Editor's note: Dr. Vance Harris is a primary care physician in Redding, California. An earlier version of this commentary was posted on SERMO.com, a private, physicians-only online community.

Dr. Vance Harris says primary care doctors get minuscule payment for saving the system huge sums of money.

(CNN) -- Health policy experts agree that any reform in our health care system must include a well-educated, caring primary care doctor who is able to manage the health of his or her patients with an eye to using resources optimally to keep costs down.

That's a tall order and it seems that few policy makers realize the value of primary care physicians.

People are making a huge assumption in this reform effort that as we extend coverage to millions who don't have health insurance, there will be doctors there to actually provide the health care. Fewer and fewer medical students are choosing primary care and many primary care doctors are leaving the field.

Let me share with you why we are losing so many primary care doctors. What follows are a few examples I experience each week.

How many dozens of chest pain patients have I seen in the last month for whom I didn't order an EKG, get a consult, set up nuclear imaging or send for a catheterization?

Only I have the advantage of knowing how anxious some are and that they have had similar symptoms over the last 20 years. After a history and exam, I am willing to make the call that this is not heart disease. In doing so, I save the system tens of thousands of dollars.

Most of these patients are worked into a busy day, pushing me even deeper into that mire of tardiness for which I will be chastised by at least six patients before the end of the day. My reward for working these people in and making the call is at most $75.

How many times has an anxious patient come in demanding an endoscopy who I examined and then decided to treat less invasively for three to four weeks first? Few of these patients are happy no matter how many times I explain that it is reasonable to treat their reflux symptoms for several weeks before endoscopy.

This delay in referral has led to many tense moments in the last 20 years. The cost savings to the system is thousands of dollars each and every time I am willing to make the call and go with the treatment. My reward is about $55 from Medicare and private health insurers.

How many low back pain patients have come to the office in agony knowing that there has to be something serious to cause this kind of pain? A good history and exam allows me to reassure the patient that there is nothing we need to operate on and that the risk of missing anything is low.

This takes a lot of time to explain as I teach them why they don't need an MRI. If someone else ordered the MRI, guess who gets to explain the significance of bulging disks to an alarmed patient? Setting realistic expectations on recovery and avoiding needless imaging helps saves the system thousands of dollars. My reward is another $55.

How many diabetics do I struggle with, trying to get them to take better care of themselves? How many hours have I spent with teenage diabetics who will not check their blood sugar and forget half of their insulin doses?

Hundreds of hours seem wasted until one day they open their eyes and want to take care of themselves. My reward for years of struggle is a few hundred dollars at best. The savings to society for my hard work and never-give-up attitude is in the tens of thousands of dollars.

I am in my 22nd year in practice, now caring for 3,600 patients. Having me in the system has resulted in savings in the hundreds of thousands of dollars each and every year. My financial incentive to hang in there and work harder is that I now make less than half what I did 20 years ago. This year I will make even less.

These are the reasons so many physicians have left medicine entirely and most of us who are left wonder

Question: What is the happening to primary care doctors?

Question: Is Harris a primary doctor?

Question: What is Harris' profession?

Question: Does the doctor make more money now?

Answer: get minuscule payment for saving the system huge sums of money.

Answer: Dr. Vance Harris is a primary care physician

Answer: primary care physician

Answer: less than half what I did 20 years ago.

Summary:
Dr. Vance Harris: Health care reform assumes doctors will be available .
He says primary care doctors are dropping out of the business .
He says he saves the system big bucks but gets only small payments .
Harris: My financial incentive is less than half what it was 20 years ago .


Editor's note: Ed Rollins, a senior political contributor for CNN, was political director for President Reagan and chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Ed Rollins says Jack Kemp's intellect and force of personality helped guide the Republican party. NEW YORK (CNN) -- The world of politics has many players but few giants. One of the giants left the stage last week. I was privileged to have had Jack Kemp as a friend. Our friendship was not unique, because Jack Kemp had thousands and maybe tens of thousands of people who thought of themselves as his friend. He gave his friendship willingly and with a spirit of generosity. Those of us who knew him are saddened by his passing and the political world is a whole lot emptier because he's gone. When Jack entered a room he filled it with an energy and fervor and his presence was felt big-time. Every conversation with him became a debate, even if you agreed with him on an issue. Jack Kemp had no casual thoughts. I knew Jack for nearly 40 years. He was one of my early heroes. To this day I think of myself as a Reagan-Kemp Republican. We both were Californians who came out of blue-collar working-class roots. His father was a truck driver, my father a shipyard worker. We both wanted to remake the Republican Party into a party for working people where hard work was rewarded and opportunities were offered to every man and woman regardless of background, color, religion or beliefs. Jack went from a 13-year all-star career as the starting quarterback with the Buffalo Bills straight to Congress. He was first elected in 1970 and over the next four decades he was one of the most influential and popular men in the Republican Party. He was a true intellectual, a vociferous reader and was a warrior for his ideas. He took the intensity that made him the AFL's most valuable player directly to the halls of Congress without missing a beat. In his 18 years in Congress he was a leader of the new breed of conservatives. After he ran for president in 1988, he was appointed the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by President George H.W. Bush. In 1996, he was the Republican vice presidential nominee running with Sen. Bob Dole's presidential effort . Along the way he was an extraordinary husband for 50 years to his wonderful Joanne and a remarkable father to his two sons, Jeff and Jimmy, and his two daughters, Jennifer and Judith, who provided him 17 grandchildren. I was the national chairman of Jack's presidential campaign in 1988. I believed he was the rightful heir to Ronald Reagan and that his conservative principles and ideas would continue to build on the foundation that President Reagan had established. Many of us thought Jack or Sen. Paul Laxalt, Reagan's closest friend and campaign chairman, should have been the vice presidential candidate in 1980. If either of them had been selected, he likely would have been the future president and there would not have been a Bush dynasty. They were the favorites of the convention delegates and President Reagan's top choices, too. He was argued out of them because people said you couldn't have a movie star running with a football star -- or two former governors from neighboring states (California and Nevada). Be that as it may. Jack's contributions to Ronald Reagan's legacy as the tax-cutting guru and unstoppable missionary of supply side economics made much of President Reagan's domestic policy possible. Even though he had always been a quarterback, he became a blocking back for President Reagan in moving his legislation through Congress. Shortly after he became HUD secretary in 1989, several National Football League team owners came to him offering him the job of National Football League Commissioner to replace his long time friend Pete Rozelle. He told me it was the one job he always wanted. My counsel was to take it. He called me back several days later and said he couldn't, because he felt he owed it to President Bush not to walk away after so short a time

