East Rutherford, New Jersey (CNN) -- From nuclear weapons to human rights, the image of Iran is quite negative in America. But with little fanfare, one Iranian man has won hearts and cheers battling Americans on the court in basketball arenas around the country.

Hamed Haddadi is the NBA's first Iranian basketball player. At 7-foot-2, Haddadi began playing for Tennessee's Memphis Grizzlies in August 2008. His final game of this season was set for Wednesday night in Oklahoma City.

Despite U.S.-Iran tensions in the political arena, any strains appear absent with teammates and fans alike.

"It seems like he's the most popular Grizzly. When we go on the road ... he has a lot of support from a lot of people, a lot of people come out to watch him and watch us play," said teammate Mike Conley, who accompanied Haddadi to a "kebab fest."

The kebab fest was held in Las Vegas in 2009. Haddadi was accompanied by Conley and fellow Grizzly Hakim Warrick to a Persian restaurant. The event served to introduce the teammates to Persian food. Grizzlies' forward Rudy Gay turned the tables when he took Haddadi for a taste of American ribs at a Memphis restaurant.

It wasn't as easy getting permission to play in the United States. Current U.S. sanctions on Iran prohibit "a person or organization in the United States from engaging in business dealings with Iranian nationals," stated the NBA legal counsel.

The NBA had to apply to the U.S. government for a license that granted Haddadi permission to play for the NBA.

The reception has been positive courtside. But problems arose from game announcers once.

Ralph Lawler and Mike Smith, L.A. Clippers announcers on local Fox Sports, were suspended for a game for insensitive comments about Haddadi. When the Grizzlies faced the Clippers, the two joked about the Iranian center.

"You're sure it's not Borat's older brother?" said Smith. "If they ever make a movie about Haddadi, I'm going to get Sacha Baron Cohen to play the part."

Mayar Zokaei, Haddadi's Iranian-American manager, said the Iranian basketball player has brought lots of media attention to the middle-of-the-standings Grizzlies.

"He's gotten more press then any of his teammates this year and the past couple of years just for the sole reason that he's Iranian-American," said Zokaei. "Iranian playing basketball in America ... that's rare. [There aren't many]) Iranians doing anything in bona fide sports arenas in the U.S."

Haddadi faces big challenges. One is speaking and learning English.

Furthermore, his family is almost 7,000 miles away in Iran. The political turmoil back home is something he can't control. He worries about his family.

"It affects him because he misses them, he's not able to keep up to date with them because he's so busy ... he's always concerned about their well-being and such," said Zokaei.

Off the court, Haddadi has been working to bridge the gap between Iranian-Americans and basketball. Haddadi was at the forefront of creating the Hamed Haddadi Javanan Foundation. The charity organization aims to award college scholarships to student athletes.

The foundation has not been his only initiative.

In 2009, with Los Angeles Lakers forward Ron Artest and manager Zokaei, Haddadi hosted a weekend basketball camp for 100 children.

The camp was held on the campus of California State University at Northridge and was aimed mainly at the Iranian-American community.

Haddadi's team did not make the NBA playoffs, which start within the week. His next test on the court -- playing for Iran against the United States in the world championships in September in Turkey. Haddadi and teammate Rudy Gay agree the United States will win.

"Tell you the truth ... we can't beat the United States you know," said Haddadi. "We're [The U.S.] gonna win, of course," boasted Gay.

But his two years in America have been a personal victory for Haddadi, who just

Question: what did the nba apply for

Question: when did he join the Grizzlies?

Question: Who had to apply to the US Government?

Question: Which team did he play for

Question: Who began playing for Tennessee's Memphis Grizzlies in 2008?

Question: What bridge has he been trying to gap?

Question: Who did they have to apply for license from?

Question: what sport does he play?

Question: which country is he from

Answer: a license that granted Haddadi permission to play

Answer: August 2008.

Answer: NBA

Answer: Tennessee's Memphis Grizzlies

Answer: Hamed Haddadi

Answer: between Iranian-Americans and basketball.

Answer: U.S. government

Answer: basketball

Answer: Iranian

Summary:
Hamed Haddadi began playing for Tennessee's Memphis Grizzlies in August 2008 .
Despite U.S.-Iran tensions, strains appear absent with teammates, fans alike .
NBA had to apply to the U.S. government for a license to let Haddadi play .
He's been trying to bridge gap between Iranian-Americans and basketball .


Editor's Note: Al Vivian is president & CEO of BASIC Diversity, Inc., a 35-year-old consultancy that specializes in diminishing cross-cultural biases that has worked with clients such as Coca-Cola, Ford, Kroger, McDonald's, the National Security Agency and CNN. He is also an adviser to the United States Army for diversity and cultural affairs. Al Vivian says Eric Holder was right to urge Americans to confront diversity issues now. FAYETTEVILLE, Georgia (CNN) -- Privilege can be a dangerous thing. It releases you from the task of thinking about things that others must. I am an African-American male and I am privileged. Not on race; but on gender, education, religion, income and many other areas. As a man, my authority and intellect are not second-guessed. As a Christian, my moral code is not questioned, nor am I subject to post-September 11 profiling. I have privilege in these areas, and I realize that this privilege creates blind spots. An advantage to any group creates a corresponding disadvantage to all others Recently Attorney General Eric Holder made some statements concerning America's need to confront its racial history, and the need for Americans to engage in cross-racial dialogue. Holder's comments offended some and motivated others, not uncommon when dealing with the touchy issue of race. On confronting our history he said: "To get to the heart of this country, one must examine its racial soul. ... in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. " Concerning cross-racial dialogue he opined: "If we are to make progress in this area, we must ... have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us." In a recent interview, President Obama responded by saying, America has made "enormous progress, and we shouldn't lose sight of that ... I think it's fair to say that if I had been advising my attorney general, we would have used different language." The president went on to say, "I think what solves racial tensions is fixing the economy, putting people to work, making sure people have health care, ensuring that every kid is learning out here." They were both right; but they were addressing two different things. Obama was talking about fixing the economy to ease racial tensions. Holder was talking about overcoming our fears to dialogue and confronting racial privilege so that we can eliminate inequities that cause the racial tensions. Additionally, Holder was not saying that progress had not been made. He was saying that there is much yet to be done in order to fully engage and leverage the abilities of all of the nation's human capital. Elaborating on history, we must acknowledge that whites have been the benefactors of centuries of history that included half-truths that socially affirmed them to the detriment of all others. Addressing this privilege will take extreme courage, for there will be many loud dissenting voices. For example, there has never been a discussion in America about whether we should or should not celebrate a White History Month. That would be an irrelevant waste of time, because white history has been the basis of practically all that we have been taught. Being able to sit in a classroom and open history books that positively portray a plethora of people that resemble you has been, and continues to be, the exclusive historical privilege of whites. This privilege psychologically and economically benefits every member at every level of the advantaged category so profoundly that its members never have to question their place in society. And that place is on top: the expected and accepted norm. If you are white, consider how different life might be for you now if you had grown up from meager beginnings, while simultaneously being denigrated by a society that had denied equal access to you, your parents and every member of your race during every prior generation. This is the history of black America that Holder is saying we must understand to truly know the heart of America. History is history, and

Question: Who is Al Vivian?

Question: Who has racial privilege in the U.S. ?

Question: what race have had a longstanding racial privilege in the U.S. according to Al Vivian?

Question: Who said"Privilege creates blind spots that conceal the harm they do"?

Question: Who made the nation of cowards speech?

Question: What creates blind spots?

Answer: is president & CEO of BASIC Diversity, Inc.,

Answer: of whites.

Answer: whites

Answer: Attorney General Eric Holder

Answer: Attorney General Eric Holder

Answer: this privilege

Summary:
Al Vivian: Privilege creates blind spots that conceal the harm they do .
He says whites have had a longstanding racial privilege in the U.S.
Vivian: History has largely been written from perspective of white Americans .
Holder was right to make his "nation of cowards" speech and urge dialogue .


Editor's Note: Alfred Liggins is chief executive officer of Radio One Inc. and chairman of TV One LLC. The companies are aimed at an audience of African-American and urban consumers, and they own 53 radio stations in 16 cities, a cable network and a variety of Web sites. Liggins personally has contributed to Barack Obama's campaign. Alfred Liggins says the black population in America has grown increasingly diverse. (CNN) -- If you think African-Americans will come out in greater numbers than ever before to vote for Barack Obama, you're probably right. If you think you know how they'll vote in the almost 500 House, Senate and gubernatorial races, you could be in for a surprise. Although politicians and their advertising gurus often speak to Black America as a collective, homogeneous group, the black population is anything but a monolith. In the past decade, the more than 40 million strong black population in America has become increasingly diverse: economically, socially, technologically and even philosophically. In the final push toward Election Day, as politicians and political hopefuls seek to penetrate this community, they may no longer understand to whom they are speaking. Are they addressing blacks or African-Americans? Is racial prejudice as important an issue today as affording a college education for their kids or taking care of an aging parent? iReport.com: Black college cancels class to vote Radio One, the country's largest broadcasting company primarily targeting African-Americans, recently commissioned a study to uncover Black America today. How do they identify themselves? What do they care about? How are they influenced? What is most important to them? Interestingly, the study found that 42 percent of those polled actually prefer to be called black (these are more likely to be more affluent) compared with 44 percent who choose to be described as African-American. And yes, it would be misguided to assume that dropping a Martin Luther King Jr. quote into a speech and focusing on America's history of racial inequality is the sure way to sway black voters when one-third of blacks, particularly younger people, believe that there is actually too much focus on past oppression. And as insulting as it is to assume that all women vote for female candidates, it is equally inaccurate and offensive to say that blacks simply cast their ballots for people of color. Like all Americans, black folks vote on the issues they care about, and today those issues are less likely to be linked to race than they are to the economy, health care, education and a whole spectrum of social issues. As Georgetown University sociology professor Michael Eric Dyson recently said, "black people don't vote for candidates just because they are black. If Clarence Thomas ran for president, he would get five black votes." Given Black America's extreme diversity today (the study identified 11 specific groups) it is easy to misunderstand who they are and how they can be reached. Yes, discrimination and racial issues are still incredibly important, particularly to middle-age and older blacks. But the younger populations are more concerned about starting their own businesses, paying for their education, taking care of their children and creating a better work/life balance. So how do politicians penetrate the multiple segments of Black America? In 1992, when Bill Clinton wooed African-Americans in church, he understood how to effectively reach that population. But that was before social networking sites attracted millions of teenage and young black adults. Now that the digital divide has faded, with roughly the same percentage of blacks online as the general population, ignoring black Web sites and social networking sites would be a big mistake. Although the history of black oppression in America is not the radioactive issue it once was, trust in the community -- whom blacks trust -- is still paramount. Of all institutions, they are least likely to trust credit card companies but also remain seriously wary of the mainstream media and tend to trust black media more than traditional media outlets. It has been almost a century and a half since blacks in America won the right to vote. It

Question: What demographic has become more diverse?

