Talk Radio News Service Bureau Chief Ellen Ratner speaks with Dr. Lawrence Yun, Chief Economist with the National Association of Realtors. Yun discusses the first-time home buyer tax credit which was part of the stimulus plan, and how it has positively impacted home sales of late. Yun says that there has never been a better time than now to buy a home, but adds that the time to take advantage of the tax credit is running out. Says Yun, unless his organization can successfully lobby Congress to extend the deadline, home buyers will need to close by the end of November. (4:11)

 

 Standard Podcast [4:11m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

TRNS Bureau Chief Ellen Ratner interviews Loralee Choate with BlogHer.com. Choate says that the Obama administration has really opened itself up to the blogosphere, and cites a conversation with White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett regarding healthcare reform as an example. (10:18)

 

 Standard Podcast [10:18m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

TRNS Bureau Chief Ellen Ratner interviews Elisa Camahort Page of BlogHer.com about the role the blogosphere has played in covering the Obama administration. (6:42)

 

 Standard Podcast [6:42m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Ellen Ratner speaks with Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) about President Obama’s address on health insurance reform. Nadler says Congress should pass the bill President Obama is proposing. He explains how it would be good for small businesses. He says the House will insist on the public option. He also talks about some possible methods of tort reform.

Congress comes back into town this week. Over the past five weeks, House and Senate members alike have probably spent some time with their families and a lot of time in their district offices hoping they would not be ambushed at town hall meetings by angry members of the opposite party. It must be fun to be a member of Congress, except when you are faced with angry constituents. Then you wonder why you ever ran for office. It is a job that comes with great responsibility. It means passing laws and putting forth legislation that advances America and moves it further down the road.

Given this responsibility, I think Congress should not go home in late October/early November unless they pass some major legislation in several areas. This may require that the leadership keep Congress in session no matter how much campaigning needs to be done or how much lawmakers are itching to get home to raise money for the mid-term elections. I propose the following agenda for the remainder of this year:

Limit spending

Of the 12 appropriations bills, none have been passed and five have been passed by the Senate with no conference reports completed. (Conference reports are what comes from meetings between the House and Senate). Congress often runs out of time to submit these reports and, therefore, the two chambers combine many of their bills into a huge omnibus appropriations bill. So much pork and projects are stuck into that kind of bill that it becomes too heavy to carry and too long for anyone to read. We elect Congress to spend money carefully, but this is no way to do so. I say, stay in and get the individual bills passed without having to revert to an omnibus bill.

Pass health care

There will be meetings taking place on both sides of the aisle about what citizens want for health care when Congress returns this week. All of the advertisements, tea parties and union outreach don’t change the fact that people want to afford health insurance. Our small company, the Talk Radio News Service, has been trying to obtain insurance for two years. Finally, we found a company that said it would insure us, only to then double the rates shortly thereafter. Public option or not, people want to be able to purchase health care at a reasonable rate.

It is interesting to note that former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, a physician and former governor, said that the Democrats are unwilling to take on the trial lawyers right now in the health-care debate. That is too bad because everyone in the health-care industry, Democrat or Republican, agrees that there has to be some limits on lawsuits. Doctors can’t afford the malpractice insurance in certain specialties, and some of the awards are off the charts. Congress should not go home without addressing tort reform as part of health-care legislation.

Create jobs

With the possibility that the national unemployment rate will rise to 10 percent or higher in the near future, there needs to be a real program to get people back to work. Shovel-ready projects are well and good, but they do not grow our economy. There are many ways to make sure we get jobs for people: One way is to make money available for training in high-tech jobs. Another is to stop bending to the will of the large broadband companies and to begin to encourage local communities to develop their own broadband accessibility. Broadband means jobs and the ability to compete worldwide. Congress needs to pave and pay for the road to the information highway. There are other ways Congress can help create jobs aside from infrastructure projects and government employment, but it is going to take creativity and both parties working together to do it.

Get serious about going green

There is too much back and forth about cap and trade. It might be way too political to pass this year. However, some of the oil-rich countries are realizing that oil can’t go on forever, and they are buying up our brain resources, in the process taking ownership of patents for technology developed by American citizens. This will make us beholden to those same oil-rich countries for green technology. Congress needs to start finding and funding those promising technologies so they are owned by Americans.

Spending, health care, jobs and green energy are just four areas that need congressional attention. Let’s hope our representatives stop carping and impeding legislation in the name of scoring points at the polls and start working on getting it all done this week when they arrive back in town.

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.

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.

Talk Radio News Service’s Washington Bureau Chief Ellen Ratner talks to Congressman Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.) about “America’s pocket book, energy, and healthcare.” (8:01)

 

 Standard Podcast [8:10m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Talk Radio News Service’s Washington Bureau Chief talks to Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) about the current economic crisis. (4:16)

 

 Standard Podcast [4:16m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download