Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. His new book, "Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security -- From World War II to the War on Terrorism," will be published this fall by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely on current events. Julian E. Zelizer says Democrats should be questioning themselves on several key points. PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- This week, Jews will conclude the eight-day celebration of Passover, a holiday that has often found its way into the political realm. Civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. frequently invoked the story of the liberation of the Jewish people from the Egyptians in his struggle against white oppression. President Obama made headlines last week when he hosted a Passover Seder in the White House. Today, Democrats can draw an important lesson from Passover, this time not so much from the story that is retold during the holiday but through the rituals that are the focus of the week. Last Wednesday and Thursday evenings, Jews gathered with families, friends and other groups to have a Seder. These meals are not just about eating and talking, but also about learning and debating the stories of the holiday contained in a book called the Haggadah. There is no right answer to many of the questions that are raised, and discussions change over time as the life experiences of the participants bring new perspectives to the table. The highlight of the Seder is when the youngest child asks the Four Questions, asking the adults what makes these nights different from the others and then offering some possible answers. Politicians could learn a lot from the Seder, particularly when one party controls both the executive and the legislative branch, and the temptation is to act in lock-step. Republicans did not have enough moments of questioning and reflection between 2002 and 2006, which many observers agree was not just damaging to the country but to the party as well. While there was strong private, internal disagreement among Republicans over how to conduct the war on terror, over whether the war in Iraq was a wise move and over the basic contours of economic policy, most Republicans stayed silent in public. Even when they gathered in the private corridors of the White House, according to memoirs that have been published by former officials such as Scott McClellan, Republicans tended to remain deferential to President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Historically, vigorous internal party debate has had the ability to strengthen a party politically. The fight that took place between Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries, where Reagan pushed President Ford to be more responsive to the growing conservative movement and avoid making all his decisions from inside the beltway, created a GOP that in the 1980s was a formidable political force. Bill Clinton's insistence that Democrats needed to rethink some of their conventional wisdom from the New Deal and Great Society periods, with his preference being to move toward the center, opened up a healthy debate about what Democrats should stand for that helped result in Barack Obama's victory in 2008. Thus far, Democrats have been more comfortable openly criticizing each other. Princeton economist Paul Krugman has emerged as the leading liberal critic of the administration by arguing that President Obama is not spending enough to stimulate the economy and that his financial bailout plan will only provide Band-Aid solutions that place all the risk on taxpayers. But Democrats will feel less comfortable having internal debates as the elections of 2010 and 2012 get closer, as the pressures of re-election intensify and as Republicans become more aggressive and more coherent in their attacks. To get the conversation started, it would be worth thinking about the four questions that Democrats should keep asking when they get together in the next few years. The first is: What are the issues on which Democrats are willing to compromise with Republicans, if any? The compromises will not be easy given that Republicans have refused to endorse Democratic proposals in the first few months of Obama's presidency. However, if the popularity of the GOP continues to erode and Obama's stays

Question: What four questions did Julian Zelizer say Democrats should ask themselves?

Question: who asks the questions

Question: what did zelizer say

Question: How many key questions should Democrats ask themselves?

Question: Who says Democrats need to be asking themselves questions?

Answer: are willing to compromise with Republicans, if any?

Answer: the youngest child

Answer: Democrats should be questioning themselves on several key points.

Answer: several

Answer: Julian E. Zelizer


Editor's note: Kathleen Sebelius is secretary of Health and Human Services in the Obama administration. Kathleen Sebelius says health care costs are a huge and growing burden on the economy. (CNN) -- Today in Washington, some politicians like to suggest that the many challenges we face as a nation mean we shouldn't tackle health care reform. Nothing could be further from the truth. With more and more of America's families, businesses, and local, state and federal governments struggling with the crushing costs of health care, health care reform has never been more important. As President Obama has often said, you can't fix the economy without fixing health care. Unless we fix what is broken in our current system, everyone's health care will be in jeopardy. Health care reform is not a luxury. It is a necessity. It's important to look at the size of the problem we face and where we stand. Today, we have by far the most expensive health system in the world. We spend 50 percent more per person on health care than the average developed country, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. We spend more on health care than housing or food, the McKinsey Global Institute reported. Nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, millions more are underinsured, and they aren't the only ones who are suffering. The high cost of care is hurting all of us. A recent study by Families USA estimates that insured families pay a hidden health tax of more than $1,000 every year. The hidden tax is the amount businesses and families with insurance have to pay in insurance premiums, taxes and donations to help cover the cost of treating uninsured Americans. Health insurance premiums for families that are covered through a job at a small business have increased 85 percent since 2000, and more small businesses are thinking about dropping health insurance benefits. Nationwide, health care costs consume 18 percent of our gross domestic product. If we continue on our current path, health care costs will consume 34 percent of our GDP by 2040, and the number of uninsured Americans will rise to 72 million, according to the Council of Economic Advisers. Even though we spend more than any other nation on health care, we aren't healthier. Only three developed countries have higher infant mortality rates. Our nation ranks 24th in life expectancy among developed countries. More than one-third of Americans are obese. These statistics are the signs of a system that is both unacceptable and unsustainable. They also show us the high cost of doing nothing. If we choose the status quo, more Americans will be uninsured, costs will continue to rise, and every American's health care will be at risk. Inaction is not an option, and reform is long overdue. The Obama administration is working to enact reform that will reduce costs for families, businesses and government; protect people's choice of doctors, hospitals and health plans; and assure affordable, quality health care for all Americans. We are guided by a simple principle: Protect what works about health care and fix what's broken, and do it in a way that does not add to the deficit. The president has already introduced proposals that will provide $950 billion over 10 years in savings to finance health care reform. Much of these resources come from wringing waste out of the current system and aggressively prosecuting fraud and abuse. We will continue to work with Congress as it explores other financing options, and the president is open to ideas about how we finance health care reform. But we are not open to deficit spending. Health care reform will be paid for, and it will be deficit-neutral over 10 years. Working together, we can pass real health care reform that gives Americans the choices they deserve and the affordable, quality coverage they need. And we know they do not want us to wait. Too many people have suffered without basic medical care or paid too much for it. For years, the American people have called on Washington to meet this challenge. They have waited long enough. The time for reform

Question: What did Kathleen Sebelius say?

Question: Who pays more than other countries?

Question: What represents growing burden on economy?

Question: What does she say?

Answer: health care costs are a huge and growing burden on the economy.

Answer: Americans

Answer: health care costs

Answer: health care costs are a huge and growing burden on the economy.

Summary:
Kathleen Sebelius: Health care represents growing burden on economy .
She says that because of rising cost, existing system is unsustainable .
She says U.S. pays more, but citizens aren't healthier than in other countries .


Editor's note: Ken Ballen is president of Terror Free Tomorrow: the Center for Public Opinion, a nonprofit institute that researches attitudes toward extremism. Amjad Atallah co-directs the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation, a think tank that promotes ideas across the ideological spectrum. Kenneth Ballen says Iranians overwhelmingly favor better relations with the United States. (CNN) -- In a new public opinion poll before Iran's critical June 12 presidential election, by large margins, most Iranians said they support an American-Iranian rapprochement for bringing a new era of peace to the Middle East. Surveyed on a wide range of issues, Iranians overwhelmingly favor better relations with the United States and greater democracy for Iran. The poll shows that the Iranian public remains far removed from the stereotypes of apocalyptic fanatics commonly asserted in some circles in the United States. The survey suggests that Iranians instead are a people with self-confidence and hope in a more democratic future. It also reveals a population with a strong awareness that the United States is as much a potential ally as it is now seen as a current threat. This holds much promise for U.S. national security interests in the region. These are some of the many findings from a new nationwide public opinion survey of Iran, to be released Monday. Independent and uncensored nationwide surveys of Iran are rare. Typically, pre-elections polls in Iran are either conducted or monitored by the Iranian government and other affiliated interest groups. Consequently, they are notoriously untrustworthy. By contrast, our poll -- the third in a series over the past two years -- was conducted by telephone from a neighboring country, uncensored, with time-tested methodology. Funding for the survey was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The poll was led by Terror Free Tomorrow: the Center for Public Opinion and the New America Foundation, with fieldwork by KA Europe SPRL. The full results and methodology are available at terrorfreetomorrow.org. The survey was conducted from May 11 to 20, with 1,001 random interviews proportionally distributed covering all 30 provinces of Iran, and a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. Though our poll results show President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the lead, it appears that that none of the presidential candidates will pass the 50 percent threshold needed to automatically win; a second-round runoff between the two highest finishers -- as things stand, Ahmadinejad and Mir Hussein Moussavi -- is likely. Regardless of whom they may vote for, the No. 1 priority Iranians have for their government is improving the Iranian economy, very closely followed by ensuring free elections, a free press and better trade and relations with the West. It is in this context that the Iranian people strongly support a fundamental change in American-Iranian relations. Right now, Iranians consider the United States and Israel as the greatest -- and only -- threats to Iran. As a result, more than six out of every 10 Iranians oppose any peace deal with Israel and are in favor of the government of Iran providing military and financial assistance to Palestinian groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well as providing military and financial assistance to Iraqi Shiite militias. A majority of Iranians also favor Iran developing nuclear weapons. These "hard-line" attitudes dramatically change, however, as part of a potential deal with the United States. More than 70 percent of Iranians favor providing full access to inspectors and a guarantee not to develop or possess nuclear weapons, in return for outside aid and investment. In another consistent trend over the past two years, 77 percent of Iranians also back normal relations and trade with the United States. Indeed, as part of a deal with the United States, 54 percent of Iranians would endorse the Iranian government ending support for Iraqi militias instead of providing military assistance. Rather than supporting the destruction of the state of Israel, as they do now, as part of a deal with the United States, a majority of Iranians would even favor recognizing the state of Israel. Greater democracy, economic progress and good relations with the United States are the ultimate goals for most Iranians. In another indication of

Question: According to Ballen, Atallah, what do most Iranians favor?