Question: What did Kemp believe in?

Question: Who helped guide Republican Party in 1980s and 1990s?

Question: What does he say about Kemp?

Answer: believed he was the rightful heir to Ronald Reagan and that his conservative principles and ideas would continue to build on the foundation that President Reagan had established.

Answer: Jack Kemp's

Answer: intellect and force of personality helped guide the Republican party.

Summary:
Ed Rollins: Jack Kemp helped guide Republican Party in 1980s and 1990s .
He says Kemp was a strong source of ideas the party put to use .
Rollins: Kemp believed in a GOP "big tent" and encouraged minority participation .


Editor's note: Ed Rollins, who was political director for President Reagan, is a Republican strategist who was national chairman of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's 2008 presidential campaign.

Ron Silver, seen in a 2006 photo, was an actor with a strong interest in justice and peace, Ed Rollins says.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The lights on Broadway were dimmed Wednesday night to honor Ron Silver, the Tony-award winning actor who was buried Wednesday after a courageous battle against cancer of the esophagus.

Ron was a lifelong social liberal and a Democratic activist, but you couldn't narrowly define him. And to those of us privileged to be his friend, he was an extraordinary pal.

In the 25 years we were friends, he and I faced off most of that time on opposite sides of the political spectrum. In this era when people want bipartisanship, Ron was the role model.

Our earliest encounters began when I was managing Ronald Reagan's campaign and he was a Dukakis supporter. He was passionate and a true intellectual. I have spent much of my life around smart people (fortunately a lot smarter than I) and Ron was one of the smartest.

Whatever the topic, he had an opinion on it and probably had just read a book or two on the subject. Ron was a Chinese and international relations scholar and had no casual thoughts, only deep convictions. He backed up his opinions with empirical evidence and could rattle off facts like a baseball statistician.

"Eddie, why do you think that way?" (Only my mother and wife have called me Eddie.) "Why would a smart man like you ever come to that conclusion?" And then we would proceed to discuss the topic for hours. I don't think we ever changed each other's opinions, but after a bottle or two of wine or a bottle of Scotch had been emptied, we still respected each other.

We never had a cross word and no discussion ever ended in anger. After a while I learned it wasn't personal and it wasn't because I was Republican. Ron argued with everyone -- even those on his side in an issue -- because he had great curiosity and always wanted to know more.

The closest we ever came to harsh words was when I teased him on his Emmy nomination for a recurring role as a slick campaign strategist on the TV show "The West Wing."

"You would have won if you asked me how to play the part," I declared. "After all you're just an actor. I am the real thing. I worked in the real West Wing and I managed a real campaign that won 49 states," He quickly replied with a big grin: "Why the hell would I want the input of a guy who lost Minnesota [the only state Reagan lost]? And remember, you only won because you had an actor named Ron making you look good!"

Our discussions often ended in laughter. Because for Ron, politics was serious but it was also fun. I don't think he enjoyed anything more than a great political debate. To Ron, debate was an educational experience. To those of us on the opposite side it was like a combat sport.

Several years ago, I was approached by one of the planners for the 2004 Republican Convention in New York. He wanted to know if I could recommend any movie or entertainment stars who would be willing to participate in the convention. Since the passing of the Reagan era, Republicans haven't had a long list of entertainers to choose from.

From our discussions, I knew that Ron supported President Bush's battle against Islamic terrorism and the war in Iraq and he had been profoundly affected by 9/11. I asked him would he be willing to participate if asked. He said yes, but emphatically stated he was remaining a Democrat. But he also knew that when he publicly supported Bush on the war, it would affect his long relationships in Hollywood and could cost him future work.

Ron's Monday night convention speech was short, less than five

Question: What did Silver support?

Question: What was Ron Silver?

Question: What political party did Silver belong to?

Answer: President Bush's battle against Islamic terrorism and the war in Iraq

Answer: actor

Answer: social liberal and a Democratic activist,

Summary:
Ed Rollins: Ron Silver was a liberal Democrat, but impossible to narrowly define .
He says Silver was passionate and knowledgeable about current events .
He says Silver faced a backlash in Hollywood because he supported Bush on war .
Silver's work lit up Broadway, television and films, Rollins says .


Editor's note: Eric Cantor, a Republican serving his fifth term representing the 7th District of Virginia, was elected last month as the Republican Whip, the party's second-highest position in the House of Representatives. He also serves on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Rep. Eric Cantor says Republicans want to make sure the massive economic stimulus plan is used wisely.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Bolstered by wide Democratic margins in both chambers of Congress, the new administration assumes power Tuesday with a broad public mandate to repair the feeble economy.

But with such a free hand over current stimulus efforts comes great danger. Costing at the very least a hefty $825 billion, the plan's potential for taxpayer waste and special-interest-driven giveaways is enormous.

We Republicans believe we can help mitigate those risks if we are given a meaningful place at the table. President-elect Barack Obama was correct to point out recently that no one party has a monopoly over sound ideas.

