcome.” Instead they harped time and time again to her speeches which they felt showed she would be biased in her judgments.

Then JAG military lawyer Sen. Lindsey Graham used his time to deliver a long speech about Guantanamo justice and why people who don’t play by the rules should get more trial rights than those who do. He was referring to captured fighters who do not wear a uniform of country and thereby do not fully come under the Geneva Conventions. After several minutes of Sen. Graham’s monologue, I began to wonder where is the question and what does he expect Judge Sotomayer to answer.

The point is that no one knows what a judge will do when they get on the court. Ever since Ruth Bader Ginsburg played it safe by not commenting on “hypothetical” cases, no one has been able to make headway with a potential judge. They can hide behind the fact that something might come up before the court in the future.

So, what can be done? There is no law that says there needs to be four days of hearings. If they know they have the votes to confirm, then they should hold shorter hearings and the chairman should limit it to real questions and stop the speeches.

They should put all the pro and con letters up on the Internet and let the American public call their senators with their comments. Senators should stop playing to their base with hostile or kiss-up questions. Everyone knows they accomplish nothing. Finally, we should treat this process as something that allows us to discuss important questions of the day, which could include the influence of foreign law on ours, the impact of current science on legal decisions etc. We missed an opportunity to make these hearings relevant and interesting. They turned out to be boring and dull, a missed opportunity to engage Americans in a meaningful and important process.

It is July 2009, and I am writing this from Warsaw, Poland. This is my third visit to this country but my first time back since the fall of communism and the first elections in June of 1989. The last time I visited in January of 1986 we were minded by a “guide” from the state-run “Intourist” who made sure she knew where we were. Shopping consisted of one state-run hard currency store, and there were no supermarkets. Everything was gray. It wasn’t gray because it was winter; the country had no color and not much motivation to add color in a country where individual ingenuity was not recognized. Hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops were stationed in Poland with the last troops pulling out in 1993.

Poland is a very different country now. It has joined NATO and is a member of the European Union. The old Soviet statues have been replaced with long-time Polish heroes. With the exception of a few really ugly buildings, the only remnant of the Stalin Soviet world is the large “wedding cake” building. The Soviets built this type of building in the capitals of all their satellite countries. Beyond that remnant, what the Soviets left behind is a complete distain of their leadership and a dislike of Russia.

The Polish people I have spoken with have great worries about Russia. They do not fear being invaded, but they worry about alliances that are being made around them.

They believe that as a small country they could easily be a pawn in international diplomacy and business alliances. There is also worry that President Obama could make deals with the Russians that will leave them less able to defend themselves economically.

I heard comments like, “The Russians are still trying to get themselves in the front seat of the car” and “We think Obama will sell out Poland to Russia.” There’s also is a concern that the United States does not understand that Russia wants to dominate the world. There is also fear that oil and gas pipelines from Russia to Germany will bypass Poland. In fact, the bottom line is that they just don’t trust the Russians. The Polish people are frantic concerning the missile shield, or lack thereof, in terms of American promises.

Propaganda by the Soviets before 1989 has made them wary of anything Russian. It may not be fair, but the high school history books glossed over the fact that almost 22,000 members of the Polish military were murdered by the Soviets in 1940, and it was made to look like the Germans did it. This has obviously been a wound that has smoldered over two generations. In the Soviet propaganda world, Americans were considered worse than the Germans and were also responsible for Poland’s potato blight because Americans supposedly wanted the Polish people to starve. It is a lesson in occupation and how long hatred can fester with a population that doesn’t welcome you.

Poland has changed in other ways, too. The government has made real efforts to recognize the Holocaust and preserve what is left of Jewish life before World War II. There is clearly anti-Semitism, although no one will admit it publicly. I saw and photographed a painting for sale in a small market with a very ethnic looking Jew counting gold coins with a horrible smile on his face. Individuals with ethnic hatreds are hard to change.

I did notice dramatic change in the 20-somethings. Most of the young people I spoke with were not in grade school at the time of the first democratic vote. They did not see solidarity marching in the streets, and the schools they went to were open and free. They could watch what they wanted to on television, and they went to high school and college with free access to the Internet. They had a different view than people who were educated under the Soviets, and they view Poland in a very different light.

I sat with a group of young people and asked them what would be their wishes for Poland. They said that they would like smarter politicians, someone to vote for, a country not taken over by foreign investors and more opportunities for work and advancement. I could have been talking to any young American. I knew at that moment that Poland had really changed; it was a country with the same difficulties and problems that we have seen in our democracy. Democracy is difficult, as the Polish people have learned, but a far cry from the days of Soviet domination.

When the struggle for democracy recharged itself in Iran a few weeks ago, after 30 years of repression, many Iranians living abroad flew to their computer screens to get a taste of what was going on inside. The bloody murder of Neda Agha-Soltan, the vast protests on the streets and in the towns, and the assault of the Basij militia upon students were suddenly visible to the rest of the world, and all credit is due to mini amateur phone lenses documenting the crisis. Mobile platforms have already influenced the aftermath of the presidential election and may have forever changed the tide of Iranian politics. But still, the government isn’t standing idly by.