Question: What did the poll find?

Question: What do they say about the poll?

Question: What do polls show?

Question: Do Iranians support a deal regardless of whether Ahmadinejad is re-elected?

Answer: better relations with the United States.

Answer: that the Iranian public remains far removed from the stereotypes of apocalyptic fanatics commonly asserted in some circles in the United States.

Answer: support an American-Iranian rapprochement for bringing a new era of peace to the Middle East.

Answer: Iranian public remains far removed from the stereotypes of apocalyptic fanatics

Answer: overwhelmingly favor better

Summary:
Ballen, Atallah: Most Iranians are not extremists; they favor peace with U.S.
They say poll shows overwhelming support for negotiations .
Poll finds Iranian support for a deal regardless of whether Ahmadinejad is re-elected .


Editor's note: Kevin Fenton is director of the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fenton has written for journals including The Lancet, AIDS, the British Medical Journal and the Journal of Infectious Diseases. After graduating from medical school, Fenton earned his Masters in Public Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and his Ph.D. in Epidemiology from University College London. Dr. Kevin Fenton urges Americans to get tested for HIV. ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN)  -- Every 9½ minutes someone's brother, mother, sister, father, or neighbor becomes infected with HIV in the United States. That's 56,000 people every year. But there's something we can all do to help protect ourselves and our partners from this disease -- get tested for HIV. In the fight against HIV, I can tell you that few things are more important than testing. It's an essential step in reducing the number of new HIV infections and extending the lives of those who are infected. Put simply, HIV testing saves lives. As a CDC official, I've spoken with hundreds of people who have made the decision to get tested. Many described the relief they felt when they found out they were HIV-negative. Thanks to the HIV test, they could take steps to make sure they and their partners stay that way. I've also met people who found out they were HIV-positive. Although initially worried about their diagnosis and their future, they were thankful they had their infection diagnosed early, and were able to live long, healthy and productive lives with HIV. They had the knowledge and will to protect their partners from infection, or to prevent their infants from becoming HIV infected. I recently met one young woman who learned about her HIV infection after being diagnosed during routine HIV testing in pregnancy. By getting tested early, and having access to effective treatment, her child was born without HIV, and she now has two healthy children. She is a living testament that life does not stop with this disease. Instead, knowledge of her HIV status along with effective treatment and care has given her the freedom, resolve and respect to make choices to protect her life and the lives of those she loves. Yet today, not everyone has benefited from knowing their HIV status. Far too many individuals with HIV don't know that they're infected. CDC estimates that one in five people with HIV in the United States is unaware of being infected. That's more than 200,000 Americans who may be transmitting the virus to others without knowing it, and who can't take advantage of HIV treatments that could prolong and improve the quality of their lives. As we mark National HIV Testing Day on Saturday, I strongly encourage all Americans to get tested for HIV. At CDC, our goal is to make HIV testing as routine as a blood pressure check. HIV testing has never been quicker, easier or more accessible. In fact, with rapid HIV tests, results can be available in as little as 20 minutes, and tests can be given in your doctor's office or other locations in your community, such as churches and college campuses. To ensure that all Americans know their HIV status, CDC recommends that everyone between the ages of 13 and 64 get tested for HIV as part of routine medical care -- regardless of their perceived risk for infection. CDC also recommends that those at increased risk, such as sexually active gay and bisexual men, get tested at least annually. We are also working with our partners to bring HIV testing services directly to communities across the nation. Increased HIV testing will make it possible to significantly reduce the number of new infections. Research indicates the majority of new sexually transmitted HIV infections are transmitted by people who do not know they are HIV-infected. Studies also show that most people who test HIV-positive take steps to protect their partners from infection. Nearly 30 years after the start of the epidemic, far too many people continue to be diagnosed late in the course of their

Question: What is essential in reducing number of new HIV infections?

Question: what can those who are positive do

Question: What can the positive tested do?

Question: when are they relieved

Question: Many who are tested are what when they find out they are negative after all?

Question: What is essential to reducing the number of infections?

Answer: testing

Answer: take steps to protect their partners from infection.

Answer: infection diagnosed early, and were able to live long, healthy and productive lives with HIV.

Answer: were HIV-negative.

Answer: relief

Answer: testing.

Summary:
Fenton: Testing is essential to reducing the number of new HIV infections .
Many who get tested are relieved when they find out they are negative after all .
Those who are positive can prolong their lives and ensure the health of loved ones .


Editor's note: Leonard Pitts Jr., a columnist for The Miami Herald, won the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary and is the author of a new novel, "Before I Forget" and "Becoming Dad: Black Men and the Journey to Fatherhood." Leonard Pitts says we know what it takes to improve the performance of African-American students. (CNN) -- Back in 1972, on an episode of "All in the Family," Gloria posed the following riddle to Archie and Meathead. Father and son go driving. There's an accident. The father is killed instantly, the son is rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery. The surgeon walks in, takes one look at the patient and says, "I can't operate on this boy. He's my son." The answer to the apparent paradox eluded Archie, Meathead and the guys down at Kelsey's bar for the balance of the half hour. They floated theories involving stepfathers, sons-in-law, priests, adoptions and returns from the dead. All of which Archie apparently found more believable than the true answer which was, of course, that the surgeon was the boy's mother. "If that's the answer," he spouted, "that's the dumbest riddle I ever hoid!" Thirty-seven years later it is, perhaps, difficult to appreciate why this riddle ever was a riddle, how so apparent an answer could have stymied Archie, Meathead and, I would wager, the vast majority of the viewing audience. The riddle speaks volumes not just about how the world has changed in four decades, but also about how unconscious expectations can blind us to the obvious. In 1972, one expected a man when one heard the word "surgeon." Much as, in 2009, one expects a white kid when one hears the word "scholar." People will deny this, will say all the right and politic things. But the disclaimers will be as thin and transparent as Saran Wrap. Black, white and otherwise, we are all socialized by the same forces and all carry, by and large, the same unconscious assumptions. One of which is that a certain level of achievement is black and another is white. This is what you are hearing when a black kid speaks standard English and another black kid chides him for "talking white." This is what George W. Bush was alluding to when he decried "the soft bigotry of low expectations." And this is what we need to address forthrightly if we ever hope to close the so-called achievement gap that looms between black kids and white ones. In 2007 and 2008, I traveled the country for a series of columns called "What Works," aimed at profiling programs that addressed that gap. I traveled between big programs and small ones, from the Harlem Children's Zone, which encompasses 90 square blocks of holistic education, family counseling, medical care and tutoring in New York City, to the Freedom Project in Sunflower County, Mississippi, which offers field trips, martial arts and academic enrichment in a rural county where the median income is $25,000 a year and the teen pregnancy rate is said to be 25 percent. I toured Self Enhancement Inc. in Portland, Oregon, a KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) School in Gaston, North Carolina, the East Lake Foundation in Atlanta, Georgia, and many others. In all these places, I saw black kids -- well-spoken, clean-cut and noon-sun bright -- making a lie out of other peoples' expectations. Over the course of 13 months, common themes began to emerge whenever I would ask why kids such as these were doing such wondrous work in these places and substandard work elsewhere. We have more power to fire bad teachers and reward good ones, they said. We require parental involvement. We have a longer school day and a longer school year. We mentor children that need it. We counsel children and families that need it. We are invested in them and make sure they know it.

Question: what did he say?

Question: who says that many people expect black students to perform more poorly?

Question: Which race seems to not perform well?

Answer: we know

Answer: Leonard Pitts

Answer: African-American students.

Summary:
Leonard Pitts Jr.: Unconscious expectations can blind us to the obvious .
He says many people expect black students to perform more poorly .
Programs have demonstrated that investing in children's education pays off .
Pitts: We already know secret to improve performance, but do we have will to do it?


Editor's note: Leslie Morgan Steiner is the author of "Crazy Love," a new memoir about domestic violence, and the anthology "Mommy Wars," which explores the polarization between stay-at-home and career moms.

Leslie Morgan Steiner says domestic violence afflicts the well-to-do as well as the poor.

(CNN) -- For two days, news reports called her "the 20-year old victim" allegedly attacked by R&B singer and dancer Chris Brown in his car early February 8 in Los Angeles, California.

We all now have good reason to believe that the alleged victim was pop singer Rihanna, Brown's girlfriend.

The story has dominated the general media with good reason. Both singers are young, apple-cheek gorgeous, immensely talented and squeaky clean -- the last couple you'd imagine as domestic violence headliners.

Perhaps the only good that will come from the Rihanna/Brown publicity is destruction of our culture's misconception that abusers and their victims can only be universally poor, uneducated and powerless.

Brown, whose first song debuted at No. 1 and whose first album topped the Billboard Hot 100, appeared on a Disney sitcom and in Sesame Street, Got Milk? and Wrigley's Doublemint Gum commercials. Barbados-born Rihanna has been big-brothered by music industry legends like Jay-Z and Kanye West and is signed to the Def Jam Recordings label.

She has been astonishingly successful in the short time she has been on the music scene, attaining five Billboard Hot 100 No. 1's with "SOS," "Umbrella," "Take a Bow," "Disturbia" and T.I.'s "Live Your Life."