Rather than presenting an obstacle, House Republicans intend to use the full force of our ideas to help Democrats produce a better package to help pull the country back from the economic abyss.

Specifically, we want to keep the stimulus bill -- as well as all other future economic "rescue" measures -- limited in scope and transparent.

Our country has no other choice. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a sobering report that this year's deficit will likely climb to over 8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, or $1.2 trillion. That's higher than at any point since World War II -- and those figures don't even account for the forthcoming stimulus.

Such heavy borrowing runs the risk down the line of rampant inflation, which scares away foreign capital while making the purchasing power of the dollar weaker for American consumers.

While deflation may be the more immediate threat that the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department are correctly focused on, uncontrolled spending and borrowing could easily necessitate much higher Treasury interest rates to keep foreigners financing our mounting debt.

Especially given the looming entitlement crisis, this poses heavy danger for businesses and families alike.

Let's not lay the groundwork for future financial catastrophe. Let's lay it for future growth. The stimulus can do that by focusing exclusively on strengthening businesses, boosting job creation and lifting consumer confidence.

Our preferred strategy is to provide meaningful tax relief directly to middle-class taxpayers and the small businesses that they operate or work for.

Particularly in down times, tax cuts can lift an economy by encouraging work, investment and business expansion. That should be the aim of the $300 billion in tax cuts the president-elect has pledged -- an apparent recognition, however overdue, that tax cuts are in fact stimulative for the economy.

But we also accept that these are dizzyingly uncertain economic days for our country. The Democrats have proposed additional spending for infrastructure and the like, ostensibly to compensate for stagnation in the private sector.

Like bears sniffing out food at a campfire pit, those looking for a piece of the multi-billion dollar pie have flooded Washington with a cascade of requests, some capable of spurring immediate and lasting growth, others falling hopelessly short.

In order for the public to know that money is not wasted, two things are needed. First, we need to reconcile the American people's demands for swift action with the fact that a good bill requires time -- time to hold hearings, read the bill in painstaking detail, and root out waste.

Second, Democrats have to live up to President-elect Obama's vow for "unprecedented transparency." The GOP welcomes and strongly encourages the president-elect's idea to post all contents of the bill online for the American people to judge.

Lastly, any new spending must be introduced with the clear understanding that it is temporary rather than permanent. It is not always easy to terminate spending programs once they have been funded, but our bleak long-term budget outlook requires significant sacrifices over the coming years.

We trust the Democrats' assurances that the economic stimulus will not be turned into

Question: What did he say was the best strategy?

Question: what did cantor sAY

Question: what is the best strategy

Question: who supports obama?

Question: who has a mandate?

Question: what did he say

Question: What did Rep. Eric Cantor say about Obama?

Answer: to provide meaningful tax relief directly to middle-class taxpayers and the small businesses that they operate or work for.

Answer: Republicans want to make sure the massive economic stimulus plan is used wisely.

Answer: to provide meaningful tax relief directly to middle-class taxpayers and the small businesses that they operate or work for.

Answer: The GOP

Answer: the new administration

Answer: Republicans want to make sure the massive economic stimulus plan is used wisely.

Answer: was correct to point out recently that no one party has a monopoly over sound

Summary:
Rep. Eric Cantor: Obama has a mandate for plan to spark the economy .
Plan's potential for waste and special-interest giveaways is enormous, he says .
Cantor: We support Obama's idea of making the plan transparent .
He says best strategy is to provide tax relief to middle class, small business .


Editor's note: Erica Williams is deputy director of Campus Progress, a project of the Center for American Progress, a Washington-based organization that describes itself as dedicated to progressive causes. She works to engage the millennial generation and communities such as people of color, women and people of faith in the political process. She can be found at ericawilliamsonline.com and on Twitter at @ericawilliamsdc. Erica Williams says the idea that young people don't care about the health care issue is wrong. (CNN) -- As Congress returns to Capitol Hill, back from a recess of contentious town halls on health care reform, one new voice has the potential to break through the seemingly endless deadlock: the voice of young Americans. Just Thursday, there were more than 880,000 Facebook status updates posted with the meme of a demand for health care reform, generated organically and spread virally from young people and other Facebook users across the country. Some are regarding this as the first symbolic demonstration of young people's engagement in the debate despite the common, and categorically false, notion that young people "don't care about health care reform." Young adults between the ages of 19 and 29 represent nearly a third of the entire uninsured population, and two-thirds of those uninsured young people reported going without necessary medical care because of costs in 2007, according to research for the Commonwealth Fund. More than half of all young adults have low incomes (below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, $21,660 for a single person in 2009), and low-income young adults are more than 2.5 times as likely to be uninsured as higher-income young adults, according to the Urban Institute. And contrary to popular belief that young people see themselves as invincible college students who choose to remain uninsured, 56 percent of uninsured young adults between the ages of 19 and 29 are full-time workers who are half as likely to be covered by their employer as older workers. Millennials regarded health care reform as one of their top concerns during the 2008 election campaign, according to the Rock the Vote Poll of 18- to 29-year-olds, conducted in February 2008 by Lake Research Partners. Whether it is the 25-year-old freelancer with a pre-existing condition who can't purchase insurance in the individual market, the 20-year-old line cook who doesn't receive insurance through her job or the 28-year-old bank employee who is insured but is worried about the rising costs of premiums, young Americans experience the deficiencies of our health care system on a daily basis. Nevertheless, despite a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey showing that 60 percent of Americans aged 18 to 34 support Obama's reform plan, the voice of young Americans has been strikingly absent from the public, televised national debate. And that silence is a dangerous state of affairs for the larger dialogue around reform. Young Americans have the most at stake and the longest to live with the result, and they are often the primary voice of a moral imperative (the idea that health care reform is not only economically necessary but the just and fair thing to do). Without their voices, the health care reform debate will continue to be stalled and hemmed in by older Americans who are in a better economic position than young people and who are afraid to change the status quo, despite all signs that it is rapidly failing. Young people were such a vital force during the election, not simply because of their own voting turnout but because of their ability to reach out to their elders and persuade them. And what could be more needed now? But if health care reform matters so much to young people and their voice is so crucial in the debate, why the silence? Why does it appear as if young people aren't interested in the debate that will inform so much of their future? Well, if we are gauging America's overall interest in the debate by the aforementioned displays of partisan yelling, screaming and death panel-ing at some town halls, no wonder we think young people don't care. Those sideshows were a clear turnoff to a population

Question: What is the myth?