In recent weeks, Iran moved into first place to tie with China as the world’s biggest prison for journalists. Some forty journalists are behind bars without being charged with any crime. These harsh crackdowns hit cyberspace, Iranian satellites, and all foreign news broadcasts. Some say without Twitter and other online social networking machinery, Nedamyrights would not have mobilized a global movement of expat Iranians, the previously silent, hyphenated ones like myself, to demand justice and a free Iran.

As Mark Pfeifle, former Deputy National Security Advisor for strategic communication and global outreach at the National Security Council stated this week:

“Neda became the voice of a movement; Twitter became the megaphone. Twitter became a window for the world to view hope, heroism, and horror.”  Pfeifle went on to recommend that Twitter be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Pfeifle is not alone in acknowledging Twitter’s significance.  I spoke with Farhan Haq, in the UN Secretary-General’s Spokesperson’s office and he said the UN is gradually coming to recognize the importance of Twitter and online social networking tools in garnering support for injustice and the clampdown of freedom of expression:

“The UN greatly supports freedom of expression, and the tools/technology to promote these freedoms, anytime. We want to ensure the activities of Iranian people and the peaceful protests in Iran are not hindered in any way. The UN Secretary-General spoke to Shirin Ebadi two weeks ago about working together to better support the will of the people in Iran. The UN has in recent months been using Twitter as a means for spreading information. A most recent example is the selection of the new Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). During the voting campaign, results were twittered out to the global community on a daily basis.”

Some, however, have cast doubt on the role of Twitter in disseminating information and fostering political participation.  Trita Parsi, Director of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) remarked:

“SMS text messaging was the most critical in maintaining channels of communication between Iranians in Iran. Twitter’s role has been exaggerated somewhat, and journalists have been calling what’s going on in Iran the Twitter Revolution because it is a nice sound bite.”

Parsi says people in the country are talking about Facebook more than Twitter because of the thousands of amateur videos Iranians were able to post on Facebook with such swiftness.  Parsi admits all forms of social networking tools remain critical to documenting injustices inside Iran, but some, he believes, such as Youtube and Twitter, were not as competitive as Facebook and SMS. He also emphasized that while US-housed social networking tools were an essential part of the coverage, some U.S. companies also supported the muzzling of the press.

“There were severe U.S. sanctions that were imposed by Microsoft MS chat on Iran a few weeks before the election. Facebook was also planning to sign onto the sanctions, but reconsidered.”

The technology giant Microsoft announced in May, just weeks before the election, that it was disabling the program’s availability in Cuba, Syria, Iran, Sudan and North Korea to come into compliance with a U.S. ban on transfer of licensed software to embargoed countries. Dharmesh Mehta, director of Windows Live Product Management at the Redmond, Washington-based company, said: “Microsoft supports efforts to ensure that the Internet remains a platform for open, diverse and unimpeded content and commerce.”

As an Iranian-American victim of Facebook’s disabling tactics, I am also not sure that Facebook has been so open inside Iran. The Iranian government blocked Facebook services in the country prior to, during, and following the elections with the objective of thwarting voters from promoting opposition candidates. Whether Facebook voluntarily complied with the Iranian government’s crackdown is unclear.

While Pfeifle argues,  “Without Twitter, the world might have known little more than a losing candidate and the people of Iran would not have felt empowered and confident to stand up for freedom and democracy,” Parsi and others point to the Iranian people as the ones truly deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. Shirin Ebadi, a Nobel Laureate and Human Rights Lawyer in Iran, has been a pivotal leader in this election upheaval. She and other human rights activists have demanded the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon hire an independent envoy to investigate human rights crimes committed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on innocent and unarmed Iranian civilians these past few weeks.  If justice emerges out of the current debacle, it will require the courageous responses of people like Shirin Ebadi and institutions like the UN.

There is no doubt Twitter, like the other social networking technologies have changed the way the world views and engages in politics. But they are merely tools, capable of both furthering and endangering democracy, depending on how they are used.  Ultimately it is up to the people to bring about change. Whether by a shout, protest, fist pump, or tweet.

Fireworks are done for another year, the president is traveling in Europe, Congress is coming back to Washington and the nation is gearing up for two big events in the House and Senate. Next week begins the Sotomayor hearings for the ninth Supreme Court seat and the legislation on health care. President Obama has had two health care town hall meetings and has promised openness in the process of reforming health care, but the bill is being written behind closed doors in committee rooms in Congress. Until the hearings begin we will have no idea what really is in store of the American public for health care reform.

However, I want to offer a guide to what to look for in the bill and the debates. Here are 10 items to watch for in health care legislation:

1. Does the health care bill offer a chance for the consumer to compare costs? Because of my age and family history, my internist prescribed a breast MRI. Having great insurance
I scheduled the test at huge radiology practice and was charged a whopping $7500, which my insurance company refused to pay. Accompanying someone to a biopsy I found out that a famous radiologist in private practice in the same city charges $2,400 for a breast MRI. It was the same procedure with a better physician at less than a third the cost.