Like Rihanna, I had a bright future in my early 20s. I met my abusive lover at 22. I'd just graduated from Harvard and had a job at Seventeen Magazine in New York.

My husband worked on Wall Street and was an Ivy League graduate as well. In our world, we were the last couple you'd imagine enmeshed in domestic violence.

Many of my ex-husband's attacks also took place in our car. For reasons I never understood, the enclosed, soundproof space brought out his worst violence. He punched me so fiercely that my face had bruises from his fist on one side and from hitting the window on the other.

As trapped in the car as I was in our marriage, it was there that I endured tirades about how controlling I was with money, how flirtatious and naïve I was with other men, how defiant and disrespectful I was of my husband's authority.

So, I suppose I have more understanding than most about the shame, fury, confusion and disappointment Rihanna may be experiencing. What's hardest for outsiders to fathom is how lethal a cocktail love, hope and sympathy can be. I first fell for my husband the night he confided how he, like Chris Brown, had been traumatized as a young boy by domestic violence in his home.

"He used to hit my mom ... He made me terrified all the time, terrified like I had to pee on myself," Brown said during a 2007 interview with Giant magazine.

Brown hasn't explained what happened in the recent incident, but this week he released a statement saying that he's sorry and saddened by it.

Our culture encourages women to nurture men, making it predictable that many experience a seductive empathy for abusive men, as well as the misguided hope that love can obliterate an ugly past.

In my case, it took four years, myriad terrifying attacks, and the intervention of the police and family court before I understood how little I could help my ex get over his abusive childhood.

I certainly felt alone during my abusive relationship, but unfortunately I was in good company. The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that between 1 million and 3 million women in America are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend each year.

Every day, on average, three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends. At some point in our lives, 25 percent of American women will report

Question:
what was Leslie Steiner?
Who is Leslie Steiner?
what does Leslie Steiner say?

Answer: author

Answer: author of "Crazy Love,"

Answer: domestic violence afflicts the well-to-do as well as the poor.

Summary:
Leslie Steiner: I was victim of domestic violence many years ago .
She says such abuse is prevalent and cuts across all demographic groups .
Our culture encourages women to nurture even abusive men, she says .
Steiner: Exposing children to such violence perpetuates cycle in next generation .


Editor's note: Madeleine K. Albright is former U.S. secretary of state. William S. Cohen is former U.S. secretary of defense. They are co-chairs of the Genocide Prevention Task Force. Madeleine K. Albright served as secretary of state under President Bill Clinton. (CNN) -- In this age of electronic media communications, Americans are increasingly confronted in their living rooms -- and even on their cell phones -- with information about and images of genocide and mass atrocities virtually anywhere they occur. This instantaneous media communication has sensitized many Americans to the suffering of people in all corners of the globe. The Internet has proved to be a powerful tool for organizing broad-based responses to genocide and mass atrocities, as we have seen in response to the crisis in Darfur. With all of this information written and broadcast about the horrors of genocide and mass atrocities around the world, why do they continue? And as public citizens, public officials and policymakers, how can we prevent this horrendous crime that assaults our humanitarian values and threatens our national security? Last year, we agreed to co-chair the Genocide Prevention Task Force, which was jointly convened by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, The American Academy of Diplomacy and the United States Institute of Peace. (The final report is to be released next week.) The idea for the task force arose out of a desire by each of these institutions to reach beyond their individual capabilities and build a practical framework that could help the U.S. government better respond to threats of genocide and mass atrocities. Our challenge was to match words to deeds and stop allowing the unacceptable. That task is in fact one of the most persistent puzzles of our times. Many people ask: Why do genocides and mass atrocities happen? There is no consensus as to the causes of genocide and mass atrocities, nor is there one commonly agreed-upon theory that explains the key catalysts, motivations or mechanisms that lead to them. History has shown that genocide and mass atrocities manifest themselves in highly variable ways, and we should not assume that future perpetrators will follow old patterns. However, there are warning signs. Genocide is not the inevitable result of "ancient hatreds" or irrational leaders. It requires planning and is carried out systematically. But that fact also means that there are ways to recognize its signs and symptoms, and viable options to prevent it at every turn, if we are committed and prepared. Our report recommends a number of distinct but interrelated areas where the United States government can develop and deploy more effective strategies to identify and pursue opportunities for prevention of genocide and mass atrocities: First, we believe that leadership is an indispensable ingredient. Nothing is more central to preventing genocide than leadership -- from the president, Congress and the American people. Making progress requires leaders to summon political will not only after a crisis strikes, but also before one emerges. Second is the importance of early warning. It is critical for policymakers to have good analysis of areas where there is a high risk of genocide or organized violence in order to design effective strategies and spur action. By improving the accuracy of warnings, we will find greater opportunities for preventive action. Early prevention can avert a crisis. Many countries are vulnerable to extreme violence. By engaging leaders, institutions and civil society at an early stage, the United States can help countries steer clear of these dangers. Preventive diplomacy is critical to halt and reverse escalation. Even when signs of preparation for genocide are apparent, there are opportunities to alter leaders' decisions and interrupt their plans. By improving our crisis response system, we will be better prepared to mount coherent, carefully calibrated and timely preventive diplomatic strategies. A willingness to utilize military options to stop ongoing atrocities when prevention efforts have failed is crucial. U.S. military assets can also play an important role in supporting and providing credibility to options short of the use of force, including by deterring violence through military presence or threat. Lastly, we cite the power of international action. The United States has an interest in promoting a system of international norms and institutions that averts potential genocide and

Question: Who leads the Genocide Prevention Task Force?

Question: When will the panel's final report be released?

Question: What are the thoughts of Albright and Cohen?

Question: Who is Madeleine Albright?

Question: What do Madeleine Albright and William Cohen co-chair?

Answer: Madeleine K. Albright

Answer: next week.)

Answer: we believe that leadership is an indispensable ingredient.

Answer: former U.S. secretary of state.

Answer: Genocide Prevention Task Force.

Summary:
Madeleine Albright, William Cohen co-chair Genocide Prevention Task Force .
The panel's final report will be released next week after a year of work .
Leadership indispensable in preventing genocide, Albright and Cohen say .
Also key: early warning, preventive diplomacy, military, international action, they say .


Editor's note: Malaak Compton-Rock is founder and director of The Angelrock Project, "an online e-village promoting volunteerism, social responsibility, and sustainable change." One of her initiatives, "Journey for Change: Empowering Youth Through Global Service," will be seen as part of CNN's "Black in America 2." Her first book is being published by Broadway Books in May, 2010, titled, "If It Takes a Village, Build One: How I Found Meaning Through a Life of Service to Others and 100+ Ways You Can Too." Malaak Compton-Rock says focusing on problems facing African-Americans is difficult but necessary. (CNN) -- In the words of my mentor and America's foremost child advocate Marian Wright Edelman, founder and president of The Children's Defense Fund, it's time to "raise a ruckus people, it is time to raise a ruckus!" CNN's "Black in America" raised many critical issues facing African-American people in this great country of ours. It was not pretty, it was not flattering, but it was very, very frank. The show delved into the negative issues that have plagued the African-American community for generations, i.e., crime, education, single parent families, drug abuse and the like. People got mad. People sent many e-mails and letters to Soledad O'Brien and CNN and cried foul. People said "Black in America" was not consistent with the lives of many African-American people and was one-sided. Blogs and Web sites popped up all over the place where people "raised a ruckus" about the content of the show. I read a lot of these comments. As a matter of fact, I was obsessed with people's views for many weeks after the documentary aired. And the more I read, the more I got angry. The more I read, the more I wanted to "raise my own ruckus." But I was frustrated and upset for a very different reason than most. I was almost apoplectic with the amount of criticism for "Black in America" without critical, thought provoking commentary about how each person can do their part to make a difference to change the very startling and distressing issues facing most African-American children and adults in America. On a typical day in the lives of black American children: And on a typical school day for black children in America: And consider that in America, [Statistics are from the Children's Defense Fund's Child Research Data.] This is serious stuff people. And it is the cold-hearted truth. So, it is okay to comment that the documentary did not represent your life. It is okay to comment that it was upsetting to see images of black men in jail, children dropping out of school, and unwed mothers. It is okay because the truth hurts, especially when it is seen by 16 million people. In fact, most of the images shown in "Black in America" do not represent my personal life or the lives of my children. But because these issues face my brothers and sisters in my collective African-American family, they concern me, they hurt me, they belong to me, and I will own them. We know that as African-Americans we have come a long way. We know that we are doctors, lawyers, CEOs, philanthropists, politicians, and even the president of the United States of America. And yes, it would do our children a lot of good if these images were portrayed more frequently in the media. But this does not change the very real issues facing African-American people portrayed in "Black in America." And frankly, with so many of our people struggling, we can't just celebrate our achievements -- we must make it a priority to work on the most critical and urgent matters in our community. As I always say, "The blessed and the best of us, must take care of the rest of us." So why did the criticism make

Question: What does she suggest naysayers to to improve conditions?

Question: Who does Malaak Compton-Rock believe have particular challenges to overcome within the community?

Answer: change the very startling and distressing issues facing most African-American children and adults in America.

Answer: African-American

Summary:
Malaak Compton-Rock: Some critical of "Black in America" focus on problems .
She says community has serious challenges to overcome, particularly for children .
Compton-Rock: "Black in America 2" will show solutions .
She says naysayers must join the fight to improve conditions .