Question: What population has become more diverse?

Question: What population numbers 40 million?

Question: How large is the American black community?

Question: What did Alfred Liggins say has become of the black population?

Question: What did Liggins say about America's black population?

Answer: black population in America

Answer: black

Answer: in America

Answer: more than 40 million

Answer: grown increasingly diverse.

Answer: has grown increasingly diverse.

Summary:
Alfred Liggins: America's black population has become more diverse .
40 million population represents many different social, economic viewpoints, he says .
Liggins: Discrimination still key issue, but other concerns have emerged .
Liggins says politicians need to know that past appeals to race are outdated .


Editor's Note: Award-winning journalist and best-selling author Carl Bernstein, best known for his reporting work with Bob Woodward about the Watergate scandal, serves as a political analyst for CNN. Most recently, Bernstein wrote "A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton," a detailed portrait of the junior senator from New York and former Democratic presidential candidate. Carl Bernstein says Republicans returned to old themes, including patriotism, to attack Democrats. (CNN) -- Democrats take note: the Republican convention was resolutely on-message Tuesday night, sounding old themes and buzzwords that have worked for the GOP in the past. It's those same themes that John McCain, who once rejected the approach, has now embraced as the only way to the White House. "The Angry Left," "Liberals," "The Media," -- the familiar litany of right-wing Republican demons -- rocked the house in St. Paul, Minnesota. The message: McCain, Sarah Palin and the Republicans are the true party of patriotism, as if the Democrats aren't. In the repetitious theme of the evening, the Republicans would "Put Country First," as if the Democrats wouldn't. The Democrats' first response to the evening, in a statement from the Obama campaign about the GOP's failure to address economic problems in the country, said nothing -- perhaps at its peril -- about the real Republican message. The theme was first sounded by actor Robert Duvall in the short film he narrated; followed by speaker after speaker and later interspersed in filmed tributes to Ronald Reagan and to a Navy Seal hero who died in Iraq. That is the theme invoked as the motif of John McCain's life. Perhaps the most extreme example of the implication that the Republicans have a lock on patriotism and "Putting Country First" came in video footage of a first-responder going underwater to rescue occupants of a car that plummeted in the Minneapolis bridge collapse. (No word at the convention about problems of infrastructure in the country -- just people (apparently only Republicans) who would "Put Country First." Meanwhile, consistent with the demonizing subtext of this theme, President Bush attacked (rather incongruously, but with plenty of antecedents in Republican history) "The Angry Left" -- perhaps an attempt to stigmatize those who would question Sarah Palin's credentials. A quick video tribute to Ronald Reagan referred to "the media [who] despised him." Former Sen. Fred Thompson pounded Barack Obama as "the most liberal" presidential candidate in history, and brought the convention to its feet. He also warned of losing the Supreme Court to the Democrats and "liberalism" (to delirious applause). Thompson said McCain's pick of Palin had thrown the Democrats' "friends in the media into a state of panic" (pandemonium in the hall). John McCain, in a different time in his life (i.e. running against George W. Bush for the Republican nomination in 2000), specifically rejected this approach. He courted and charmed the dreaded "media" monolith and enunciated a post-partisan vision (yet definitely consistent with conservative orthodoxy on many big questions). McCain also railed against the culture wars that his party and campaign are now intent on stoking as the way to victory. (Remember, only months ago, when the promise of this election was that there were two nominees who understood the enduring damage of the culture wars to the country and its political system?) Will the Republican message on display last night work? It was essential to George W. Bush's defeat of John Kerry and pulled Bush to parity with Al Gore in 2000. George H.W. Bush relied on the approach in 1988. Bill Clinton recognized the strategy, addressed it substantively and forthrightly and buried it. The McCain campaign and the Republican Party of 2008 are betting that Barack Obama won't be nimble enough to repeat Clinton's feat, and that they have found the formula (including putting Palin on the ticket at a moment when the election seemed to be eluding them) to victory. The opinions expressed in

Question: who did bush attack

Question: The angry left was attacked by who at the convention

Question: Who now embraces the GOP theme whilst previously rejecting them

Question: Who attacked The Angry Left at the convention?

Question: when was the GOP convention?

Question: What does Bernstein claim McCain rejected?

Question: What is the theme at Tuesday's  GOP convention?

Answer: "The Angry Left"

Answer: President Bush

Answer: John McCain,

Answer: President Bush

Answer: Tuesday night,

Answer: the approach,

Answer: "Put Country First,"

Summary:
Tuesday's themes at GOP convention dealt with patriotism, "Putting Country First"
President Bush attacked "The Angry Left" at convention .
Bernstein: McCain once rejected old GOP themes, now embraces them .


Editor's Note: Barry Eichengreen is George C. Pardee and Helen N. Pardee Professor of Economics and Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of "Golden Fetters: the Gold Standard and the Great Depression, 1919-1939."

Barry Eichengreen says strong action should be taken to stop the financial crisis from getting worse.

BERKELEY, California (CNN) -- Every time the economy and stock market turn down, financial historians get predictable calls from reporters.

Could this be the start of another Great Depression? Could "it" possibly happen again? My stock answer has always been no.

The Great Depression resulted from a series of economic and financial shocks -- the end of a housing bubble in 1926 and the end of a high-tech bubble in 1929 -- but also from truly breathtaking neglect and incompetence on the part of policymakers.

It couldn't happen again precisely because policymakers know this history. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson remembers the mistakes of Andrew Mellon, Herbert Hoover's treasury secretary.

We can be confident, I always answered, that there will not be another Great Depression because policymakers have read financial histories like mine. At least that was my line until recently. Now I have stopped taking reporters' calls.

The first thing that made the Great Depression great, of course, was the Fed's failure to act. It basically stood by as the banking system and the economy collapsed around it. This time, in contrast, the Fed can hardly be criticized for inaction. Not only has it cut rates, but it has rolled out one new unprecedented initiative after another.

Unfortunately, it has reacted more than acted. First, it provided funds to the commercial banks. Then, it targeted broker-dealers. Now, it is desperately propping up the commercial paper market. All the while however, the problem has been infecting new parts of the financial system.

One thing that restrained the Fed in the 1930s was the fear that rate cuts might cause capital to flee to other countries and the dollar to crash. The danger was that the same liquidity that the Fed poured in through the top of the bucket might just leak back out through these holes in the bottom.

There was a solution: coordinated rate cuts here and in Europe. Unfortunately, central bankers couldn't agree on what was needed. The result was further instability.

That central banks have learned this lesson of history and now see the need for coordinated action is at least one ground for hope. The problem is that they have already used their bullets. iReport.com: What lessons have your family passed down from the Great Depression?

U.S. Treasury bill rates have essentially fallen to zero, and the Fed's policy interest rates are only slightly above that level. Central banks are out of ammunition. This is no longer a problem they can solve by themselves.

What is needed now is Treasury action to address what has morphed into a global banking crisis. Between 1930 and 1933, not just the U.S. but also Europe and Latin America experienced rolling banking crises.

When Austria took desperate measures to prop up its banking system, its banking crisis only shifted to Germany. When Germany did the same, the crisis spread to the United States.

This was beggar-thy-neighbor policy at its worst. We have seen some disturbing evidence of the same in recent weeks, as when Ireland unilaterally guaranteed all bank deposits and thereby sucked funds out of the British banking system.

G7 leaders, when they meet in Washington at the end of this week, need to explain exactly how they will address this aspect of the problem. They need to commit money to recapitalizing their banking systems -- now, and not next week.

The U.K., which has just announced a $50 billion plan for bank recapitalization, has shown how this can be done in a matter of days. But a coordinated initiative will require the U.S. to put up a considerably larger sum.

My recommendation would be to abandon the idea of reverse auctions for toxic assets and

Question: Who made serious mistakes?

Question: What historical event does this person say we should learn from?

Question: Mistakes were made during what time?

Question: Events are overtaking the resources of what banks?

Question: Who knows the lessions of the Depression?

Answer: Andrew Mellon,

Answer: The Great Depression

Answer: Great Depression.

Answer: Central

Answer: central banks

Summary:
Eichengreen: Serious mistakes were made by policy makers in Depression .
Today's leaders know the lessons of the Depression, he says .
Still, events are rapidly overtaking the resources of the central banks, he says .
Eichengreen: The problem can't wait until Inauguration Day to be solved .