Question: Who says that young people's lack of concern about healthcare is a myth?

Question: There is a myth that young people don't care about what?

Question: What do they overwhelmingly support?

Question: What does she say they overwhelmingly support?

Question: When did young people show concern?

Question: What year did young people show concern about the issue?

Answer: the idea that young people don't care about the health care issue is wrong.

Answer: Erica Williams

Answer: the health

Answer: Obama's reform plan,

Answer: Obama's reform plan,

Answer: 2008 election campaign,

Answer: 2008

Summary:
Erica Williams: There's a myth that young people don't care about health care .
She says young people showed concern about the issue in 2008 .
She says they overwhelmingly support Obama's health care plans .
Williams: Reform fight needs enthusiasm and perspective of young people .


Editor's note: Eve Ensler is the playwright of "The Vagina Monologues" and the founder of V-Day, a global movement to end violence against women and girls. V-Day has funded over 10,000 community-based anti-violence programs and launched safe houses in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Kenya, South Dakota, Egypt and Iraq. This commentary was adapted from remarks Ensler made Wednesday to the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs and the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Human Rights, Democracy and Global Women's Issues. Playwright Eve Ensler says conflict in Congo is taking a terrible toll on women and girls. (CNN) -- I write today on behalf of countless V-Day activists worldwide, and in solidarity with my many Congolese sisters and brothers who demand justice and an end to rape and war. It is my hope that these words and those of others will break the silence and break open a sea of action to move Congolese women toward peace, safety and freedom. My play, "The Vagina Monologues," opened my eyes to the world inside this world. Everywhere I traveled with it scores of women lined up to tell me of their rapes, incest, beatings, mutilations. It was because of this that over 11 years ago we launched V-Day, a worldwide movement to end violence against women and girls. The movement has spread like wildfire to 130 countries, raising $70 million. I have visited and revisited the rape mines of the world, from defined war zones like Bosnia, Afghanistan and Haiti to the domestic battlegrounds in colleges and communities throughout North America, Europe and the world. My in-box -- and heart -- have been jammed with stories every hour of every day for over a decade. Nothing I have heard or seen compares with what is going on in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where corporate greed, fueled by capitalist consumption, and the rape of women have merged into a single nightmare. Femicide, the systematic and planned destruction of the female population, is being used as a tactic of war to clear villages, pillage mines and destroy the fabric of Congolese society. In 12 years, there have been 6 million dead men and women in Congo and 1.4 million people displaced. Hundreds and thousands of women and girls have been raped and tortured. Babies as young as 6 months, women as old as 80, their insides torn apart. What I witnessed in Congo has shattered and changed me forever. I will never be the same. None of us should ever be the same. I think of Beatrice, shot in her vagina, who now has tubes instead of organs. Honorata, raped by gangs as she was tied upside down to a wheel. Noella, who is my heart -- an 8-year-old girl who was held for 2 weeks as groups of grown men raped her over and over. Now she has a fistula, causing her to urinate and defecate on herself. Now she lives in humiliation. I was in Bosnia during the war in 1994 when it was discovered there were rape camps where white women were being raped. Within two years there was adequate intervention. Yet, in Congo, femicide has continued for 12 years. Why? Is it that coltan, the mineral that keeps our cell phones and computers in play, is more important than Congolese girls? Is it flat-out racism, the world's utter indifference and disregard for black people and black women in particular? Is it simply that the UN and most governments are run by men who have never known what it feels like to be raped? What is happening in Congo is the most brutal and rampant violence toward women in the world. If it continues to go unchecked, if there continues to be complete impunity, it sets a precedent, it expands the boundaries of what is permissible to do to women's bodies in the name of exploitation and greed everywhere. It's cheap warfare. The women in Congo are some of the most resilient women in the world. They need our protection and support. Western governments, like

Question: What did she say is being used as a weapon?

Question: what is being used as weapon

Question: What governments need to protect Congo's women?

Question: Who is Ensler?

Question: What did Eve Ensler say about the war in Congo?

Question: What did she say was being used as a weapon?

Answer: Femicide, the systematic and planned destruction of the female population,

Answer: Femicide,

Answer: Western

Answer: playwright of "The Vagina Monologues" and the founder of V-Day,

Answer: taking a terrible toll on women and girls.

Answer: Femicide,

Summary:
Eve Ensler: War in Congo is targeting girls and women .
She says rape is being used as a weapon, with 1,100 raped each month .
Western governments, including the U.S., need to protect Congo's women, she says .