2. How does the bill intend to even out costs around the country? From the available Medicare data we know that costs vary widely and have little to do with living in Manhattan or other large expensive cities. Some rural areas have astounding costs.

3. Does the health care bill deal with the medical equivalent of NIMB (not in my backyard) that stops so many local building projects? Does the bill have a way of addressing the blocking of other professionals from the doctor’s guilds? Does the bill have a way of making sure state licensing boards accept competent foreign medical school graduates (many of them older Americans)? How about nurse practitioners and physicians assistants?

4. How are the costs for end of life care addressed? One of the biggest costs is end of life care: Care that is provided when it is clear that there can be no real benefit to extra tests and treatment. Are there provisions to extending and paying for quality hospice care?

5. Will heath care records be accessible to the patient? The advantage of a computerized record is that patients can shop around and get a second opinion via the Internet. They can even do their own medical research online.

6. Where are the incentives to health care providers to promote wellness and reduce drug usage? Having spent 15 years in the mental health area, I saw a huge overuse of drugs at great costs and an increase in addiction. Simple meditation and breath work reduces the need for drugs for anxiety and depression. Hospitals and physicians have no reward built in to work with patients to reduce costs and numbers of visits.

7. Does the bill promote comparative research in other countries? Why is our infant mortality rate so high compared to other westernized countries? Why is mortality from strokes so high?

8. Are we being sold a bill of goods by the cost estimates? Massachusetts has a health insurance requirement for every resident. It’s a great idea, and most people are insured. The problem is they did not estimate the costs properly, and it is drastically impacting on the state budget.

9. Who will be monitoring health care waste? Can the studies be put on line in a user friendly way? Can we teach high school students to learn to analyze data in their math classes? One estimate from a project at Dartmouth College is that as much as one-third of every health care dollar is wasted.

10. Follow the money: According the Washington Post, 30 key lawmakers have holdings in the health industry.

An Associated Press investigation showed PhRMA spent $7 million lobbying the first quarter of 2009 followed by Pfizer at $6.1 million.

You can’t turn on the television or talk radio without hearing about Michael Jackson’s life and death. Speculation abounds about how many drugs he took, who prescribed them for him, and how long he was on them. The reported ingredients of the drug cocktail increase daily. The Michael Jackson story is also shared with another front-page grabber, Gov. Sanford’s public admission of adultery. We have learned about his escape to South America and the lurid e-mails of his affair.

As a journalist I am just amazed at the ink and airwaves that these two stories have consumed. With the impact on our lives that health care and cap and trade will have, it is quite amazing that even the most down-to-business nerd is captivated by these two stories.

Is it because we lead such pathetic lives that we have to glom onto the life stories of others? Or is it because the lives of these two public figures resonate so much with our own? My view is that we can’t get enough of the Jackson and Sanford stories because they mirror the experience we all have as human beings.

Michael Jackson had great talent. He was able to accomplish what few human beings on this planet could do: He united people with his music. The notes were heard ’round the world.

When the Taliban was ousted from Afghanistan, it was Michael Jackson’s music that was played. Diverse cultures all over the world knew his music and his face. People knew his life as well as his music, and it was his life that captivated all of us.

However, stories abound of the abusive father pushing his children and not giving Michael an opportunity to have a childhood. Instead, he was told his nose was too big and he did not measure up. He had ambivalent relationships with his siblings. Many Americans can relate to a parent who is pushy or demeaning or both. Others can identify with sibling relationships that are not warm and fuzzy. When you add the need to take drugs to get by because of physical or mental pain, you have story that many Americans take on as their own.

Drama two of the week is the Gov. Sanford story. Having fallen in love with a woman from Argentina, his wife asks him to leave the house, and he spends Father’s Day with his mistress, not his children. How many men (and women) have had affairs and find themselves exiled?

The Sanford story captures us because he was so pious and such a clear family man. A smart, rich wife who is a devoted mother to their four sons is a lot to give up. Only someone who is as emotionally and mentally compartmentalized as Gov. Sanford could make the reckless choices that he has made.

It is not just that Gov. Sanford cheated on his wife; it was how spectacularly poorly he handled the situation. He left the state without keeping his cell phone on (a few extra bucks can keep the calls coming anywhere in the world). He did not tell his staff how to reach him in an emergency, and he was too self-involved to call in once or twice a day.

How many of us have not done something radically stupid or self-destructive? How many of us have had someone we love do something radically stupid or self-destructive? I suspect most of us.

Both Michael Jackson and Gov. Sanford walk right into the psyche of the American public. We have seen their behavior in ourselves, in the people we work with, and in the people we love. We watch every nuance of these two men’s lives because their lives are familiar, if not scary. We see our wishes, hopes and dreams dashed in the same way that these two men experienced. We know their self-hate, their self-deception and the pain and hurt they brought on themselves and others. We watch and listen for hours because it is that piece of ourselves that we see and hear – the piece we ache to know more about.