Editor's note: Maria (Maki) Haberfeld is a professor of Police Science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. She has served in the Israeli Defense Forces and the Israel National Police, and worked for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration as a special consultant. From 1997 through 2001, she was a member of a research team, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, studying police integrity in three major police departments in the United States. She is the author of "Critical Issues in Police Training" (2002) and co-author of "Enhancing Police Integrity" (2006). Maria Haberfeld says police officers make decisions based on their awareness of potential danger. NEW YORK (CNN) -- We teach our children to think about what others feel before they act, but as grown-ups we frequently assume we understand what others do without ever having walked in their shoes. President Obama expressed his opinion about a police officer's interaction with Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates. "The Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home," the president said. Was it stupid behavior or was it an understandable result of police procedure -- the culture, or rather sub-culture, of this profession. People depend on police in a time of trouble but are quicker than lightning to judge harshly when things go wrong. But the most important question in this case is: Did they go wrong? One needs to understand that the interaction between a police officer and a suspect is just part of a larger context. When a neighbor calls the police to report a burglary in progress and a police officer is dispatched to respond, a decision-making process begins for the officer. Police work is about sub-cultural contexts, about war stories, about suspicion, about unpredictability, about danger and fear for one's life. Police officers make their decisions based not just on a given situation but also based on their prior experience, the experience of those they have worked with and the stories they have heard about incidents that happened in the past. A call to respond to a burglary in progress generates a series of images that prepare a police officer for an encounter -- a dangerous encounter that can possibly end with a loss of life. Not long ago one of my students, an officer in the New York Police Department, was killed trying to stop a robbery in progress. Police officers hear about these stories and unlike the members of the public who forget a story, no matter how sensational within a day or two, police officers carry these stories as their secret weapons. This is part of their armor. An officer responding to a burglary in progress arrives at a scene with a heightened sense of danger, anxious and ready to go into fighting mode. Yes, the professor identified himself as a legitimate occupant of the premises. However, he was not arrested for trespassing. He was arrested for disorderly conduct. Police officers arriving at the scene of a suspected burglary in progress do not put down their armor of suspicion just because somebody proved to them that they are the legitimate occupants of the dwelling. Police encounters can become deadly when officers assume that, on the surface, everything appears to be in order. It is their sixth sense of suspicion that helps them assess the situation in a way that members of the public would not consider reasonable. It is this precise quality of suspicion that goes beyond a reasonable doubt that sets them apart from the larger public and can be understood only by the members of the force. A person usually does not break into his own house -- it is true that it can happen, and it apparently did in this case -- but this is not a standard behavior that, once explained to the officer, should mandate an automatic approach to put down your guard. The officers look at the scene of the event they were called to as their domain, their turf, their territory, where some order has been disturbed and they were called to restore it. A famous police scholar, Egon Bittner,

Question: Could the act be viewed as a result of the officer's awareness of danger?

Answer: police

Summary:
Maria Haberfeld: President Obama said police acted stupidly in arresting professor .
She says act could be viewed as result of officers' awareness of potential danger .
She says officers arrive at such scenes with heightened sense of danger .


Editor's note: Maria Hinojosa, an award-winning journalist and author, joined NOW on PBS as senior correspondent in 2005. Hinojosa, who formerly covered urban affairs for CNN, also serves as anchor and managing editor of National Public Radio's "Latino USA," a weekly national program reporting on news and culture in the Latino community. Maria Hinojosa says Sonia Sotomayor's success has helped boost self-confidence for many. NEW YORK (CNN) -- It's a question I never thought I would ask my daughter. But I loved being able to ask it. "Yurema?" "Yes, Mom," my 11-year-old daughter said. "Tell me what T-shirt you would most like to wear: one that says 'I am a Wise Latina,' 'My Mother is a Wise Latina' or 'Sonia is a Wise Latina'?" She cocked her head slightly and then quickly said, "I am a Wise Latina." Eleven years old, and this is the vision she already has of herself. It's a pretty wonderful thing to watch that certain something blossom in a girl ... one of those often fleeting moments when a girl owns her own power. For me, the decision to wear my own "Wise Latina" T-shirt raises all kinds of issues. It makes me confront a past that I have known for decades. Deep down inside, I, like many other Latinas, struggle with my own very deep insecurities in relation to my white male colleagues. I think after witnessing history on television for the past two weeks, those insecurities have pretty much dissipated. Sonia Sotomayor has blazed the trail. I can't go back to thinking that way, anymore, ever. Before, when I told people that I was a Latina, I never knew what, if any, image they might have in their mind. Everyone carries stereotypes and preconceived notions. But now when I say to people that I am a Latina, might they immediately think, "A wise Latina"? My daughter is learning all of these lessons from Sotomayor, a Puerto Rican woman. When I was Yurema's age, back in the '70s, the only Puerto Rican woman I knew of was Maria (played by Natalie Wood) from "West Side Story." I grew up on the South Side of Chicago after being born in Mexico. My Puerto Rican Maria from West Side Story taught me that love and commitment could transcend borders and divisions. Sonia is teaching Yurema, and all of us, that intelligence and compassion (and an honest way with words) can also cross all borders: political ones, those of gender or ethnicity. And I have learned that my own challenge now is to reach this very high bar that Sotomayor has set. I must "own" that I am, indeed, a wise Latina. Later on the day of the T-shirt decision, my daughter hears my reaction when I read that Sen. John McCain, whom my daughter knows well because we followed the election, is going to vote against Sotomayor's confirmation. "What a big jerk!" was her age-appropriate response. Then, after a pause, Yurema said, "So that means John McCain thinks Sarah Palin is a wise woman? But not Sonia? Harrumph." "Harrumph" is also an age-appropriate response. But the lasting impact of McCain's decision will be much more profound than upsetting an 11-year-old wise Latina girl. In fact, I would venture to say that, politically, there are many in the Republican Party who are convinced this was a politically unwise choice by McCain. It's just not that complicated. Look at the changing demographics in the United States. Then think about what happens when you vote against the first Latina Supreme Court nominee. Maybe McCain isn't wise enough to see that reality, so I will tell him a story about a Dominican-born, U.S. citizen cabby from my Harlem neighborhood. While he drove down Broadway, I

Question: Whose nomination did McCain oppose?

Question: What was a mistake according to her?

Question: What did she say Sonia Sotomayor did?

Question: What T-shirts does Hinojosa say she and her daughter are wearing?

Question: What was Maria wearing on her shirt?

Question: Who has helped erase insecurity for many?

Answer: Sonia Sotomayor

Answer: McCain's decision

Answer: has helped boost self-confidence for many.

Answer: "I am a Wise Latina."

Answer: "I am a Wise Latina."

Answer: Sonia Sotomayor

Summary:
Maria Hinojosa: My daughter and I are wearing "wise Latina" T-shirts .
She says Sonia Sotomayor has helped erase insecurity for many .
She says McCain's opposition to Sotomayor's nomination was a mistake .
Hinojosa: Political impact of Latino population is likely to grow .


Editor's note: Marian Salzman is chief marketing officer and a partner at Porter Novelli Worldwide and is co-author of "The Future of Men" and "Next Now." She was named among the "top five trendspotters" by VNU in 2004 and has been credited with popularizing the term "metrosexuality." She blogs at www.pnintelligentdialogue.com. See Salzman on American Morning and CNN.com Live Monday, December 29. Marian Salzman says "cuspers" are staking out a separate identity from the baby boomer generation. NEW YORK (CNN) -- Rarely has there been a year when so many things went out of style in such a short time: not just investment bankers, gas-guzzling vehicles, corporate jets, conspicuous consumption and political polarization, but also a whole generation. After strutting and tub-thumping and preening their way across the high ground of politics, media, culture and finance for 30 years, baby boomers have gone from top dogs to scapegoats in barely a year. As baby boomers lose their authority and appeal, generational power is shifting one notch down: to cuspers (born roughly 1954-1965), who arrived in style in 2008 with their first truly major figure, Barack Obama (born 1961). George W. Bush, born in 1946 at the start of the postwar baby boom for which his generation is named, will leave office with the lowest approval ratings since Richard Nixon was president. As Thomas Friedman has written, Bush epitomizes what's now seen as "The Greediest Generation." Who's to blame for the economy going into serious decline? The short and easy answer is greedy boomers. This is the generation that knew better than their cautious, fuddy-duddy parents, the generation that protested, that had ideals and marched to the beat of defiant music: "Street Fighting Man," "We Want the World and We Want It Now," "Hope I Die Before I Get Old." It's the generation that pursued pleasure, proclaimed "I can have it all" and refused to grow old -- "50 is the new 30," etc. And now, after years of taking credit for changing the world, baby boomers are taking the rap for the reversal of fortune that's shaking the world. Whatever history may decide, today's commentators and pundits of all ages have decided that boomers, the dominant cohort in many developed countries, are guilty. And whether they're really to blame, what counts is that they look like they are. Their profile fits. Like a big-name Hollywood director who's lived on the edge too long, caused one too many scandals and made one too many turkeys, suddenly the boomers are the generation no one wants to be associated with. Cuspers, the age cohort that have been living in the shadow of the boomers, now have even more reasons to stake out their own separate identity and values. It's taken a long time for this rising demographic to be recognized as a distinct generation in its own right. They've been called "late boomers" because they missed the formative boomer experiences of the '60s, such as civil rights and anti-war protests. They've been called tweeners or cuspers because they straddle the divide between Boomers and Gen X. American social commentator Jonathan Pontell has worked hard to establish their identity as Generation Jones. There's still debate about whether cuspers are even a generation apart from boomers and where the generational boundaries lie. But those arguments miss the key point, which is that Americans want change. In Obama, they see the hopeful prospect of a new generation taking over. And in these dark days, they're hoping against hope that his generation can usher in new, better values to guide the nation. His victory has been portrayed as the end of Vietnam War politics and the 1960s "culture wars." About half those Obama named to major posts in the new administration are also cuspers including the proposed energy czar, education secretary, treasury secretary and U.N. ambassador. Cuspers may have another poster child if Caroline Kennedy, born in 1957

Question: What to say about the next of cuspers?