Editor's Note: CNN.com has a business partnership with CareerBuilder.com, which serves as the exclusive provider of job listings and services to CNN.com. This article first appeared in September 2005.

(CareerBuilder.com) -- Are skyrocketing gasoline prices cursing your commute? Wondering why you're driving to work only to spend your hard-earned dollars to get you there and back? Perhaps telecommuting is the answer.

Telecommuting is changing the way we work. An estimated 10 percent of today's workforce works from home and remains on the company payroll. And a recent study commissioned by Bell Atlantic estimates that 2 million American businesses support some kind of telecommuting program.

Employees who telecommute largely report that they are happier with their jobs and more satisfied with their personal lives. A survey by the Information Technology Association of America even found that 36 percent of respondents would choose telecommuting over a pay raise.

Increased quality of life sits at the top of the list of employee benefits along with reduced stress levels, greater flexibility and increased productivity. And contrary to the popular "out of sight, out of mind" misconception that telecommuting will take you off the fast track, a study of 17,000 telecommuters by the U.S. Small Business Administration (Myths and Realities of Working at Home) found that teleworkers receive a higher proportion of promotions than their stay-at-work counterparts.

Employers in turn benefit from reduced real estate costs and absenteeism, increased productivity, morale and employer turnover costs. In addition, many find that telecommuting seems to encourage certain entrepreneurial qualities in their employees, including drive, self-discipline, self-reliance and improved judgment.

There are benefits to the community as well: reduced fossil fuel consumption and traffic congestion which lead to cleaner air and safer neighborhoods. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, if an additional 10 percent of the nation's workforce would telecommute just one day a week, Americans would avoid the frustration of driving 24.4 million miles, breathe air with 13,000 tons less air pollution and conserve more than 1.2 million gallons of fuel each week.

Are you a candidate for telecommuting? Certain jobs such as writers, salespersons, accountants, programmers, graphic artists, researchers, engineers, architects and public relations professionals lend themselves to telecommuting better than others.

You also need to have the right personal qualities. For example, do you have the self-discipline to work from home under minimal supervision? Does your boss perceive you as a self-starter who can work independently? Are you a proven performer? Well-organized? A good time-manager?

If the answers are yes, you may want to propose a telecommuting arrangement with your employer. To do so successfully, follow the same principles you would in a job interview. Focus on the benefits of telecommuting to the company, not the benefits to you. State only that telecommuting will make you more productive and efficient, be a better use of the time you currently spend on the road, make your boss's life easier -- whatever benefits you come up with that focus on the employer's needs, not yours.

Outline in writing your job description and assure your boss that you'll meet your responsibilities. Emphasize that you know what needs to be done and that telecommuting won't significantly change that. You may even want to include a table that shows which of your job functions will be accomplished off-site, which will be performed in the traditional workplace and which can be done at either location. Describe how you will handle key relationships with other team members.

Think about yourself the same way you would if you were looking for a new job. What is your unique selling proposition? How are you an asset to your employer, and what do you do better then anyone else in your company? By effectively communicating your value to your employer, you'll be better able to sell your boss on the idea of letting you telework. E-mail to a friend

Copyright CareerBuilder.com 2009. All rights reserved. The information contained in this article may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority

Kate Lorenz is the article and advice editor for CareerBuilder.com

Question: How many of today's workforce telecommutes from home?

Question: What does 2 million American businesses support?

Question: What is the percent of today's workforce?

Question: How many people would choose telecommuting over a pay raise?

Question: How many million?

Answer: 10 percent

Answer: some kind of telecommuting program.

Answer: 10

Answer: 36 percent

Answer: 2

Summary:
An estimated 10 percent of today's workforce telecommutes from home .
2 million American businesses support some kind of telecommuting program .
Survey: 36 percent would choose telecommuting over a pay raise .


Editor's Note: CNNU is following two student teams from the University of Southern California as they work to improve the quality of life in India. The student teams will be writing about their experiences for CNNU throughout the summer. Check back regularly for updates on their work. CNNU first introduced the Oral Cancer Awareness Team. It now introduces the Water and Health Team. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of CNN or its affiliates. Students visited slums to obtain data on the history of health and access to water in each household. (CNN)  -- The World Health Organization reports that 88 percent of the 1.8 million deaths resulting from diarrhea can be attributed to unsafe water or inadequate hygiene or sanitation. Unfortunately, a significant population in the city of Hubli, India, fall victim to these causes, and they are not even aware of the cause. The University of Southern California Hubli Water and Health Team is spending this summer implementing a project model that will improve these statistics in the community. The team of six students, visiting from the University of Southern California, will guide a pilot project in the under-served community of S.M. Krishna Nagar. Over the course of the next year, the Team will employ local college students to maintain the program and monitor the efficiency of the water purification technology. And by subsidizing the cost for those living within S.M Krishna Nagar, the Team will be providing state-of-the-art purification systems at affordable prices, creating an important sense of ownership and empowerment for the people. The team also plans to build awareness within the local community about the need to drink purified water. While the source of water currently received by the Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation is filtered, sewage leakage and the poor management of waste often contaminates drinking water on its way into the homes. This means that while the water from these pipes or the bore wells may look clean, it can be hazardous to drink. To compound the issue, even water contained in holding tanks on vehicles that visit the community is by no means guaranteed to be of sufficient, purified quality. The tanks carrying the water are rarely cleaned and the taps through which the water is dispersed may easily be contaminated. Families must be aware that the water they are provided is harmful to their health and provides a catalyst for breeding mosquitoes carrying malaria and other transferable diseases. Local reports have proven this, and communities in the past have fallen victim to water-related illnesses as a result of their consumption of unclean water. The USC Hubli Water and Health Team team hopes to shed light on this threatening issue, as confronting the challenge of dirty drinking water is a "gateway" step towards achieving measured, sustainable improvements in a wide array of serious health related issues. Through education at key points of community influence and the measured introduction of new technologies that encourage responsibility over simply charity, the Team will use its time in Hubli to affect change that is both scalable and sustainable.

Question: where did the students go

Question: What is one of the top 3 cancers in India?

Question: Who did the students employ?

Question: Who did students employ to maintain their program and monitor its efficiency?

Question: From which University did students come from to go to India?

Answer: India.

Answer: Oral

Answer: local college students

Answer: local college

Answer: of Southern California

Summary:
Students from University of Southern California go to India to improve quality of life .
Team provides innovative water treatment measures to stop disease .
Other team teaches how to prevent oral cancer, one of top 3 cancers in India .
Students employ locals to maintain program and monitor efficiency over next year .


Editor's Note: Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian public policy research foundation. He formerly worked at The Heritage Foundation and as an economist for Republican Sen. Bob Packwood and the Senate Finance Committee. He also served on the 1988 Bush-Quayle transition team. Daniel Mitchell says an auto bailout would subsidize bad management and reward inflexible unions. (CNN) -- General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and the United Auto Workers union are pouring millions of dollars into a lobbying campaign for a taxpayer bailout. The money devoted to influence peddling in Washington would be better spent on improving quality and finding ways to reduce a bloated cost structure, but both management and UAW have decided that fleecing taxpayers is a better option. A taxpayer bailout would be a terrible mistake. It would subsidize the shoddy management practices of the corporate bureaucrats at General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, and it would reward the intransigent union bosses who have made the synonymous with inflexible and anti-competitive work rules. Perhaps most important, though, is that a bailout would be bad for the long-term health of the American auto industry. It would discriminate against the 113,000 Americans who have highly-coveted jobs building cars for Nissan, BMW and other auto companies that happen to be headquartered in other nations. These companies demonstrate that it is possible to build cars in America and make money. Putting them at a competitive disadvantage with handouts for the U.S.-headquartered companies would be highly unjust. A bailout also would be bad for General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. The so-called Big Three desperately need to fundamentally restructure their practices. More specifically, the car companies need to endure some short-term pain in order to restore long-term viability. But that won't happen if politicians raid the treasury. Getting access to taxpayer money would be akin to giving an alcoholic the key to a liquor cabinet. It also would be bad for American taxpayers and the American economy. For instance: • A bailout will hurt the overall economy by misallocating resources. When politicians grant special favors to a certain industry or a particular union, such decisions necessarily mean that market forces are being replaced by special-interest deal-making. This type of interference with free markets is why nations such as France, Germany and Japan tend to grow more slowly and enjoy less prosperity. But if America goes down this same path of government intervention, it is inevitable that we will suffer the same fate of stagnation and higher unemployment. • A bailout will encourage other industries to seek taxpayer handouts. The Wall Street bailout was a disaster in many ways, most notably as measured by the weak stock market and economic volatility. But another negative aspect of the bailout is that other industries have now decided that it is OK to stick their snouts in the public trough, as well. First Wall Street's high fliers get a bailout. Now the inefficient management and union at the Big Three want a handout. Who will be next in line to pillage taxpayers? Giving handouts in exchange for political support is akin to getting high. Once politicians decide they like the buzz of campaign contributions, they'll turn into junkies with ordinary Americans footing the bill. • A bailout is a perverse transfer from poor taxpayers to rich taxpayers. America's Founding Fathers surely never envisaged that the federal government would take money from one group of Americans and give it to another group. Yet much of the federal budget is devoted to redistribution programs. Bailouts are a particularly bizarre form of redistribution, however, because the corporate bureaucrats at the Big Three are among the very richest Americans. The UAW bosses make extravagant salaries, as well, and even regular union workers make an average total compensation including benefits of approximately $70 per hour, far higher than the average American. The government should not be in the business of giving unearned wealth to any group of citizens, but surely liberals and conservatives both can agree that politicians should not be taking money from middle class taxpayers and giving it to upper-middle class and rich taxpayers. Advocates oftentimes admit that bailouts are not

Question: what did daniel bailing say about bailout?