Editor's note: Fareed Zakaria is a foreign affairs analyst who hosts "Fareed Zakaria: GPS" on CNN at 1 p.m. ET Sundays. Fareed Zakaria says he doesn't think the crisis between Russia and Georgia is likely to be resolved soon. NEW YORK (CNN) -- Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has accused the United States of orchestrating the conflict in Georgia to benefit one of its presidential candidates. In an exclusive interview Thursday with CNN's Matthew Chance in the Black Sea city of Sochi, Russia, Putin said the U.S. had encouraged Georgia to attack the autonomous region of South Ossetia. Putin said his defense officials had told him it was done to benefit a presidential candidate, but he presented no evidence to back it up. "U.S. citizens were indeed in the area in conflict," Putin said. "They were acting in implementing those orders doing as they were ordered, and the only one who can give such orders is their leader." White House spokeswoman Dana Perino blasted Putin's statements, saying they were "patently false." Russia is trying to counterbalance mounting pressure from the West over its military action in Georgia and its recognition of the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But Russia's hopes of winning international support were dashed Thursday when China and other Asian nations expressed concern about tension in the region. The joint declaration from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which includes China, Russia, Tajikistan, Kyrgystan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, said the countries hoped that any further conflict could be resolved peacefully. CNN spoke to world affairs expert and author Fareed Zakaria about the Russia-Georgia situation. CNN: Is the crisis between Russia and Georgia likely to get resolved soon? Zakaria: No, positions are actually hardening. The Russians have formally recognized the two regions of Georgia -- Abkhazia and South Ossetia -- and on our program, the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, has demanded the withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers, to be replaced by European Union peacekeepers. So the two sides are actually further apart than they were 10 days ago. CNN: Who will prevail? Zakaria: It's difficult to see the circumstances under which Russia will withdraw completely. On the other hand, its recognition of the two provinces is a joke. Almost no country in the world has followed them in this recognition. So they might be willing to reverse themselves on this issue. But I can't see them getting out completely. CNN: So Russia wins? Zakaria: Well, even if it wins in the narrow sense, it will lose in a broader sense. Russia's actions have scared all their neighbors, aroused anti-Russian nationalism, driven the Poles, the Ukrainians and so many other countries closer to the West and away from Moscow. Countries around the world have been startled by the Soviet-era tactics. And what have they gained for all this? South Ossetia. I think this will go down in history as a major strategic blunder. The Russians have massively overplayed their hand. CNN: Why did they do it? Zakaria: They would argue that the West pushed and punished them after the collapse of the Soviet Union and that by expanding NATO to their borders, it signaled that it still saw Russia as a rival and relations as competitive. Perhaps there is some truth to their perception, but there were also much broader developments in Russia over the last decade. The rise of Russian nationalism, an anti-Western and anti-democratic movement, the rise of an elected dictatorship, and above all, the rise in oil wealth, which always produces corruption, dysfunction and arrogance. Russia has moved in anti-modern directions, and much of it has nothing to do with what the West did or didn't do. CNN: What should the United States do? Zakaria: Assist Georgia in rebuilding and securing itself. Assure countries like Poland that may be insecure. But also, don't overreact. Russia's blunder is producing a reaction in the region and across the world. Let that play itself out

Question: What will be viewed as "a major strategic blunder"?

Question: Zakaria calls Russia's recognition of what a joke?

Question: What is Fareed Zakaria's job?

Question: What did Zakaria say the U.S. should do?

Question: What did Fareed Zakaria say about Russia's actions?

Question: What country is characterized as "anti-modern"?

Question: What does Zakaria say the US shouldn't do?

Question: What does Zakaria call a "joke"?

Question: How many provinces broke away from Georgia?

Question: What did Zakaria call a "a joke"?

Question: Zakaria says what country's actions will be viewed as a blunder?

Question: Zakaria says who shouldn't overreact?

Answer: Soviet-era tactics.

Answer: of the two provinces

Answer: foreign affairs analyst

Answer: Assist Georgia in rebuilding and securing itself. Assure countries like Poland that may be insecure. But also, don't overreact.

Answer: have scared all their neighbors, aroused anti-Russian nationalism, driven the Poles, the Ukrainians and so many other countries closer to the West and away from Moscow.

Answer: Russia

Answer: Assist Georgia in rebuilding and securing itself. Assure countries like Poland that may be insecure. But

Answer: its recognition of the two provinces is a joke.

Answer: Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Answer: recognition of the two provinces

Answer: Russia

Answer: United States

Summary:
Fareed Zakaria says Russia's actions will be viewed as "a major strategic blunder"
Zakaria calls Russia's recognition of Georgia's two breakaway provinces "a joke"
Analyst: Russia has moved in "anti-modern" directions in recent years .
Zakaria says U.S. shouldn't overreact, let world reaction play itself out .


Editor's note: Fareed Zakaria is a foreign affairs analyst who is the host of "Fareed Zakaria: GPS" on CNN at 1 p.m. ET Sundays. "America will have to fight to attract capital and investment like every other nation," says Fareed Zakaria. NEW YORK (CNN) -- The crisis in global financial markets will top the agenda as finance ministers from the world's top industrialized nations and central bank governors meet in Washington. In an effort to breathe some life into economies around the world, the Federal Reserve, in tandem with five other central banks, lowered its key lending rate to 1.5 percent from 2 percent. However, the global financial crisis has sunk its teeth in to the point that analysts say the $700 billion bailout plan and coordinated rate cut were merely steps in the right direction, and it will take much more to really get credit moving. CNN spoke to world affairs expert Fareed Zakaria about the most recent developments. CNN: Is the economy as bad as everyone is saying? Zakaria: What is happening now is a deep, wrenching financial crisis unlike any we've seen since the 1930s. It's contributing to a broad slowdown of the American economy. The pain is spreading across the world. It's ugly. But the history of capitalism is filled with credit crises, panics, financial meltdowns and recessions. It doesn't mean the end of capitalism. CNN: Then why can't we just let the free markets resolve the current economic problems without the federal government getting involved? Zakaria: We just can't accept the downswings that used to be routine for Western countries in the 19th century, when we saw much less intervention by the government. Can you imagine the political fallout from 20 percent unemployment or 5 percent growth rates? The government must experiment with massive interventions in the market to ensure credit starts flowing smoothly again. These interventions have become part and parcel of modern capitalism. CNN: So what should the government do? Zakaria: That is the real question: How to regulate the markets so you get the maximum innovation and growth, but temper their wilder movements? The government will have to do this by trial and error. No one knows in theory what the perfect system would look like. In the short run, whatever it takes, including buying up mortgages, debt, equities. Clearly, America's financial system needs new, different and better regulations for the 21st century, and this crisis should help produce those. CNN: What does it mean for the United States? Zakaria: People around the world once saw the United States as the most modern, sophisticated and productive economy in the world. Now they wonder, was this all a house of cards? They listened to American policymakers with respect, even awe. Today, they wonder if these officials know what they are doing. This loss of credibility will have hard consequences. For decades, the United States has attracted massive amounts of capital -- 80 percent of the surplus savings of the world -- which has allowed it to live beyond its means. That era is drawing to a close. America will have to fight to attract capital and investment like every other nation. CNN: What can we do? Zakaria: We need to wake up and get serious about our challenges. We must address all these issues, and fast -- restore confidence, reform the system, return the country to fiscal sanity. We have the opportunity to remain the pivotal player in a richer, more dynamic, more exciting world. But we have to take a substantial shift in our approach.