Question: how long have baby boomers dominated politics?

Question: What are "cuspers"?

Question: who are known as the "greediest generation"?

Question: Which generation is unlikely to repeat the mistaked of boomers?

Question: what are the next generation known as?

Question: Which generation has earned the title of the "greediest generation"?

Answer: "cuspers" are staking out a separate identity from the baby boomer generation.

Answer: 30 years,

Answer: Cuspers, the age cohort that have been living in the shadow of the boomers,

Answer: baby boom

Answer: Gen X.

Answer: "The Greediest Generation."

Answer: baby boomers

Summary:
Marian Salzman: For 30 years, baby boomers dominated politics, culture .
She says they've earned the title of the "greediest generation"
Salzman says next generation of "cuspers" is taking over with Obama .
The cuspers are different and unlikely to repeat boomers' mistakes, she says .


Editor's note: Mark Gendreau, MD, is senior staff physician and vice chairman of emergency medicine at Lahey Clinic, Burlington, Massachusetts, and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. His interests include health issues associated with commercial air travel, including transmission of infectious diseases.

Dr. Mark Gendreau says swine flu is focusing attention on how to avoid getting a disease while traveling by air.

(CNN) -- The novel swine flu is showing the world just how interconnected we are and how commercial aircraft can serve as vehicles of rapid disease spread.

I am frequently asked: What is the risk of catching an illness while flying?

In a nutshell, the risk of getting an infection while you're in an enclosed space such as an airplane depends upon three factors: The infectiousness of the contagious person spreading the illness; the degree of your exposure (how close you are to the contagious person and for how long); and the ventilation of the space or passenger cabin.

We really have no control over the infectiousness of our fellow passengers, and usually, you really don't have much of a choice about your seating partners. So the exposure is pure chance.

But this doesn't mean that you are doomed. Most respiratory viral infectious diseases -- like influenza and the common cold -- transmit via droplets contaminated with the offending microorganism when the infectious person coughs or sneezes.

These droplets are propelled no farther than 3 feet and can land on an inanimate object -- such as a seat, overhead bin or seat tray -- or on your body. This is why hand hygiene is so critical and is the single most significant thing you can do to protect yourself and your family when you are traveling or out in public.

Study after study shows marked reductions in transmission in public spaces when hand hygiene is practiced, and a recent study found nearly undetectable influenza particle levels after hands contaminated with influenza were washed with either soap and water or an over-the-counter gel containing at least 50 percent alcohol.

Sanitize your hands before eating, drinking and after retrieving something from the overhead bin or returning from the restroom, and you have just cut your chances of getting infected by at least 40 percent. One of my disappointments with the airline industry is its lack of providing alcohol-based hand sanitizers to passengers. Such a service would go a long way in eliminating infection spread within aircraft. iReport.com: Have swine flu fears altered your travel plans?

Ventilation is the final crucial element to consider in minimizing infection spread. Ventilation dilutes the concentration of infectious particles within any confined space, thereby reducing the probability of infection.

Experience shows us that transmission becomes widespread within the passenger cabin involving all sections when the ventilation system is not working -- as evidenced by an influenza outbreak in 1979 involving passengers being kept aboard grounded aircraft with an inoperative ventilation system.

Air circulation patterns aboard standard commercial aircraft are side-to-side (laminar), with air entering the cabin from overhead, circulating across the aircraft and exiting the cabin near the floor. Little to no front-to -back (longitudinal) airflow takes place.

This air circulation pattern "compartmentalizes" the air flow into sections, thereby limiting the spread of airborne particles throughout the passenger cabin. Ventilation can involve either 100 percent fresh air in which outside air enters and leaves the cabin in a single pass or a system in which various fractions of air are recirculated from the aircraft cabin and mixed with fresh air.

Most commercial aircraft in service recirculate 50 percent of the air delivered to the passenger cabin for improved control of cabin circulation, humidity and fuel efficiency. The recirculated air usually passes through high-efficiency particulate (HEPA) filters before delivery into the cabin.

HEPA filtering of recirculated cabin air to minimize exposure to infectious particles is established within scientific literature, practiced daily in health care facilities and is strongly endorsed by the medical community and cabin health experts.

However, oddly enough, the Federal Aviation Administration, its British counterpart, the Civil Aviation Authority, and Europe's Joint Aviation Authorities do not require the use of these filters on

Question: How many things affect the likelihood of getting sick from a plane trip?

Question: What could help prevent spread?

Question: What is Swine flu focusing attention on?

Question: What is the swine flu focusing attention on?

Answer: three

Answer: alcohol-based hand sanitizers

Answer: how to avoid getting a disease while traveling by air.

Answer: how to avoid getting a disease while traveling by air.

Summary:
Mark Gendreau: Swine flu is focusing attention on illness and air travel .
He says three things affect the likelihood of your getting sick from a plane trip .
Gendreau: Sick passengers, your exposure and ventilation are key factors .
He says using hand sanitizers on planes would help prevent spread .


Editor's note: Maury Klein is professor emeritus of history at the University of Rhode Island. He is the author of 15 books, including "Rainbow's End: The Crash of 1929" and most recently "The Power Makers: Steam, Electricity, and the Men Who Made Modern America." Historian Maury Klein says it's important to remember that psychology plays a huge role in financial markets. (CNN) -- Friday marks the 79th anniversary of the day that launched the stock market crash of 1929. As an unprecedented wave of selling threw the floor of the New York Stock Exchange into pandemonium on a day that became known as Black Thursday, a show of organized support by a coterie of leading bankers halted the panic. But on the following Monday, the market collapsed in a tsunami of selling. Every intense convulsion of the stock market raises primal fears spawned by the Great Crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression, which dragged on for a full decade and has haunted Americans ever since. The Panic of 2008 is no exception. In the past year, the market's fall has at times rivaled that of 1929. Are there connections or similarities between those earlier national traumas and our current crisis? First some facts about that earlier experience. The Great Crash and the Great Depression were two separate events. The Crash was a financial panic, the Depression an economic downturn. The one does not necessarily lead to the other; the market has collapsed several times in American history without bringing on a depression. Great Depression holds lessons for surviving a tough economy The Crash began in October 1929, and the worst of it was over in three weeks; the Depression did not fasten itself on the nation for another year. To this day, the connection between them remains unclear, which makes it difficult to draw lessons or analogies from them. The Dow plunged 39 percent between October 23 and November 13, 1929, but it regained 74 percent of that loss by March 1930. Only when the economy failed to gain momentum in the spring did the market slip back. By fall the country had slipped into a depression, and the market resumed a downward course that did not touch bottom until July 1932. It did not again return to the levels of 1929 until 1954. The Depression did not end until increased military spending revived the economy in the spring of 1940. The bull market of the 1920s was unique in that it marked the first time large numbers of ordinary people participated. The market moved from Wall Street to Main Street and aroused intense interest even among people who were not active in it. The new investors, or "fish" as the pros called them, were prone to panic when the market fell sharply. Could it happen again? History never repeats itself, but historical patterns do -- though always in a new context. Here are just a few of the similarities and differences between the earlier crisis and its modern version. During the 1920s, the financial industry underwent a great expansion, bringing into the business many inexperienced people and new investment vehicles -- most notably the investment trust, the forerunner of the modern mutual fund. Nobody knew what impact they would have on the market with their buying and selling on a large scale. The business world hailed the 1920s as the "New Era," one with new rules in which the old pattern of cyclical depressions would no longer occur and prosperity would be continuous. Compare this delusion with the "New Economy" of the 1990s. The 1920s marked the beginning of the consumer economy, and with it a broad expansion of credit. Installment buying made its debut on a large scale. Credit also was used to buy stocks on margin, greatly increasing the market's volume and volatility. The banking system was shaky throughout the 1920s, and failures escalated steadily after 1929. The Crash exposed many cases of fraud that led to investigations and passage of the most significant banking reform in American history. The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., or FDIC, gave rise to the Securities and Exchange Commission,

Question:
What is the opinion of Maury Klein?
what eventually faded?
What does Klein say about the crisis?
what were two separate events?

Answer: it's important to remember that psychology plays a huge role in financial markets.

Answer: failures

Answer: it's important to remember that psychology plays a huge role in financial markets.

Answer: the Great Crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression,

Summary:
Maury Klein: The 1929 market crash and the Depression were separate events .
Many financial panics have not led to depressions, Klein says .
Before 1933, the government wasn't active in trying to save banks, he says .
After crisis, people demanded regulation, which eventually faded, Klein says .