Question: Who does Mitchell say would receive unfair treatment in the deal?

Question: what would companies do for companies?

Question: what did mitchell say about auto execs, workers and unions?

Question: Who is making statements about the auto industry bailout?

Answer: would subsidize bad management and reward inflexible unions.

Answer: 113,000 Americans

Answer: demonstrate that it is possible to build cars in America and make money.

Answer: bailout would subsidize bad management

Answer: Daniel Mitchell

Summary:
Daniel Mitchell: Bailing out the Big Three would reward shoddy management .
A bailout would be unfair to other auto companies making cars in the U.S., he says .
Mitchell says auto execs, workers and unions are overpaid .
Bankruptcy would let the companies streamline their operations, Mitchell says .


Editor's Note: David Hawkins is Director of Public Policy and Research for the National Association for College Admission Counseling, a nonprofit organization that represents more than 11,000 high school counselors and college admission officers from across the country. He was the author of a report last month by the organization's commission on the use of standardized tests. David Hawkins says test scores shouldn't be used to rank college quality ARLINGTON, Virginia (CNN) -- A recent controversy at Baylor University has brought new attention to the widespread misuse of standardized college admission tests to rank the quality of America's colleges and universities. The SAT and ACT have achieved nearly iconic status in America and throughout the world. As the late author and scholar Stephen Jay Gould noted, the tests are viewed by many as "abstruse and mysterious," with powerful effects on public policy, social mobility, and even individual identity. Misuse of test scores as college ranking criteria creates undue pressure on admission offices to pursue increasingly high test scores and fuels the tests' disproportionate influence. Last June, Baylor University encouraged its already admitted first-year students to retake the SAT. The reward for students who retook the test was $300 in bookstore credits. Students who increased their score by more than 50 points got a $1,000 merit aid scholarship. If enough students retook the SAT and increased their scores, the gains might be enough to move Baylor up the rankings list. The scarce financial resources allocated for this plan are too badly needed elsewhere, particularly among low-income students in rural and urban areas around the country, to spend on an effort to raise a college's SAT profile. A Baylor spokesman told The Associated Press Thursday that the university "goofed" and would likely end the incentives. It's critical to understand that high SAT and ACT scores alone do not equate to merit. Last month, our organization's Commission on the Use of Standardized Tests in Undergraduate Admission issued a report calling for change in the way everyone involved in college admissions uses the tests. Test misuses feed the public perception that the scores are the most influential factor in college admission. For the past 15 years, National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) research has shown that students' grades in high school, particularly grades in college preparatory courses, are by far the most important consideration in college admission decisions. One of the most pressing problems regarding the SAT and ACT scores is their misuse in the U.S. News and World Report college rankings formula. The SAT and ACT were designed to provide information about a student to colleges and universities and were never meant to be measures of college quality. Accordingly, the commission encouraged U.S. News and World Report to eliminate test scores as a measure of institutional quality. The U.S. News ranking formula includes a "student selectivity" score that constitutes 15 percent of a college's overall rank. SAT or ACT scores of enrollees make up 50 percent of the student selectivity score. In response to the NACAC report, U.S. News and World Report said, "As long as standardized tests play an integral role in the college admissions process, U.S. News will use them as part of our ranking methodology." The situation at Baylor is a reminder of the inflated value assigned to the SAT and ACT in higher education. The fervor surrounding the rankings, as well as the lengths to which colleges go to increase them, are unfortunate distractions in higher education and admissions. The impression students and families get from the rankings is that higher test scores mean higher quality colleges. To borrow a phrase familiar to admission deans, many colleges recruit great students and then graduate great students. Is that because of the institution, or the students? Some credit undoubtedly should go to both. But is a college of lower quality because its students' SAT scores are lower than those of students at another college? Generally speaking, the ability of admission tests to predict success in higher education is much more limited than most people think. Colleges most often determine the utility of admission test scores by assessing how well they predict first-year grades. Colleges are wrong to

Question:
what about the importance of grades
what did hawkins say

Answer: in college preparatory courses, are by far the most important consideration in college admission decisions.

Answer: test scores shouldn't be used to rank college quality

Summary:
David Hawkins: Admission tests are wrongly used to rank college quality .
Hawkins says Baylor University's incentives for test scores are a mistake .
Grades are much more important than test scores in admissions decisions, he says .
Hawkins: U.S. News should drop SAT and ACT scores in rankings .


Editor's Note: Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist, is chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights Institute and founder of Brazile & Associates, a political consulting firm. She was the campaign manager for the Al Gore-Joe Lieberman ticket in 2000 and wrote "Cooking with Grease." Donna Brazile says Barack Obama's inauguration is a huge milestone in the fight for equal rights WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Today Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th president of the United States of America. This is the day for which so many prayed, so many marched and so many more sacrificed. This is a day of jubilation and celebration. This is the day to rejoice and recommit ourselves to restoring the American dream for us all. Barack Obama's election offers our country the opportunity to open a new chapter that will allow us to turn the corner on past prejudices and racial politics. When Sen. Obama announced his candidacy for president in 2007, most people, black and white, thought it would be, at best, an interesting sideshow. After Obama's victories in the early primaries, there came the controversial videos of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, broadcasting a racial divisiveness that cast even greater doubt on an Obama candidacy. But the senator moved quickly to reassure people that Wright's jaundiced view of America did not reflect his own. Americans wanted to move beyond racial categorization and the politics of division. Obama understood that. And so did the voters. But African-Americans didn't believe it. Seventy-one percent of black voters had never thought a black candidate for president would get elected in their lifetime, according to a national poll released in November by CNN/Opinion Research Corp. Yet 59 percent of white respondents said they had thought it was possible. Obama did not just win the caucuses in Iowa  -- a state with a white population of more than 94 percent -- he resoundingly captured it. Other primary victories, once thought improbable, soon followed. These included Georgia, and Virginia, the former seat of the Confederacy. On Election Day, Obama won a higher percentage of the white vote than John Kerry did in 2004, though he did not get a majority of whites. Unlike other black presidential candidates before him, Obama did not run as "the black candidate." He ran as a Democratic candidate, a U.S. senator from Illinois, and a progressive. And America, by larger margins than in previous recent elections, voted for the progressive Democratic U.S. senator from Illinois who happened to be biracial. For too long, race has been the stain on the American fabric. As Secretary Condoleezza Rice reminded us, race has been our "nation's birth defect." At times during the long primary and general election, race became a subtle distraction -- but the American people rejected it and it was never the primary issue. Nor was it the primary issue for Americans who voted for Barack Obama. The vast majority of those who voted for and against Obama did so based on the content of his political prescriptions and platform -- not the color of his skin. A lot of lessons were taught November 4. Obama's election revealed the possibility of three new truths for African-Americans: White America may not be as racist as African-Americans thought they were; a solution to our country's lingering racial problem may eventually be found; and the Rev. Martin Luther King's dream that one day all people will be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin is alive and within reach. Obama's election has inspired 6 in 10 blacks to forecast better race relations in the United States. "A majority of blacks now believe that a solution to the country's racial problems will eventually be found," said CNN polling director Keating Holland. "In every previous poll on this topic dating back to 1993, black respondents had always said that racial problems were a permanent part of the American landscape. Even in the most recent polls taken last week, a majority of African-Americans said that a solution to the country

Question: What did Brazile say hardly anyone did two years ago?

Question: Obama ran as a what?

Question: What did Donna Brazile say?

Question: What did Brazile say Obama ran as?

Question: What didn't Obama run as in the election?

Question: What did Donna Brazile say about Obama's inauguration?

Answer: Barack Obama's inauguration is a huge milestone in the fight for equal rights

Answer: a Democratic candidate,

Answer: Barack Obama's inauguration is a huge milestone in the fight for equal rights

Answer: as a Democratic candidate, a U.S. senator from Illinois, and a progressive.

Answer: "the black candidate."

Answer: is a huge milestone in the fight for equal rights

Summary:
Donna Brazile: Obama's inauguration is a time for rejoicing and rededication .
Brazile: Hardly anyone took Obama seriously as a candidate two years ago .
Brazile: He didn't run as an African-American candidate but as a Democrat .
Brazile: We are perhaps ready to achieve what Lincoln and the Rev. King fought for .


Editor's Note: Drew Westen, Ph.D., is professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation." He has been a consultant or adviser to several candidates and organizations, including the AFL-CIO, and has informally advised the Obama campaign.

Drew Westen says Democrats realized you need more than position papers to sway the voters.

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- A single factor never produces a complex event like the historic election of Barack Obama. But when the final post-mortem on the election of 2008 is someday written, it will no doubt include at least three.

First, John McCain started with three strikes against him. Those strikes happen to be the three strongest predictors that enter into the equations used by political scientists to predict who will win an election: an unpopular incumbent president (in this case, the most unpopular in the history of polling), an economic downturn (in this case an understatement), and an unpopular war.

In some ways, McCain lost the presidency twice to George W. Bush. In the 2000 South Carolina primary, McCain was defeated by what have been generously referred to as "dirty tricks;" and in the two-year run-up to the 2008 election, he allied himself with Bush and his policies to win his party's nomination (even referring to Bush as "one of our greatest presidents"), which was his undoing with independent voters in the general election.

Second, whether McCain rues the day he chose Sarah Palin (who moved from the asset to the liability column around the same time Lehman Brothers did), Palin no doubt rues the day she chose to become a small-town mayor instead of a community organizer.