Question: What are not the end of capitalism?

Question: What aren't the end of capitalism?

Question: Who must try massive market interventions?

Question: what needs better regulations?

Question: What does America's financial system need?

Answer: credit crises, panics, financial meltdowns and recessions.

Answer: credit crises, panics, financial meltdowns and recessions.

Answer: The government

Answer: America's financial system

Answer: new, different and better regulations

Summary:
Zakaria: Credit crises, financial meltdowns, recessions aren't end of capitalism .
Government must try massive market interventions to get credit to flow, he says .
Zakaria: America's financial system needs new, different and better regulations .
We must quickly restore confidence, reform system, return fiscal sanity, he says .


Editor's note: Fawaz A. Gerges holds the Christian A. Johnson Chair in Middle Eastern Studies and International Affairs at Sarah Lawrence College. His most recent book is "The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global." Fawaz Gerges says the elite running Iran has lost the support of two key groups -- women and young voters. (CNN) -- With an apparent political coup in Iran by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his supporters over the weekend, the ruling mullahs have dispensed with all democratic pretense and joined the ranks of traditional dictators in the Middle East. The hardliners in Tehran, led by the Revolutionary Guards and ultraconservatives, have won the first round against reformist conservatives but at an extravagant cost: loss of public support. Widespread accusations of fraud and manipulation are calling into question the very legitimacy and authority of the mullahs' Islamic-based regime. The electoral crisis has exposed a deepening divide between female and young voters, who represent about 70 percent of the population, and a radical conservative ruling elite out of touch with the hopes, fears and aspirations of young Iranians. The consensus in Iran, particularly among young voters, is that the election was stolen from reformist candidate, Mir Hossein Moussavi, and that the outcome did not reflect the electorate's genuine will. After the Interior Ministry announced the final election results showing a nearly 2-to-1 landslide for Ahmadinejad (62.63 to 33.75 percent), thousands of young protesters took to the streets and clashed with police and set trash bins and tires ablaze. Shock and disbelief turned to anger and rage. What poured gasoline on a simmering fire among the youth was a belief of widespread fraud. "It's like taking 10 million votes away from Moussavi and giving them to Ahmadinejad," said Tehran-based analyst Saeed Leilaz. That is equivalent to more than 30 million votes in the American electorate. "Death to the dictatorship" and "down with the dictator" shouted the demonstrators while being clubbed by police and anti-riot squads. For the first time, young Iranians showed defiance against their tormentors and overcame their fear. Many young men reportedly roamed Tehran streets looking for a fight with the police. The ruling mullahs face an unprecedentedly serious crisis at home. While it does not threaten their existence, the crisis risks undermining their ability to govern effectively and pursue a successful foreign policy. In his first response to the results of the election, Moussavi nailed it on the head. "I won't surrender to this manipulation," he wrote on his Web site. "The result of such performance by some officials will jeopardize the pillars of the Islamic Republic and will establish tyranny." Moussavi's warning to the mullahs that stealing the election would weaken the very foundation of their regime and ultimately bring about its collapse carries weight because he has been part of the political inner circle of the Islamic Republic, not an outsider. Moussavi is a former prime minister admired for the way he managed the country's economy during the prolonged and bloody Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, a conflict which cost Iran over $500 billion. He worked closely with Ali Khamenei, then Iran's president and today supreme leader, and clashed with him over political authority and powers. Moussavi is a member of Iran's Expediency Council, which mediates between the parliament and the non-elected Guardian Council led by Ayatollah Khamenei. Initially, many reformists were skeptical about Moussavi's reform credentials and feared that he was too conservative for their taste. Throughout the presidential campaign, Moussavi labored hard to portray his proposals on social policy and foreign affairs as an extension of the Islamic system in order to disarm conservative critics, even denying that he is a mainstream reformist candidate in the hope of winning the support of reformers and moderate conservatives. Indeed, as the presidential campaign progressed, Moussavi won the backing not only of an important conservative segment of the electorate but also the formidable youth constituency. His charismatic wife, Zahra Rahnavard, electrified the female vote and won the hearts and minds of women voters who flooded their campaign rallies. In the past two weeks, Moussavi's campaign gained momentum. There

Question: What country is Gerges referring to in his commentary?

Question: Where do the mullahs rule?

Question: What was the result of the election?

Question: The mullahs are out of step with what?

Question: Do the ruling mullahs have public support?

Question: What groups are the ruling mullahs out of step with?

Answer: Iran

Answer: Iran

Answer: nearly 2-to-1 landslide for Ahmadinejad

Answer: the hopes, fears and aspirations of young Iranians.