Editor's note: Michael A. Olivas is the William B. Bates Distinguished Chair in Law at the University of Houston Law Center and director of the university's Institute for Higher Education Law and Governance. He is the editor of "Colored Men And Hombres Aquí: Hernandez V. Texas and the Emergence of Mexican American Lawyering," and is a member of the board of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Michael Olivas says Sonia Sotomayor's nomination affirms that Latinos matter in America. (CNN) -- I recently saw an old episode of "West Wing," where Edward James Olmos, playing a fictional Puerto Rican federal judge, was nominated to become the first Latino on the U.S. Supreme Court. I cried, thinking how remote this possibility seemed, yet how close. Now that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been nominated by President Barack Obama to the Court, that episode finally rings true. When I heard the news, I wept, for the long-overdue acknowledgement that Latinos matter. Judge Sotomayor's life and legal career are arcs possible only in this country: a hardscrabble life in a south Bronx housing project, educational opportunities made possible by her own intelligence and hard work, and a legal career devoted to public service. When she assumes her position on the bench in October, no other justice will have had the depth of legal experience she holds, and none will have served as a trial judge. The sum of her life is exactly what we should look for on this court: excellent academic credentials, an accomplished legal career in private and government practice, and appointments to federal benches by Republican and Democrat presidents. Her decisions have been well-reasoned and well-written, and she will ably take her place on the Supreme Court bench. The search for a justice with "empathy" is no less coded than is the traditional search for "judicial temperament" and a person who will "judge, not legislate." All nominees have the requisite merit badges, as does Judge Sotomayor. And to make their way to such a short list, all have the combination of personal and professional lives that warrant their consideration. What Sonia Sotomayor will have, as few other candidates, is the additional weight of historical expectations and the hopes of Latinos. In today's culture, Latinos are marginalized and demonized and feared. In Judge Sotomayor's New York, roving gangs of thugs go "beaner hunting," looking to harm undocumented Mexicans. Such racial hatred knows no nuance, as one such mob killed a permanent resident Ecuadorian, thinking him to be Mexican. Vigilantes along the Mexican border have taken the law of enforcement into their own hands. In cultural programming, this community is described as either lazy and shiftless, or stealing jobs from real Americans. They are typecast as drogeros or maids, long characterized as banditos or greasers. The racial rhetoric against Latinos has been tolerated for too long on cable television news and in political and polite discourse. I will be carefully watching the confirmation hearings for the coded political messages, knowing that Justice-elect Sotomayor's many merits will ultimately win her confirmation. But also watching will be little girls in a south Bronx housing project, in the valley of South Texas, and in rural New Mexico. Her service on our country's highest court will be the evidence that they, too, have reason to hope and to achieve. All of this country's citizens should realize that it is not just Latinos' dreams being realized, but our collective accomplishment. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Michael Olivas.

Question: In the present American culture, Latinos are what?

Question: Who is Judge Sonia Sotomayor?

Question: The name of the Judge is what?

Question: What does the nomination send?

Question: In what light are Latinos seen in American culture?

Question: What is a historic moment?

Answer: marginalized and demonized and feared.

Answer: has been nominated by President Barack Obama to the Court,

Answer: Sonia Sotomayor

Answer: affirms that Latinos matter in America.

Answer: marginalized and demonized and feared.

Answer: Sonia Sotomayor's nomination

Summary:
Michael Olivas: Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination is a historic moment .
He says she has the personal and professional qualificiations to be confirmed .
Olivas: In American culture, Latinos are marginalized and feared .
He says Sotomayor's nomination sends an important message of hope .


Editor's note: Michael Eric Dyson is a professor of sociology at Georgetown University and the author of 16 books, including the New York Times bestseller, "April 4, 1968: Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Death and How it Changed America". Michael Eric Dyson says the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. shows that the U.S. is not "a post-racial paradise." (CNN) -- Last Thursday, President Obama, in his fiery speech before the NAACP Convention, admitted that "an African-American child is roughly five times as likely as a white child to see the inside of a prison." But he surely couldn't have imagined that only a couple of hours before his oration, one of America's most prominent scholars -- and a distinguished professor at Obama's alma mater, Harvard University -- would breathe cruel and ironic life into that sad statistic. Henry Louis "Skip" Gates Jr. is simply the most powerful and influential black scholar in our nation's history. He received a doctorate at Cambridge University long before the culture wars became au courant; he was among the first group of figures to receive a MacArthur "Genius Award" Fellowship; he wrote the finest work of literary criticism in a generation with "Signifying Monkey"; he was named by Time magazine as one of the "25 Most Influential Americans"; he has a boatload of honorary degrees; and he has been a ubiquitous media presence and thoughtful interpreter of race and culture for a quarter-century. But none of that made a bit of difference when Gates returned from a research trip to China to find the front door to his Harvard-owned house jammed and enlisted the assistance of his driver to muscle the door loose. By the time Gates was on the phone with his leasing company, a white policeman had arrived, summoned by a neighbor who spotted two black men looking as if they were unlawfully breaking into the house. Their stories diverge from here; the policeman says he asked Gates to step outside, Gates refused, the officer entered the home and requested Gates' ID, which he didn't initially produce, and finally had Gates arrested when he followed the officer outside, as Gates was "exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior." Gates allegedly shouted, "Is this how you treat a black man in America?" and "You don't know who you're messing with." Gates says he showed the officer his ID, demanded that the officer identify himself, which he didn't, and then the professor followed the officer outside to get the policeman's name and badge number when he was arrested by the gaggle of police who had gathered. Several features of the story scream the presence of lingering bias and racism. A black man in a tony neighborhood simply seems out of place, even to his neighbors. Had Gates been a white professor trying to get inside his home, and called on his driver to help him jar his door open, he probably wouldn't have as readily aroused the suspicion of neighbors. And when police arrived to check out the premises, they probably wouldn't have been nearly as ready to believe the worst about the occupant of a home who clearly wasn't engaged in a criminal act. Whatever one believes about what happened, Gates clearly wasn't the beneficiary of the benefit of the doubt, a reasonable expectation since he posed no visible threat. It is also striking that Gates seems to be the victim of a police mentality that chafes at a challenge of its implicit authority. While that may be true for folk of all races, it seems especially galling to cops to be questioned by a person of color. How dare black folk believe that, regardless of their station or privilege, they have permission to speak back -- or speak black -- to state-enforced authority, one that, not a decade ago, routinely ravaged black communities in blatant displays of wanton aggression. It is for good reason that police brutality is a constant concern for black folk; the stakes are often high and harmful. The link between black vulnerability and racial profiling -- of

Question: What are police sensitive to?

Question: What shows that U.S. still grapples with racism?

Question: What does Dyson say about Gates?

Answer: questioned by a person of color.

Answer: arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr.

Answer: shows that the U.S. is not "a post-racial paradise."

Summary:
Michael Eric Dyson: Gates is an eminent intellectual and Harvard professor .
He says Gates' arrest in Cambridge shows that U.S. still grapples with racism .
He says police are particularly sensitive to questioning from people of color .
Dyson: Obama must renew his pledge to eliminate racial profiling .


Editor's note: Michael Steele is chairman of the Republican National Committee. Michael Steele says it's becoming clear that the Obama administration is spending money recklessly. (CNN) -- Friday marks President Obama's 200th day in office, and in most respects, his second hundred days as president have been worse than the first 100. Obama campaigned on bringing "change" to America, and during his first 200 days as president, his real definition of change is becoming absolutely clear to Americans. Obama and congressional Democrats are determined to conduct their reckless and costly liberal experiments on the American people without any regard to the consequences. Whether a $787 billion stimulus bill, a "cap-and-trade" scheme that is nothing more than a huge national energy tax on every American family and business, or a $1.6 trillion government-run health care plan, more and more Americans are rightfully concerned about Obama's change for this country. Since Obama and Democrats rushed through Congress a $787 billion stimulus package, unemployment in America has risen close to 9.5 percent, and every indication is that it will climb even higher when July's unemployment report is released Friday. In total, more than 2.6 million jobs have been lost since Obama took office. But what has the president's stimulus bill brought us, if not the jobs he promised? Wasteful spending, such as $18 million to redesign Recovery.gov, the very government Web site used to monitor stimulus spending, or $3.4 million for an "eco tunnel" in Florida designed to provide safe passage for turtles looking to cross the street. This is not the economic stimulus that the American people expected. The second of Obama's grand experiments on America was his massive so-called cap-and-trade bill that was rammed through the House of Representatives this past June so fast that congressmen weren't given the chance to read it. This bill is nothing more than a national energy tax, plain and simple. Its sole purpose is to increase the cost of energy so that Americans might use less. The Heritage Foundation estimated that it would end up costing the average American family up to $1,870 per year and decrease the national GDP by $161 billion in the year 2020. The foundation also determined that during the 2012-2035 timeline, job losses would average more than 1.1 million. Add in the fact that it would do almost nothing to prevent "climate change," and all that is left is a national energy tax on environmentally friendly clothing. Obama's third and final experiment of his first 200 days as president -- and arguably his most dangerous -- is the fundamental transformation of our health care system. Obama is correct about one thing: Our health care system needs reform. Health care today costs too much for families and small businesses, preventing too many Americans from accessing the affordable quality care they need, when they need it. However, the president's prescription to rein in these costs has little to do with real-world dollars and cents and everything to do with the complete government takeover and control of one-sixth of the U.S. economy. The president claims that more government involvement in health care will promote competition. However, creating such a government-run entity would result in a massive government health care monopoly. Private insurers would soon be put out of business, unable to compete with the subsidized government-run plan the president and liberals want. More than 88 million Americans could be forced out of their current private insurance plans and into the government-run plan, according to a study by the Lewin Group. Obama claims that if you like your current health care, you can keep it, but this is simply not true. Then there is the issue of cost. Despite what the president says, his government-run plan won't make health care more affordable. Quite the opposite. Nothing ever becomes cheaper by being more expensive, and the Democrats' plan would cost at least $1.6 trillion, according to an analysis by Roll Call. The Congressional Budget Office determined one of the House Democrats'

Question: Who said health care reform would be costly?

Question: What would the health care reform lead to?

Question: Cap and trade bill is disguised as what?

Question: What would need government control?