It was precisely the extraordinary capacity to organize people that allowed Obama and his chief advisers to bring such unprecedented numbers of people to the polls.

Not only was this the first election in recent memory in which Democrats outgunned Republicans with their get-out-the-vote efforts, but it was the first time since Eisenhower recognized the potential value of television as a medium for advertising over 50 years ago that Democrats have led Republicans in technology.

From the moment I met Obama's media wizard, Scott Goodstein, 18 months ago, I realized Obama would have a tremendous advantage on that front, but I didn't realize by how much.

But then there's that other major factor: For the first time since Bill Clinton, the Democrats chose a candidate with both the general intelligence to govern and the emotional and political intelligence to win.

And they finally abandoned the approach to campaigning that has been their downfall for generations: peppering voters with facts, figures, and policy positions and assuming they will see what a rational choice the candidate is.

We don't choose any of the important people in our lives that way, whether spouses or presidents. Obama beat McCain the same way he beat Hillary Clinton: by out-inspiring them, boxing them into the role of the candidate against hope, and defining himself as the candidate who represents change.

And in the last few weeks of the campaign, Obama finally began to control the four stories that matter in an election:

1. the story you tell about your yourself (that he was the candidate of change, fleshing out what he meant by change);

2. the story you tell about your opponent (that McCain was four more years of Bush);

3. the story the other candidate is telling about himself (McCain the maverick, which Obama countered by citing McCain's proud proclamation that he had voted with Bush over 90 percent of the time and parrying, "That's not a maverick, that's a sidekick"); and

4. the story McCain was telling about Obama (that he lacked the experience and judgment to lead, which Obama countered with his steadiness in the face of the Wall Street meltdown and his strong, steady performances in the debates).

Elections are won by

Question: Who had the technological edge?

Question: What did Westen say about Democrats?

Question: Which former or current president was described as unpopular?

Question: What organization, etc., is Drew Westen with?

Question: What did Drew Westen say about McCain?

Question: Which party was associated with position papers and statistics?

Answer: Barack Obama.

Answer: realized you need more than position papers to sway the voters.

Answer: George W. Bush.

Answer: Emory University,

Answer: started with three strikes against him.

Answer: Democrats

Summary:
Drew Westen: McCain was burdened by bad economy, Bush unpopularity .
Democrats had technological edge for first time in decades, Westen says .
Westen says Democrats learned you can't win with position papers, statistics .
They dealt with people's fears, mostly about the economy, Westen says .


Editor's Note: For more than two decades, world-renowned photojournalist Peter Turnley has covered nearly every significant news event and world conflict in Bosnia, Rwanda, Chechnya, Haiti, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Iraq. His photographs have graced the covers of Newsweek, National Geographic, Le Monde, Le Figaro and The London Sunday Times.

Peter Turnley took this photo of an Obama supporter on Inauguration Day.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- On Sunday morning, I boarded a bus in Brooklyn with a group of approximately 40 citizens from New York, all African-American, each of whom would not have missed for almost anything the inauguration of President Barack Obama.

I have been a photojournalist for the past 25 years and have had the incredible opportunity to witness many of modern history's defining moments: the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of communism in Eastern Europe in 1989, the end of apartheid in South Africa and Nelson Mandela walking out of prison in 1991, and most of the world's conflicts of the past three decades.  This moment means 'everything is possible' »

When our bus pulled into Maryland on the eve of the inauguration, I knew after hearing the words of my fellow passengers, in some sense fellow pilgrims, that I was in the midst of a moment of history like maybe no other I had ever witnessed -- certainly in terms of its historic magnitude, and certainly not in America.

It is the words of these passengers, and those of many others that I have met in the past two days, that are representative to some degree of what this moment means. Read more on the AC360 blog.

Question:
who is turneley?
What was the event they visited?
What is the name of the photographer?
What was their means of transportation?
Who covered the inauguration?
where did they go?
what was the purpose of the trip?
Who did he travel with?

Answer: world-renowned photojournalist

Answer: the inauguration of President Barack Obama.

Answer: Peter Turnley

Answer: bus

Answer: Peter Turnley

Answer: Maryland

Answer: inauguration

Answer: a group of approximately 40 citizens from New York,

Summary:
Photographer Peter Turnley covered President Barack Obama's inauguration .
He traveled by bus with 40 African-Americans from Brooklyn, New York .
Moment was like no other "in terms of its historic magnitude," Turnley says .


Editor's Note: Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is founder of The Carter Center, a not-for-profit organization that seeks to "prevent and resolve conflicts, enhance freedom and democracy, and improve health." Read more on human rights defenders: http://www.cartercenter.org/homepage.html

Jimmy Carter says closing Guantanamo Bay and ending torture would send a strong message.

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- It has been heartening to witness the outpouring of worldwide enthusiasm over the election of Barack Obama as the next president of the United States, a transformational moment for our country.

Our incoming president has huge challenges ahead of him, and he will undoubtedly reach out to other world leaders to help address the most difficult problems. A high priority will be the restoration of human rights, which have been badly eroded in recent years.

President-elect Obama has reiterated his decision to close GuantÃ¡namo Bay detention center and end U.S.-sponsored torture. Also under discussion is the establishment by the U.S. government of an independent commission to examine the actions that led to these shameful policies and practices.

Together, these steps would signal a renewed commitment to the cause of universal human rights long championed by the United States. As this year marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the reassertion of these fundamental rights is necessary.

While the U.S. government has much work to do in this regard, there will have to be a concerted international effort to achieve meaningful protection of human rights, even as the issue of security continues to demand our attention.

The American people and our courts have rejected the proposition that some people's rights can be suspended arbitrarily; to do so violates the very core of our democracy. Hopefully, those working to establish democratic practices and institutions worldwide will seize upon this development and convince their own fellow citizens that democracy and human rights are worth the struggle.

The international community, including a newly energized United States, should move swiftly and decisively to support the local heroes who risk much to advance this cause.

Human rights defenders from throughout the world are participating in our annual conference at The Carter Center this week to share the challenges they face, and to decide how the international community can best support their efforts.

For years, these activists have told us that when the United States engaged in torture and indefinite detention, their decades of struggle for rights began to erode. Dictators who had felt pressure from the United States to improve rights were suddenly off the hook. With new leadership in Washington, a clear and principled message on the centrality of human rights can help set a new tone.

Too often, the international community has failed to respond to emerging crises, partly because voices of the oppressed are missing in policy discussions. Had the international community heeded the warning of human rights defenders in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Darfur, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, more robust and coordinated diplomacy and even limited intervention may have averted these crises.

Catastrophic conditions exist in Congo, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Myanmar, Afghanistan and elsewhere and will require unprecedented cooperation to resolve. It is time to embrace the idea that when human beings are systematically abused, international peace and security are inherently threatened.

In such situations, the global community should spare no effort to help societies in distress. Crises like these can be assuaged before they escalate if there is determined global leadership and cooperation.

Human rights defenders are on the frontlines of this battle, and we must protect them when they face danger because of their work. We must do a better job of listening to their diagnoses of issues and be receptive to their proposed solutions.

And we must strengthen their voices and help to protect them in a collective, undeniable commitment to create the world of peace and freedom that many of us enjoy and we all desire.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jimmy Carter.

Question: What prison does Obama want to close?

Question: What event was Carter praising?

Question: What ex-President was quoted?

Question: What would signal renewed U.S support for human rights?

Question: What did Jimmy Carter say?

Question: Which president pledged to end torture?

Question: What would the message to dictators be about?

Question: What did Carter say closing Guantanamo would do?

Question: What promise did Obama make about Guantanamo Base?

Question: What does Obama plan to do about torture?

Answer: Guantanamo Bay

Answer: closing Guantanamo Bay

Answer: Jimmy Carter

Answer: closing Guantanamo Bay

Answer: closing Guantanamo Bay and ending torture would send a strong message.

Answer: President-elect Obama

Answer: centrality of human rights

Answer: send a strong message.

Answer: close GuantÃ¡namo Bay

Answer: end U.S.-sponsored

Summary:
Jimmy Carter: It's heartening to see world enthusiasm over Obama's election .
New president has pledged to close Guantánamo and end torture, he says .
Carter: These steps would signal renewed U.S. support for human rights .
He says U.S. is vital in sending message to dictators about human rights .