Answer: loss of

Answer: women and young voters.

Summary:
Fawaz Gerges: Iranian election likely to turn on local issues, not foreign policy .
Iran's economy in trouble due to lower oil prices, inflation, joblessness, he says .
Women think Ahmadinejad has broken his promises to them, Gerges says .
Gerges: Women and young people have been key factors in past votes .


Editor's note: Fawaz A. Gerges holds the Christian A. Johnson Chair in Middle Eastern Studies and International Affairs at Sarah Lawrence College. His most recent book is "The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global." This is the first of two pieces by Gerges on the Iranian election. Fawaz Gerges says Iran's president is vulnerable on the economy and broken promises of women's rights. (CNN) -- In Iran, as in every country, all politics is local. While there exist few substantive differences among leading presidential contenders over foreign and nuclear policy, there are divisions over the economy. With uncertain and declining oil revenues and a global financial crisis, Iran has fallen on hard times. The nation suffers from high inflation and an unemployment rate that tops 30 percent (according to unofficial figures) -- one of the highest in the region, despite the country's huge oil exports. Public discontent over the faltering economy has seen President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad become increasingly unpopular. His reformist and conservative opponents alike have criticized him publicly for spending too much time agitating the U.S. and Israel and not enough trying to fix the crumbling economy. Regardless of which candidate wins on June 12 or in a potential runoff, he will inherit a grave economic crisis and a restive population. Dealing with foreign affairs is likely to be some way down his list of priorities. At his first press conference after announcing his presidential candidacy, Hossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad's main opponent, pledged to increase freedoms for Iranians and curb controversial restrictions that require women to cover their hair in public. "Can a security patrol save our youths?" Mousavi said of the increase in the moral police operations to prevent women from allowing their hair to show in public. "Or can they be saved by the words of a grandfather who talks to his granddaughter?" he asked rhetorically. The patrols began after Ahmadinejad became president, though his government denies responsibility; many women claim that his administration has institutionalized discrimination against them. Criticizing the president's rhetoric and the strictures he has imposed on daily life and public discourse, Mousavi, who appeals to the youth vote and women, said social controls are the domain of the people, not the government -- a radical departure from the dominant orthodoxy of the ruling mullahs. Mousavi frames his reforms as an affirmation of Iran's constitution, which he says has been "violated and undermined" by Ahmadinejad. The reason for his rhetoric is that women and young voters could tip the balance of power in his favor. Half of the 46 million eligible voters are women. In 1997, more than 60 percent of the votes that brought former President Mohammad Khatami to power were cast by women, and in 2000 women voters were instrumental in giving reformists a sweeping majority in the parliament. Promising greater individual freedoms to Iran's young people was instrumental in the two landslide victories by Khatami in 1997 and 2001. Ironically, during the 2005 presidential election, candidate Ahmadinejad said he would loosen state control over people's personal affairs. Trying to garner support among women and young voters, in one of his pre-election television interviews he questioned the role of the morality police: "Let our children arrange their hair any way they wish. It does not concern you and me. ... The government should fix the economy of the nation and improve its atmosphere. ... People have variegated tastes." His broken promises to women voters could cost him the presidency on June 12. A reformist woman and a former member of parliament said in a newspaper article that the president's days are numbered: "The women's movement in Iran is gaining momentum and these elections may be the first step towards Ahmadinejad [being] forced out." Indeed, women have become critical players in Iran's electoral map. More women activists are making their voices and demands heard and have formed coalitions to defeat the incumbent. Almost 600 women have registered for the forthcoming 290-seat Majlis (parliamentary) election, which will be crucial in determining the future of the ultra-conservatives who broadly back Ahmadinejad. There are currently only two women in secondary Cabinet positions and 11

Question: Whose economy is in trouble due to lower oil prices?

Question: For what reasons is Iran's economy in trouble

Question: Who are considered key factors in the past votes

Question: What is considered the main turning point for the Iranian elections

Question: Which group of people think Ahamdinejad broke their promises to them?

Answer: Iran

Answer: uncertain and declining oil revenues and

Answer: women,

Answer: Promising greater individual freedoms to Iran's young people was instrumental

Answer: women voters


Editor's note: For 85 years, Yankee Stadium has hosted some of the greatest  moments in sports. On Sunday, the Yankees will play their last game before the stadium is torn down. Former Yankee pitcher Jim Bouton played on the 1963 American League All-Star team and in two World Series. He wrote the classic baseball book, "Ball Four," named as one of the "Books of the Century" by the New  York Public Library, and has been a sportscaster and actor. For Bouton's web site, click here Jim Bouton was photographed as a rookie in 1962 at Yankee Stadium, before the renovation of the ballpark. EGREMONT, Massachusetts (CNN) -- I'll never forget my first day in The House that Ruth Built:  April 9, 1962, the day before opening day. I made the team that spring as a non-roster player, having pitched in the Texas League (AA) the year before. And I had just turned 23. The Yankees had scheduled an afternoon workout, but I was so excited that I couldn't sleep and I drove in from my parents' house in New Jersey at 7 in the morning. After introducing myself to a skeptical guard, he led me down two flights of stairs and through a hallway, where I was greeted by the clubhouse man Pete Sheehy (who died in 1985 and for whom the room is now named). The Yankee clubhouse in 1962 was like a large subterranean living room. A wall-to-wall grayish green carpet muffled all sound, and the overhead lighting was subdued. Three walls of walk-in wood lockers faced a wall of large frosted windows that cast shafts of light from the street above. Everything was painted a muted gray green to match the carpet, including the exposed ductwork in the ceiling above. A cleat-dented wooden stool sat in front of each locker. And hanging in the lockers, with military precision, were the classic Yankee uniforms. "Your locker is right here by the door," said Pete. I couldn't help smiling when I saw Whitey Ford's nameplate just one locker away. I asked Pete if this was the same room that Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig and all those guys used. He pointed to a locker across the room where he used to bring "a bi-carb and coffee" each day to the Babe. Pete returned to his duties and I touched my uniform reverently. With no one around, I decided to try it on. Perfect fit. I adjusted my hat in a mirror. That looked good, too. iReport.com: Share your memories of Yankee Stadium Then I grabbed my glove and went out to the field -- you know, just to get oriented. After sitting in the dugout a few minutes, I trotted out to the mound. Looking up at the three tiers of stands was like being in the Roman Coliseum. Of course, I had to toe the rubber and look in for the sign. Fortunately, at that hour of the morning, it was just me and the pigeons. What would it be like to pitch there when the stands were filled with people? My big chance came on May 7, 1962, in the second game of a double-header against the Washington Senators, in front of a real crowd that included my Mom and Dad, my brothers and a whole bunch of neighbors from New Jersey. I was thrilled and scared at the same time -- maybe a little more on the scared side. I walked the bases loaded with nobody out. Then I fell behind 3 and 1 on the fourth hitter. My next pitch was a little bit high and manager Ralph Houk stepped out of the dugout - either to calm me down or remove me from the premises. But the umpire, bless him, called it a strike and Houk stepped back into the dugout. The inning seemed to last forever, but I finally got out of it and ended up pitching a complete game shutout. Maybe the worst shutout in history - 7 walks and 7 hits. After the