Question: Which days were worst?

Question: What did Steele say about the programs?

Answer: The Heritage Foundation

Answer: result in a massive government

Answer: national energy tax,

Answer: Our health care system

Answer: his second hundred

Answer: it's becoming clear that the Obama administration is spending money recklessly.

Summary:
Michael Steele: The second hundred days have been worse than the first .
He says Obama's programs call for massive spending on liberal priorities .
Cap-and-trade bill is a disguised energy tax on average Americans, he says .
He says health care reform would be costly and lead to government control .


Editor's note: Mike Galanos hosts "Prime News" from 5-7 p.m. ET Mondays through Fridays on HLN. "Prime News" uses the day's most powerful headlines as a starting point for diverse perspectives, spirited debate and your points of view.

Mike Galanos says child pornography charges are too harsh for teens caught "sexting."

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- "Sexting."

Have parents out there ever even heard of this term?

Whether you want to admit it or not, teenagers are sending sexual messages and naked pictures of themselves to their boyfriends and girlfriends. In most cases it's the girl sending a picture or message to the guy.

If you're thinking to yourself right now, "What's the big deal?" then you should think again. This practice can ruin our teenagers' lives.

Six teens in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, were charged as juveniles with possessing child pornography after three girls sent nude or semi-nude pictures of themselves to three boys.

It gets even worse.

A 13-year-old boy in Middletown, Ohio, is facing felony pandering obscenities charges after taping a sex act and showing it to friends at a skating party. A felony? Yes this kid needs to be punished but we don't need our 13 or 14-year-olds charged with child porn and lumped in with adult pedophiles and labeled as sex offenders.

I've spoken with several attorneys on our show and it seems there is no one reason prosecutors are opting to charge teens with child porn instead of lesser charges. Some may be doing it to "send a message."

Some may feel they have an obligation to charge these teens with the most serious offense possible and, according to the law, naked pictures of underage kids are usually considered child porn. And others may feel they are left with no options since there aren't really any laws that apply specifically to sexting.

In any case, it's clear we need to change our laws to catch up with technology.

A great illustration of why change is needed now is the story of Phillip Alpert, of Orlando, Florida. He didn't ask, but his girlfriend sexted him naked pictures of herself, according to the Orlando Sentinel. When they broke up, he mass e-mailed the photos to get back at her. Alpert, 18, was convicted of transmission of child porn and he will carry the label of "sex offender" until he is 43. He lost friends, was kicked out of school, he can't even move in with his dad because his dad lives near a school.

Should Phillip be punished? Yes. Should the six teens in Pennsylvania face consequences? Yes. But let's kick them off cheerleading squads and sports teams. Make them do community service and take classes on sex crimes. Educate other teens on the dangers of sexting. Pay a price, yes, but these young people shouldn't pay for this for the rest of their lives.

And if you think this couldn't happen to your kid, think again. Sexting is more prevalent than you think.

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy teamed up with CosmoGirl.com and asked over 1,200 teens about their sexual behaviors in cyberspace.

According to their study, 39 percent of teens (that's ages 13-19) are sending or posting sexually suggestive messages over IM, text or e-mail and around the same number of teens are receiving such messages. Half of those teens, 20 percent, are sending or posting nude or semi-nude pictures of themselves. That's frightening.

Why are our kids doing this?

On our show, psychotherapist Stacy Kaiser said, "What I'm finding is a lot of girls are doing this because they're hoping it will help them get or keep a boyfriend." The numbers agree with Stacy.

According to the study, 51 percent of girls say it's "pressure from guys" that's making them send sexual messages and pictures of themselves. So guys are expecting this and our girls are saying "OK.

Question: what happened to him

Question: who should be aware of what's happening?

Question: who are are sending explicit photos of themselves?

Question: what should be punished?

Answer: is facing felony

Answer: parents

Answer: teenagers

Answer: Phillip

Summary:
Mike Galanos: Teens are sending explicit photos of themselves to other kids .
He says parents should be aware of what's happening and educate children .
Galanos: Sexting should be punished but not treated as child pornography .


Editor's note: Myron Lowery is mayor of Memphis, Tennessee. Memphis Mayor Myron Lowery fist bumps the Dalai Lama on his arrival in the Tennessee city. MEMPHIS, Tennessee (CNN) -- "Hello Dalai, Well, hello ... Dalai!" It seemed like a good idea at the time. And with hindsight being 20/20; it still does. How often do you get to meet an international figure as captivating as the Dalai Lama? I wanted to make an impression, and break the ice, in my Southern hospitality sort of way. So enter the lyric from the song and the fist bump now heard round the world. I had been told by his representatives that the Dalai Lama had a wonderful sense of humor, and would enjoy the exchange. Indeed, he did. His Holiness laughed, returned the gesture, and gave me his blessings. And in our brief time together, I saw in his eyes the sparkle of kindness, love and good humor. It's unfortunate that not everyone could allow themselves to enjoy the moment, as we did. Barely an hour passed before reporters began calling to say my fist bump with the Dalai Lama was "disrespectful," unusual and perhaps inappropriate. Why would I do that, they asked? Well to answer that, I would have to go back a couple of weeks or so. One of my assistants in the mayor's office began feeling ill. After a couple of days off work, she was diagnosed with the H1N1 flu. She sits 10 feet away from me. The swine flu story was hitting close to home in a major way. As the leader of a major city, I had to step forward and deal with fears about a virus that has never been known to man.  Watch the Dalai Lama's fist bump » So I rolled up my sleeves and took a shot for the seasonal flu. I encouraged everyone to get the H1N1 vaccine as soon as it becomes available. I urged people to cough politely into a napkin or their sleeve. I had hand sanitizer installed in the common areas at city hall. I greeted the Chairman of the City Council with a fist bump and it made the local news. It became a running theme in City Hall. The mayor would greet you with a fist bump. A day before His Holiness came to the city, I spoke to the Dalai Lama's protocol team and they said he would not be upset or offended being greeted this way. In fact it has happened in the past. So, armed with this information I decided to greet him when he arrived Tuesday in a similar fashion. Not because of any concern about H1N1. I greeted him this way because I'm a down to earth guy, who was raised by a single mother with four sons in public housing. I still tell everyone to call me Myron. I am now living a dream as the mayor of Memphis. And Wednesday, as I sat and watched His Holiness accept an award from the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, the gravity of the moment was in no way lost on me. An international crusader for peace was here on the hallowed ground where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. took his last breath. He offered his blessings, walked into the crowd, touched people. He carried himself humbly, not as one to be feared, but as a man, sharing his humanity, making us all better for it. So in the final analysis, I know His Holiness is always happy to participate in local customs, however obscure. He is about peace and harmony, and a fist bump is just another expression of warm friendship that he again returned to me before he left. And the "Hello, Dalai?" Well, that was just a bonus. He knew it was coming and we all laughed together. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Myron Lowery.

Question: who is myron lowery?

Question: Who greeted the dalai lama with a fist bump?

Answer: mayor of Memphis, Tennessee.

Answer: Memphis Mayor Myron Lowery

Summary:
Myron Lowery: I greeted the Dalai Lama with a fist bump and a pun .
He says H1N1 virus led to fears about spread of the new disease .
He says he's been encouraging people to use fist bump to reduce spread .
Lowery: "A fist bump is just another expression of warm friendship"


Editor's note: Nafees A. Syed, a junior at Harvard University majoring in government, is an editorial editor at The Harvard Crimson as well as a senior editor and columnist for the Harvard-MIT journal on Islam and society, Ascent. She is chairwoman of the Harvard Institute of Politics Policy Group on Racial Profiling.

Nafees Syed says President Obama's early words and actions send a powerful, positive signal to Muslims.

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- President Obama has given the Muslim community around the world the message we have been waiting for.

He reassured Muslims in America that "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." For those like me who were critical of his standoffish attitude toward Islam during his campaign, this signaled a welcome change.

Even more important was his subsequent statement: "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."

In traveling throughout Western Europe in the past two years, I heard several anti-American comments; these Europeans were challenging me, a Muslim, about American foreign policy in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Muslim countries, I've heard admiring comments about how great it must be to live in a rich country like America, followed by accusations that, "your President Bush doesn't like us Muslims."

As a Muslim-American, I have found myself in a difficult position. In America, I've had to explain Islam to other Americans, and abroad, I've had to explain America to those in the Muslim world.

Obama has done all Americans a favor by extending a hand of friendship to the Muslim world. For me personally, it has alleviated the pain of witnessing the country I love engage in a foreign policy that I could not approve of as a Muslim and as an American -- a foreign policy that created mutual distrust between Americans and Muslims. And Obama has followed up on his statements with actions.

In his first steps as president, Obama has initiated the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison, called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq and appointed former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, well-respected for his role in the Northern Ireland peace process, as special envoy for the Middle East.

For the past few weeks, I've heard overwhelming praise from Muslims for Obama's recent actions.

Obama has recognized a key fact that former President George W. Bush did not: Muslims in America and elsewhere are strongly affected by the situation of other Muslims in the world.

There is a popular saying of the Prophet Mohammed's that the Muslim community is like one body: If one part hurts, the entire body feels the pain. Muslims are very aware of this message and, in the last 20 years, three conflicts have continuously dominated the Muslim consciousness: Chechnya, Kashmir and, most notably, Palestine.

Obama recognized this when he chose his first interview as president to be with a reporter from Al-Arabiya, indicating he would actively engage Arab media. The Palestinian-Israeli issue dominated the interview, with Obama promising to work toward a solution involving both sides of the conflict.