Editor's Note: In an exclusive series this week on "Campbell Brown," the FBI has unveiled three additions to its list of the Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. The FBI says Semion Mogilevich has been involved in arms trafficking, prostitution, extortion and murder for hire. NEWTOWN, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- Semion Mogilevich may be the most powerful man you've never heard of. The FBI says Mogilevich, a Russian mobster, has been involved in arms trafficking, prostitution, extortion and murder for hire. "He has access to so much, including funding, including other criminal organizations, that he can, with a telephone call and order, affect the global economy," said FBI Supervisory Special Agent Peter Kowenhoven. Mogilevich's alleged brutality, financial savvy and international influence have earned him a slot on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list, though he has lived and operated from Moscow, Russia, for years.  Watch CNN report on Mogilevich » "He's a big man. He's a very powerful man," FBI Special Agent Mike Dixon said. "I think more powerful than a John Gotti would be, because he has the ability to influence nations. Gotti never reached that stature." He is accused of swindling Canadian and U.S. investors out of $150 million in a complex international financial scheme. It centered on a firm called YBM, which purportedly made magnets at a factory in Hungary. Authorities say the scheme involved preparing bogus financial books and records, lying to Securities and Exchange Commission officials, offering bribes to accountants and inflating stock values of YBM, which was headquartered in Newtown, Pennsylvania. In a raid in 1998, FBI agents found a treasure trove of documents -- purchase orders, invoices, shipping orders, even technical drawings -- everything a legitimate business would produce. But there was one thing missing. "There were no magnets," Dixon said. It was all a sham, investigators say. "In essence, what his companies were doing was moving money through bank accounts in Budapest and countries throughout the world and reporting these to the investment community as purchases of raw materials and sales of magnets," Dixon said. And because the company was publicly traded, anyone owning the stock would have made a lot of money. "And of course Mogilevich controlled large, large blocks of stock from the outset, and he made a substantial amount of money in this process," Dixon said. Investors lost millions into the pockets of Mogilevich and his associates. He and his associates were indicted in 2003 on 45 counts of racketeering, securities fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering. Russian authorities arrested him last year on tax fraud charges, but because the United States does not have an extradition treaty with Russia, he remained beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement. He is now free on bail. The FBI believes Mogilevich moved on after YBM and began manipulating international energy markets, giving him a large influence on other nations. Dixon noted that Mogilevich had control or influence over companies involved in natural gas disputes between Russia and Ukraine. Authorities say Mogilevich, who has an economics degree from Ukraine, is known for his ruthless nature but also for his business acumen, which led to his nickname "the Brainy Don." "He has a very sophisticated, well-educated, loyal group of associates that he works with," Dixon said. "He hires top-notch consultants, attorneys, risk management firms to assist him and protect him in his criminal ventures." Louise Shelley, an organized crime expert from George Mason University, says Mogilevich is a new kind of criminal. "The major criminal organizations in Russia have not only tapped into people with economics degrees," Shelley said. "They've tapped into people with PHDs in finance and statistics who assist them." The FBI hopes Mogilevich will eventually travel to a country that has an extradition treaty with the U.S. But, in case he doesn't, his wanted poster will be distributed all over Russia.

Question:
What does the FBI believe?
What makes Semion Mogilevich dangerous?
What is Semion Mogilevich accused of?
What makes Mogilevich dangerous?
What is Semion Mogilevich known for?
What is the mobster known for?
What is Mogilevich accused of?

Answer: Mogilevich moved on after YBM and began manipulating international energy markets, giving him a large influence on other nations.

Answer: has been involved in arms trafficking, prostitution, extortion and murder for hire.

Answer: swindling Canadian and U.S. investors out of $150 million

Answer: arms trafficking, prostitution, extortion and murder for hire.

Answer: arms trafficking, prostitution, extortion and murder

Answer: arms trafficking, prostitution, extortion and murder

Answer: arms trafficking, prostitution, extortion and murder for hire.

Summary:
Semion Mogilevich accused of taking U.S., Canadian investors for $150 million .
FBI believes he moved on to manipulating international energy markets .
FBI: Mogilevich's business degree, large influence on nations make him dangerous .
Alleged Russian mobster known for his ruthlessness, power, business acumen .


Editor's Note: In our Behind the Scenes series, CNN correspondents share their experiences in covering news and analyze the stories behind the events. CNN's Senior Vatican Analyst John L. Allen Jr. is following the pope during his U.S. trip. Pope Benedict XVI asked pilgrims in St. Peter's Square on Sunday to pray for the success of his U.S. trip. NEW YORK (CNN) -- The official motto of Pope Benedict XVI's April 15-20 visit to the United States, the first of his papacy, is "Christ our Hope." Based on the frequency with which papal spokespersons have struck a different note, however, its unofficial motto might well be, "This is not a political event." Here's a typical example from early April: "The pope is not coming to get mixed up in the local political process," said Italian Archbishop Pietro Sambi, the pope's ambassador to America, in an interview with the National Catholic Reporter. "His presence is about something more universal and, at the same time, more personal." Fear that Benedict's visit might be read through the lens of party politics reflects a key fact of electoral life in America: The "Catholic vote" matters. To take the most obvious example, if a few heavily Catholic counties in Ohio had gone the other way in 2004, pundits would today be handicapping the re-election of President John Kerry. America's almost 70 million Catholics, representing a quarter of the country's population, are diverse and divided. They don't all agree with official church positions, and although Catholics were once reliable Democrats, today they're not clearly aligned with either party. That's a key reason why states with large Catholic populations, such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida, are considered crucial battlegrounds. Already in the 2008 race, Catholics have made themselves felt. On the Democratic side, they're the biggest single reason Sen. Hillary Clinton is still afloat. So far, the more Catholic a state, the better Clinton has done. With her back to the wall not long ago in Ohio and Texas, Clinton decisively outpolled Sen. Barack Obama among Catholic Democrats. In Ohio, Clinton won the Catholic vote by a margin of 63 percent to 36, while in Texas it was 62 percent to 38. Clinton is now hoping that Catholics will come through for her again in Pennsylvania's April 22 primary. The state's 3.87 million Catholics represent more than 30 percent of the population, and Clinton is clinging to a lead despite Pennsylvania Sen. Robert Casey's endorsement of Obama. Casey is a hero to pro-life Catholic Democrats, and his backing is apparently helping Obama narrow the gap. Clinton does better than Obama among Latinos, who are disproportionately Catholic. She's also winning Catholic "Reagan Democrats," meaning socially conservative blue-collar voters. Obama's recent gaffe, telling a crowd in San Francisco, California, that small-town Americans were "clinging to guns or religion" out of economic frustration, may help cement that advantage. Once the Democrats settle on a candidate, the Catholic vote seems wide open in November. Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, appeals to many Catholics because he's pro-life and has a moderate stance on immigration. Yet his willingness to remain in Iraq for "100 years" is at odds with the church's opposition to the war. Either Clinton or Obama could make a strong appeal to Catholics on peace-and-justice issues, yet both are out of sync with Catholic teaching on issues such as abortion, stem-cell research and gay rights. Both sides are expected to court Catholics aggressively. The McCain campaign recently formed a "National Catholics for McCain Committee" led by former Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, along with a "who's who" of prominent Catholic conservatives. Obama has his own "National Catholic Advisory Council," led by Casey and former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer, both pro-life Democrats. Clinton likewise has top-drawer Catholic advisers. Pope Benedict's trip is

Question: In what year was the close Ohio vote?

Question: What was Obama's gaffe?

Question: What did the papal representatives stress?

Answer: 2004,

Answer: telling a crowd in San Francisco, California, that small-town Americans were "clinging to guns or religion" out of economic frustration,

Answer: pope is not coming to get mixed up in the local political process,"

Summary:
Papal representatives stress Benedict's U.S. trip is "not a political event"
But Catholic vote still matters in U.S. politics, as 2004's close Ohio vote showed .
Obama's "guns and religion" gaffe may help Clinton with blue-collar Catholics .
Once Democrats settle on a candidate, Catholic vote seems wide open in November .


Editor's Note: Jack R. Nerad is Executive Editorial Director for Kelley Blue Book and kbb.com, and co-host of "America on the Road," heard on more than 300 radio stations. In the 1980s he served as Editor of Motor Trend magazine. Nerad is the author of "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hybrid and Alternative Fuel Vehicles," published recently by Alpha Books.

Jack Nerad says bankruptcy would drive car buyers away from GM and imperil suppliers.

(CNN) -- The events of the past week have been unprecedented in the auto industry and in the annals of American business.

As the events have unfolded, there is the strong implication from the administration's automotive task force that Chapter 11 bankruptcy, followed by restructuring and "cleansing" of General Motors' balance sheet, is a potential scenario in the ongoing efforts to keep the giant automaker alive.

GM's new chief executive, Fritz Henderson, acknowledged as much on CNN Sunday. "You can't rule options off the table. So you basically say we will spend time to try to get it [done] outside of bankruptcy. But if we can't, we're not going to compromise our goals. We're going to get it done inside our bankruptcy. Our preferred approach is still to do it outside, but you can't rule out going in."

Over the past few weeks pundits of all stripes have appeared on financial news networks suggesting that entering Chapter 11 is GM's only way to future viability. "Get on with it," they say, and save us the agony.

It is the only way, they argue, General Motors can get relief from its immediate cash-flow issues, tear up or substantially modify its union contracts, dump unnecessary brands, close plants and "right-size" its operations. But those pundits who propose Chapter 11 fail to acknowledge that General Motors is a consumer-facing company whose success or failure is in the hands of millions of average Americans.

This group will decide to buy or not buy General Motors vehicles based on what they know, hear and even feel about GM's future. As talk of imminent bankruptcy swirls in the press, the news they hear about General Motors certainly is not reassuring, as they consider which brand to buy.

How does that manifest itself in the car-buying public? We at Kelley Blue Book asked 500 potential new-vehicle buyers a string of related questions that yield answers to that multi-billion dollar question. Their response is telling.

Asked "How likely would you be to buy a car from General Motors if they were to go bankrupt," 42.1 percent of new-vehicle buyers said they were either "not at all likely" or "not very likely" to do so.

Even with a warranty guarantee from the federal government, consumers are not very enthusiastic about considering a GM purchase. Such a guarantee only moves the needle about three percentage points with 39.8 percent saying they were either "not at all likely" or "not very likely" to purchase a GM vehicle in such a situation.

Asked, "How likely would you be to buy a car from General Motors if they were allowed to keep operating but had to renegotiate their contracts and agreements with suppliers and laborers?" the responses changed. Given that scenario, only 31.6 percent of new-vehicle buyers said they were either "not at all likely" or "not very likely" to purchase a GM vehicle, and they were out-numbered by the 41.5 percent who said they were either "very likely" or "extremely likely" to do so.

While one must keep in mind that consumers don't always do what they say they are going to do, the import of this is clear: Bankruptcy puts a damper on consumer confidence and vehicle demand.

There are other reasons to question the wisdom of a Chapter 11 filing as well. Beyond its potentially chilling effect on consumer demand, there is a domino effect on the supplier community.

Many GM vendors have operated for years on ever-declining, razor-thin

Question:
What will bankruptcy do to GM?
what is bankrupcy used for
what will reduce sale of gm cars?
Who is Jack Nerad?
what did nerad say
what did some argue?
did nerad talk about bankrupcy

Answer: drive car buyers away from

Answer: allowed to keep operating

Answer: bankruptcy

Answer: Executive Editorial Director for Kelley Blue Book and kbb.com, and co-host

Answer: bankruptcy would drive car buyers away from GM and imperil suppliers.

Answer: It is the only way,

Answer: says bankruptcy would drive car buyers away from GM and imperil suppliers.

Summary:
Jack Nerad: Some argue that a quick bankruptcy is best course for GM .
He says bankruptcy will reduce sale of GM cars, even with government warranty .
Nerad says GM suppliers could be driven into bankruptcy by such a move .
He says bankruptcy is being used as a hammer for GM to get concessions .


Editor's Note: Join Roland S. Martin for his weekly sound-off segment on CNN.com Live at 11:10 a.m. Wednesday. If you're passionate about politics, he wants to hear from you. A nationally syndicated columnist and Chicago-based radio host, he is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith" and "Speak, Brother! A Black Man's View of America." Please visit his Web site. Roland Martin says Americans need to rise above issues of race, age and gender when they vote. (CNN) -- One of the most intriguing conversations I had at either the Democratic or Republican convention was with a white labor leader from Ohio. I can't remember his name, but he made it clear that he is going all around the Rust Belt state looking his white union brothers and sisters in the eye and essentially shaming them into supporting Sen. Barack Obama for president. No, he's not saying vote for the black man for president because he's black. He said he's telling them that it's shameful that as Democrats, they agree with him on various political issues, but because of his skin color, they are refusing to cast ballots for him. "We have gone to our black brothers and sisters for years to support our [white] candidates, and it's wrong for us to stand here and not support one of their own, even though we're Democrats," he barked. There is nothing more in-your-face than to hear someone speak truthfully to the inherent racism that is at play in this election. For all the talk about inclusion and the historic nature of this campaign, the true tribal feelings of so many people will come into play, whether we want to admit it or not. We are seeing remarkable bias playing strongly in this election. Exit-polling data in the primaries showed some evidence of bias when it came to age, race and gender, but the great concern is whether people are as honest in talking to pollsters as they are in the voting booth. Because Sen. John McCain is 72 and would be the oldest person to be sworn in as president, there is a lot of dialogue about how old this white guy is, and how wrong it is that he's running. Age questions also have been raised about the 47-year-old black guy from Chicago and whether he is too young and inexperienced to lead. While there is a lot of talk and excitement surrounding Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin being named as the first woman on a Republican ticket, and what that may mean in terms of widespread female support coming the way of McCain-Palin, there are some voices who refuse to vote for a woman. We've also seen a number of prominent women -- including Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn and radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger -- who have questioned whether the 44-year-old white mother of five children should be vice president, considering she has five children, including a special needs child. It's wonderful to talk about the economy, immigration, the war in Iraq, health care and education, but we can't be naïve to the reality that when voters go into that voting booth, they will, as one person told me during an interview, "vote with their tribe." That was one of the arguments we heard during the Democratic primaries when Obama enjoyed overwhelming support from African-Americans -- to the tune of 90-plus percent -- while Sen. Hillary Clinton had major female support, largely white, in the range of 65 to 70 percent. So what do we do when it comes to our tendency to follow group identification? 1. Stop dancing around the topic. When you watch TV and hear folks talk about Wal-Mart moms or small, rural towns, they are talking about white Americans. These catch phrases never include African-Americans or Hispanics 2. Confront bias where it is. Ask your friends, neighbors, co-workers and church members who they are voting for. When they give you the "I really can't

Question: what do they need to do

Question: Who said to stop dancing around the topics of race, age and gender?

Question: What did Roland Martin says about people?

Question: what did martin say

Question: what are the issues

Answer: rise above issues of race, age and gender when

Answer: Roland Martin

Answer: Americans need to rise above issues of race, age and gender when they vote.

Answer: Americans need to rise above issues of race, age and gender when they vote.

Answer: race, age and gender

Summary:
Roland Martin says people talk about issues but conceal their biases .
Martin: Race, age, gender issues affect support for Obama, McCain, Palin .
Americans need to be open about how "tribal" concerns influence them, he says .
Martin: Let's stop dancing around the topics of race, age and gender .


Editor's Note: Lucas A. Powe Jr. is a professor of constitutional law at The University of Texas and the author of the recently published book, "The Supreme Court and the American Elite, 1789-2008." He clerked for Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Lucas Powe Jr. says it's not a surprise that justices voted 5-4 in favor of the New Haven firefighters. AUSTIN, Texas (CNN) -- Monday, in the much anticipated New Haven, Connecticut, firefighters' case, the Supreme Court reversed an opinion joined by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee. The reversal was expected and is not the first time an appointee has been reversed by the court he was about to join. Indeed, two of Chief Justice Warren Burger's opinions for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals were reversed in 1969, the year he joined the court. One was Watts v. United States, in which the defendant had been convicted for threatening the life of the president. By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that Watts' supposed threats were really nothing but hyperbole. The decision came down one month before President Nixon nominated Burger. More significantly, after Burger had been confirmed, the Court reversed him again, this time in a major case -- Powell v. McCormack. The House had refused to seat Harlem, New York, Democratic Rep. Adam Clayton Powell after he won yet another election. The reasons for the House's action were misappropriation of public funds and abuse of process in state courts to avoid paying a judgment. Burger wrote that federal courts could not decide Powell's case because the issue was nonjusticiable -- that is, not appropriate for a judicial resolution because issues of membership in Congress were exclusively committed to Congress. When the case reached the Supreme Court, a lengthy opinion by Chief Justice Earl Warren held that courts could rule in such a case and that a House of Congress could only exclude someone if that person did not meet the qualifications, age, citizenship and residence requirements set forth in the Constitution. There was but a single dissent. The reversal of Sotomayor was expected because a majority of the current court are Republicans who believe governmental decisions should be made on a color-blind basis. Beginning with the presidency of Ronald Reagan, Republicans have taken aim at affirmative action, and the Republican justices have concurred. Only once in the past 15 years has the Republican majority voted in favor of minorities in an affirmative action case. That came in 2003, when the court upheld the affirmative action program at the University of Michigan Law School. That case, however, was profoundly influenced by an amicus brief signed by 45 retired admirals and generals (plus former Defense Secretary William Cohen) stating that affirmative action was essential at the Service Academies in order to create a diverse officer corps in order to ensure necessary military cohesiveness. When asked about the military brief, Solicitor General Theodore Olson stated that he had not thought about the consequences of ending affirmative action at the Service Academies. That was enough for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a Republican, who switched from her normal skepticism of affirmative action to sustain the law school program. Nevertheless, four Republican justices -- William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas -- voted to invalidate the program. With John Roberts replacing Rehnquist and Samuel Alito replacing O'Connor, the court acquired a majority that appears more concerned about discrimination against whites than about racial equality in American society. Thus just two years ago in cases out of Seattle, Washington, and Louisville, Kentucky, the Republican majority invalidated school assignment plans that the school districts themselves had decided were appropriate to prevent resegregation. With those cases as background, the majority's sympathy for the plight of Frank Ricci, who studied so hard for the New Haven promotion examination, was easily predictable. But so was the fact that the four dissenters in the Seattle and Louisville cases -- John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and the now-retired David Souter -- would side with the city in its concern that the results of the test left no African-

Question: What did Powe say about Justices?

Question: what was reversed?

Question: What has been reversed?

Question: what was not a surprise

Question: The ruling in favor of who was not a surprise?

Answer: voted 5-4 in favor of the New Haven firefighters.

Answer: New Haven, Connecticut, firefighters' case,

Answer: an opinion joined by Judge Sonia Sotomayor,

Answer: that justices voted 5-4 in favor of the New Haven firefighters.

Answer: the New Haven firefighters.

Summary:
Powe: Two Warren Burger rulings were reversed as he was about to join court .
He says ruling in favor of New Haven firefighters was not a surprise .
He says Sotomayor is not out of the mainstream since 4 justices were on her side .
Powe: Justices named by GOP presidents generally oppose affirmative action .


Editor's Note: Reese Witherspoon, the Academy Award-winning actress, is honorary chairman of the Avon Foundation and is employed by Avon Products as its global ambassador. Reese Witherspoon says she wants to banish the myth that young women are not at risk for breast cancer. (CNN) -- Every three minutes in the United States, a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer. As a woman, a mother, and a daughter, I find that statistic terrifying. I was never naïve about breast cancer, but hearing this statistic put it all into perspective.   Women close to me have battled the disease and are now soldiers in the greater fight against it. But the moment I heard "every three minutes," I felt vulnerable and scared as I realized that anyone is susceptible. The only way for me to ease my fears was to take action. I needed to educate myself and others on this disease. As the Honorary Chair for the Avon Foundation, I had resources at my fingertips. I had access to an entire organization that is dedicated to giving back to women and educating people. So I started asking, "What do I need to know?" It was through that curiosity that I found out the most important fact in breast cancer: Early detection saves lives. According to the Avon Foundation Breast Cancer Crusade, there is a 97 percent five-year survival rate when breast cancer is caught before it spreads to other parts of the body. When breast cancer first develops, there are usually no symptoms, which is why women need to perform self-exams regularly and contact their doctor upon noticing even the smallest change. Of course talking about breast cancer and breast health is a personal thing. I too am a private person but encourage all women to break through their reservations and talk to their doctors and physicians. We must also banish the myth that young women are not at risk for breast cancer. At the Avon Walk in Washington, I met young survivors who were diagnosed in their 20s, an age when most women are graduating from college and just starting their lives as full adults.  Watch Reese and Larry at the Avon Walk » Women in their 20s and 30s should have a clinical breast exam by a health professional at least once every three years and women 40 and older should have an exam every year. I am passionate about fighting this devastating disease. I fight for my mother, myself, my children and future generations of women, so one day we will not have to be afraid of breast cancer. I began my fight by learning important first steps in breast cancer detection, and will not end my fight until every woman can stand together saying we are breast cancer free. More than anything else, I have faith -- faith we will find a cure. I saw this commitment in the faces of the women in Washington -- in the faces of the women walking and the women and men who stood on the sidelines encouraging the 3,500 participants to the finish line. I was cheering right along with them, screaming for action to find a cure.  Avon's next walk will take place in New York City on October 4 and 5.