To understand the challenge Obama faces in changing America's role in the conflict, one must realize the situation he walked into as president. Muslims around the world were watching the suffering of innocent Palestinian civilians in a Gaza military campaign conducted with a green light from the Bush administration. Obama is essentially trying to rebuild a relationship that has been destroyed.

However, Obama's tone of respect and not condescension, a clear break with the past, improves the chances that such a relationship could arise.

His interview with Al-Arabiya was filled with reassuring statements that America is "ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest," that "the language we use has to be a language of respect." After years of hearing rhetoric of "a crusade" and "Islamofascism" from the U.S. government, Obama's policy of listening, not dictating, has generated optimism in the Muslim world.

I

Question: Who says Muslims worldwide have shared concern about key issues?

Question: What did Obama's interview with Al-Arabiya talk of?

Question: Who said anything about Bush?

Question: What is Obama doing?

Question: What Nafees Syed said about Obama`s reaching to Muslim world?

Answer: Nafees Syed

Answer: Palestinian-Israeli issue

Answer: Muslim countries,

Answer: has given the Muslim community around the world the message we have been waiting for.

Answer: positive signal

Summary:
Nafees Syed: Obama is reaching out to Muslim world with words, actions .
She says Muslims worldwide have a shared concern about key issues .
Syed: Obama's interview with Al-Arabiya talked of respect and partnership .
She says Bush administration used harsh language of crusade, Islamofascism .


Editor's note: Nancy G. Brinker is the founder of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, named after her only sister, Susan, who died from breast cancer in 1980. The organization describes itself as the "world's largest grassroots network of breast cancer survivors and activists fighting to save lives, empower people, ensure quality care for all and energize science to find cures." Brinker served as Ambassador to Hungary in 2001 and Chief of Protocol of the United States during the Bush administration.

Nancy Brinker says a bill by Sens. Ted Kennedy and Kay Bailey Hutchison would renew the fight against cancer.

(CNN) -- During his first address to a joint session of Congress, President Obama urged a new effort "to conquer a disease that has touched the life of nearly every American, including me, by seeking a cure for cancer in our time."

It was a call to action that resonated for me, as it's a cause I've dedicated my life to pursuing.

Nearly three decades ago I promised my sister, Suzy, who died at age 36 from breast cancer, that I would do everything I could to end the disease that took her life.

A couple of years later, I too was diagnosed with breast cancer, at age 37. Fortunately my cancer was detected and treated much earlier than Suzy's, and it was much smaller and not nearly as aggressive. Following a mastectomy and four rounds of chemotherapy, I am now a 25-year survivor.

We have made a lot of progress since the 1980s. We now have a basic understanding of breast cancer, which is the foundation for discovering the cures. And with this new understanding, we're moving toward more personalized treatments -- as each patient and each tumor is different, their treatment must reflect those differences.

Yet while we are in position to experience significant advances, the sad fact remains that we are still facing an enormous cancer crisis -- cancer will claim the lives of more than a half-million people this year -- about 1,500 people a day.

In all, 40 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, including approximately 1.4 million new cases this year alone. With the graying of the Baby Boom generation, we are about to experience a cancer tsunami.

Thus I was inspired to hear our new president call for reigniting our nation's war on cancer. And it didn't take long for a bipartisan group of senators to answer that challenge. The group, led by Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who have been working together and in close consultation and collaboration with the cancer community for more than a year, introduced the 21st Century Cancer ALERT (access to life-saving early detection, research and treatment) Act.

This bill is an effort to address our shortcomings and renew our commitment to discovering and delivering the cures to cancer.

In a period where Democrats control both the Congress and the White House and true bipartisanship is a rare and precious commodity, I am grateful to both senators, particularly Hutchison, for ensuring that this was a true partnership, and that everyone had a seat at the table. For Kennedy, this is obviously a personal issue. Hutchison has been with us in this fight since our early days, and this would not have happened without her leadership.

The first step in saving lives is in detecting cancer early. If breast cancer is a guide, developing effective early detection techniques is critically important to increasing mortality rates. For example, when my sister died, only 77 percent of women who discovered their cancer before it spread beyond the breast survived at least five years. After nearly three decades of investments and advancements, the five-year survival rate has increased to 98 percent.

Unfortunately, many cancers still do not have effective early detection methods. Ovarian cancer is a particularly devastating example: There is no screening diagnostic, thus a diagnosis is most often made after the cancer has spread.

According to the American Cancer Society, when ovarian cancer is detected locally, the survival rate is 92

Question: Who is the survivor?

Question: Who made a promise to her sister?

Question: What would go far toward energizing fight against cancer?

Question: Who made a promise?

Question: Who is Nancy Brinke?

Question: What kind of cancer did she die from?

Question: When did she have breast cancer?

Question: What kind of legislations is she looking for?

Question: Who  dedicated herself to fighting the disease?

Answer: Nancy G. Brinker

Answer: Nancy G. Brinker

Answer: a bill by Sens. Ted Kennedy and Kay Bailey Hutchison

Answer: Nancy Brinker

Answer: founder of Susan G. Komen for the Cure,

Answer: breast

Answer: 1980.

Answer: renew our commitment to discovering and delivering the cures to cancer.

Answer: Nancy Brinker

Summary:
Nancy Brinker: I made promise to my sister who died of breast cancer .
A cancer survivor, Brinker says she's dedicated herself to fighting the disease .
She says new legislation would go far toward energizing fight against cancer .


Editor's note: Nancy Grace is the host of "Nancy Grace" on HLN nightly at 8 and 10 p.m. ET. Read an excerpt from her new novel "The Eleventh Victim" published by Hyperion. Nancy Grace found it challenging to complete her first novel, "The Eleventh Victim." (CNN) -- Readers of Nancy Grace's debut novel, "The Eleventh Victim," would be forgiven if they assumed the main character is based on Grace. After all, the heroine of the novel becomes an Atlanta, Georgia, district attorney after her fiancé is murdered and later relocates to New York for a fresh start. But Grace said there are some differences between her and her protagonist. "Hailey is a much better person than I am," Grace said. The tough-as-nails anchor of the HLN show that bears her name was driven to complete her first book of fiction, which she said has been in the works for almost a decade. The novel centers on the character of Hailey Dean, a psychology student who becomes a prosecutor after the tragic murder of her fiancé just weeks before their wedding. The mystery takes flight when Dean, having relocated to Manhattan and trained as a therapist, discovers that her patients are being murdered in a copycat style of an Atlanta serial killer from her past. Grace -- who is also the author of the nonfiction book "Objection!" -- recently spoke to CNN about the challenges of giving birth to both twins and a thriller, who might die in her next novel and what she thinks about television shows like "Saturday Night Live" parodying her. CNN: You are a working mother of two year-old twins. How in the world did you find time to write a book? Nancy Grace: It was hard work. I had done "Objection" and I had an idea for a second nonfiction. I went back to my editor and I said "Here's an idea for another nonfiction." She said "Yeah, it's OK, you got anything else?" I said "No, but I do have an old manuscript I've been working on for a long time, a murder mystery." I told her it's not finished yet, I have about 300 pages. I took it over that day and the next day they told me they wanted a two-book series on Hailey Dean. Then I thought "Oh Lord, now I've got to finish it." That happened around the time I got pregnant.  Watch Nancy discuss her new book » I had a difficult pregnancy. I was in a wheelchair, I threw up every day, I broke my foot during the pregnancy, so a lot of crazy things happened. Finally, after the twins came, the deadline came. I literally had to sit in the bed with the computer and force myself to finish it. I knew what was going to happen in each of the four storylines, but I had to get there. I would be up sometimes until 3 or 4 in the morning. The twins, one would wake up, by the time I would get that one fed and down, the other one would wake up and then it was time to get up at 5:30. CNN: You said you knew who did it in terms of the mystery early on in the writing. So how did the book change during its development? Grace: The characters really developed. It's like getting to know a person. Read an excerpt from the novel There are certain things Hailey simply would not do. You get to know your characters and they become richer and more intricate because you get to know the character. I would not do anything that was out of character for them. CNN: The plot and the settings sound very familiar to your own life. How much of you is in Hailey? Grace: Hailey is a much better person than I am, I can tell you that much. She's very brave. She thinks her way out of difficult and almost

Question: What is said about the character?

Question: What is the name of the lead character?

Question: what does Grace say?

Question: What is Grace's novel?

Question: what is Nancy Grace's debut novel?

Question: Who is Hailey Dean?

Question: what is Nancy Grace's debut novel called?

Question: Who is the second book about?

Question: Who wrote The Eleventh Victim?

Question: What did Nancy Grace say?

Question: Who is The Eleventh Victim about?

Question: What is the name of Nancy Grace's debut novel?

Question: What does Grace say about the main character?

Question: What is the title of Nancy Grace's debut novel?

Answer: there are some differences between her and her protagonist.

Answer: Hailey Dean,

Answer: "Hailey is a much better person than I am,"

Answer: "The Eleventh Victim"

Answer: "The Eleventh Victim"

Answer: heroine of the novel

Answer: "The Eleventh Victim"

Answer: Hailey Dean.

Answer: Nancy Grace

Answer: "Hailey is a much better person than I am,"

Answer: Hailey Dean, a psychology student

Answer: "The Eleventh Victim."

Answer: "Hailey is a much better person than I am,"

Answer: "The Eleventh Victim."

Summary:
Nancy Grace's debut novel, "The Eleventh Victim" has a story similar to hers .
Grace says main character "is a much better person than I am"
The thriller was almost a decade in the making .
Book first of two planned about prosecutor-turned-therapist Hailey Dean .