Question: What did the Oscar winning actress say?

Question: What did the actress say about the disease?

Question: How did the statistic make Witherspoon feel?

Question: Who are not exempt from the disease?

Question: What did the actress win?

Question: What statistic made Witherspoon "vulnerable" and "scared"?

Question: What does Witherspoon emphasize?

Question: What did Witherspoon emphasize the importance of?

Question: Who won an Oscar?

Question: What did Witherspoon emphasize?

Question: Who are not exempt from the disease?

Question: What made Witherspoon feel "vulnerable" and "scared"?

Question: What disease affects young women?

Question: What did Reese Witherspoon feel?

Question: What did she feel?

Question: Who is the actress?

Question: Who said that young women are not exempt from the disease?

Question: What made Witherspoon uncomfortable?

Answer: banish the myth that young women are not at risk for breast cancer.

Answer: she wants to banish the myth that young women are not at risk for breast cancer.

Answer: vulnerable and scared

Answer: young women

Answer: Academy Award-winning

Answer: "every three minutes,"

Answer: says she wants to banish the myth that young women are not at risk for breast cancer.

Answer: first steps in breast cancer detection,

Answer: Reese Witherspoon,

Answer: banish the myth that young women are not at risk for breast cancer.

Answer: young women

Answer: breast cancer,

Answer: breast cancer.

Answer: vulnerable and scared

Answer: vulnerable and scared

Answer: Reese Witherspoon,

Answer: Reese Witherspoon

Answer: "every three minutes,"

Summary:
"Every three minutes" statistic made Witherspoon feel "vulnerable" and "scared"
Oscar-winning actress: Young women are not exempt from the disease .
Witherspoon emphasizes importance of early detection and regular screenings .


Editor's Note: Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican, represents the Third District of Utah in Congress and is writing a regular series of reports for CNN.com on his freshman year. For his bio, read here. For a Democratic freshman's view, read here.

Jason Chaffetz says he's saving money by sleeping on a cot in his office, but there are downsides.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- I do something a bit different than most members of Congress. I sleep in my office on a cot. A few months ago, I was speaking with a current member of Congress and he said he slept in his office. Awesome!

We are paid well, but the cost of caring for two households and supporting a family of five is high. I thought this would be a great way to save $1,500 per month. Besides, I work late into the night and usually arise about 5:30 a.m. No need to waste time commuting and spending money on a place where I don't intend to be spending much time. I came here to work, not sleep.  Watch video of Jason Chaffetz' life in Congress »

So I bought a cot at Smiths grocery store and carried it on a plane to Washington. I sleep in the closet by the door to the outside hall. The cot itself is fairly comfy. Best thing is there is no bar in the middle, so my back is doing quite well.

The only downside is what is happening outside. The cleaning crew obviously works throughout the night. They do a great job, but they have a Zamboni-like machine (the kind you see on ice rinks) that cleans the hallways. It has a horn and they use it! It makes an obnoxious beeping sound that you hear on trucks that are backing up, and it definitely keeps me up at night.

At 12:52 a.m. during the first week, the "Capitol Early Warning System" was tested.

It works!

Even though I sleep in my office, I do shower. The House has a gym. I pay $240 to use the facilities. Typically I head down first thing in the morning to wash up and work out in the evening.

I thought it would be like a nice golf club or certainly as "lavish" as a Gold's Gym. Not so much. It's nice, but it's more like a high school gym with the small narrow lockers from the 1950s.

I locker next to Jose Serrano (D-New York). On the political spectrum we are probably as far apart as possible. Yet, just in our gym clothes we get along great. He's a nice guy and he offered a wealth of perspective and suggestions to a freshman.

Aside from the routine details of settling in, the first weeks of my term have been filled with surreal moments. Never did I think I would be seated just yards away from one of the most historic presidential inaugurations in the history of our country.

To watch firsthand as President Bush peacefully transitioned the presidency to Barack Obama was a surreal and inspiring moment. My most vivid memory of the moment was watching the two men embrace after the oath of office (the first one). It's part of what makes this country so strong and so marvelous.

In many ways, my own election reflected the miracle of this country. With no paid staff, no polling, no campaign office, no free meals for potential voters and no debt, I took on a 12-year Republican incumbent and won by a 20 percent margin (I ate one of our own) despite being outspent by $600,000 through the primary election.

On January 6, 2009, I, too, raised my right hand and was administered the oath of office. With my 15-year old son, Max, by my side, tears flowed down my face. The emotion of the moment was overwhelming. The history of the House of Representatives, my desire to be the very best representative I can possibly be, the massive amount of people counting on us to do what is right, and the opportunity

Question: Where did Chaffetz decide to sleep to save money?

Question: For what reason did Jason Chaffee sleep in his House office?

Question: Chaffetz is in what year at college?

Answer: sleeping on a cot in his office,

Answer: Chaffetz says he's saving money by sleeping on a cot in

Answer: freshman

Summary:
Jason Chaffetz: I decided to sleep in my House office to save money .
He says his freshman year is starting off well as he bonds with colleagues .
Chaffetz: We need to reduce spending, so I voted against stimulus bill .
He says worst part of the job is being separated from his family in Utah .


Editor's Note: Republican strategist Alex Castellanos was a campaign consultant for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign and has worked on more than half a dozen presidential campaigns. Castellanos is a partner in National Media Inc., a political and public affairs consulting firm that specializes in advertising. Alex Castellanos says stimulus bill is a cover for a bold plan for government to rule key parts of private sector. (CNN) -- Two Congressmen walk into a bar to watch President Obama's first prime-time press conference. The Democrat says to the Republican.... D: Just watch the president tonight and you'll see how to get this economy back on track. Monopolies. R: Monopolies? D: Monopolies so big they will shame Parker Brothers and make them put the board game in a bigger box. Monopolies so huge, they'll make railroad tycoon Cornelius Vanderbilt look like a push-cart operator. R: Why monopolies? D: In these desperate times, we can't afford to let Americans choose inefficient cars or wasteful health care. We can't let innovation run wild on Wall Street or Main Street. We have to make sure Americans are secure in their health care and jobs, their incomes and energy. To serve the greater good, we have to organize America's economy so it achieves the best possible ends for all Americans. We can't leave that to chance. Who knows what might happen if individual Americans make those choices in a free market and organize themselves? R: A little less freedom, a lot more organization, all for the collective good? D: My friend, we need a directed economy, where we limit people's choices to those that serve the best social ends. Our nation's development is best controlled by monopolies, not some atomistic economy where Americans are free to make almost any choice and organize bottom-up, according to their own whims. That means, big, honking, all-powerful monopolies. R: But during the campaign, Obama talked about change, fueling "bottom-up prosperity." This sounds like the same old, top-down, industrial-age stuff Democrats have been pitching for years. D: You betcha! Bottom-up campaign rhetoric just ran into the top-down Democratic establishment from Washington. Guess who won. We're going to create monopolies in the biggest sectors of the economy, starting with banking and financial services. Even after the meltdown, that's still the largest stock market sector, 16 percent of the S&P. R: Follow the money. D: Exactly. With massive regulation, caps on pay and restrictions on risk and competition, we can turn the entire financial sector into a cross between a public utility and the DMV. R: And then? D: We'll create an energy monopoly that would make J. D. Rockefeller look like a gas station attendant. If it has anything to do with energy, we will control it, plan it and direct it. You are going to love your windmill. R: I'm not feeling so good. D: That's next. A health care monopoly alone will organize another 16 percent of the economy. Choice and diversity are great, but not so much in health care. We'll throw in $20 billion at the start for paperless health records. Data, my friend, is power. You know where we will go: Cost controls. Restricted formularies. Nancy Pelosi can be your doctor. You don't need a lot of choice. Just a good choice. Or a good-enough choice. Cough for me. R: Watch that. I'm leaving. D: Now that you mention it, we can't forget the good old American auto industry. To borrow from Henry Ford, consumers can pick any color car they want, as long as it is green. R: Who are you going to get to run these monopolies? You are dealing with increasingly complex economic networks. How are you going to coordinate the sophisticated relationships, the subtle interests and ever-changing needs of millions

Question: Who said bill is being used as cover?

Question: what is being used as a cover?

Question: Is Alex Castellanos a Democrat or Republican?

Question: Who is Alex Castellanos?

Answer: Alex Castellanos

Answer: stimulus bill

Answer: strategist

Answer: Republican strategist

Summary:
Alex Castellanos: Democrats think we can't let the free market rule economy .
He says Democrats are trying to micro-manage the crucial finance sector .
Castellanos says they also want to make key decisions for health care .
He says stimulus bill is being used as cover for introducing bigger government .