Question: Who recalled his baseball debut?

Question: What sport venue will be torn down?

Question: Jim Bouton is a former member of what team?

Question: When did Bouton make his debut?

Question: Who recalled his debut?

Question: What's going to be torn down?

Question: What team did Bouton play with?

Answer: Jim Bouton

Answer: Yankee Stadium

Answer: Yankee

Answer: April 9, 1962,

Answer: Jim Bouton

Answer: Yankee Stadium

Answer: American League All-Star

Summary:
Former Yankee Jim Bouton recalls his debut at Yankee Stadium in the 1960s .
Bouton played alongside stars Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford .
Bouton: Now the legendary sports venue is going to be torn down .


Editor's note: Frances Fragos Townsend, a CNN contributor on national security issues, formerly served as President George W. Bush's chief anti-terrorism and homeland security adviser. Townsend has spent more than two decades in the fields of intelligence and criminal justice and has served during the past three administrations. Townsend is currently a consultant to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a member of President Bush's Intelligence Advisory Board, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Institute Homeland Security Program. Frances Townsend says the director of the CIA is not a post for on-the-job training. (CNN) -- Leon Panetta is an impressive man with many laudable achievements to his credit. Mr. Panetta served eight terms in Congress and worked in the Clinton White House as chief of staff to the president and director of the Office of Management and Budget. But his impressive credentials are insufficient to allay the well-founded concerns of senior Democrats and Republicans that he is the wrong man to be the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Panetta is a seasoned political operative and a proven manager -- both of which would be useful to him as CIA director -- but more is required. Accurate and actionable intelligence is among our most effective tools in fighting against terror threats. The nation has gone more than seven years without a terrorist attack and much of the credit for that lies with the men and women of the intelligence community: in the CIA, FBI, and Defense and Homeland Security departments, among others. Career intelligence officials need a leader they can count on to protect their mission from inappropriate political interference and who would be willing to defend their efforts when, as is often the case, they are attacked based on less than accurate or complete facts. Because of the critical role the intelligence community plays in protecting our nation, the director of the CIA is not a position for on-the-job training. President-elect Barack Obama had a competent, qualified career intelligence official to nominate. John Brennan served for decades at the CIA under numerous directors and in both Democratic and Republican administrations. Just prior to his retirement, Mr. Brennan served as the director of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, the predecessor to the current National Counterterrorism Center. John Brennan had no loyalty to the policies of the Bush administration and in fact at times voiced his disagreement. Mr. Brennan's loyalty was to the mission and role of the intelligence community in protecting our nation. Unfortunately, the incoming administration permitted the vicissitudes of party politics and special interests to derail this nomination. [In a letter to Obama obtained by CNN in early December, Brennan said he was dropping out of consideration for the job because of strong criticism by people who associated his work at the CIA with controversial Bush administration policies on interrogation techniques and the pre-emptive war in Iraq.] The next CIA director has many important issues to confront. He or she must continue to ensure adequate resources for the intelligence community and continue to build our human and technical intelligence capabilities. The new director will necessarily review detention, interrogation and rendition policies. And at the same time, the CIA director must seek new ways to gain the intelligence advantage on crucial priorities such as terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and a host of regional issues in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Regardless of who becomes the next CIA director, the nation is fortunate that from the deputy director on down, the CIA is run by career officials who will continue to do the nation's business. But they will continue to require the tools necessary to do the job. Before abrogating Bush Administration policies on interrogation and detention, the new CIA director must learn: what is legal; what is effective; and how have these policies been implemented. A new administration may choose to make more limited use of these tools or add additional procedural safeguards. But any decision must be made with caution. Tools that the Justice Department deem legal and the intelligence community determines are effective must not be taken away because they are politically unpopular. The nation and the intelligence community deserve better

Question: Who has had a fine career in government?

Question: What is the CIA crucial to?

Question: Who said the CIA director is too important for training?

Answer: Leon Panetta

Answer: terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and a host of regional issues in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

Answer: Frances Townsend

Summary:
Frances Townsend: Leon Panetta has had a fine career in government .
She says his lack of intelligence experience is raising questions .
Townsend: CIA crucial to U.S. security and needs leader who will back staff up .
She says CIA director is too important for on-the-job training .


Editor's note: Frank Micciche is managing director of the Next Social Contract Initiative at the New America Foundation, a think tank that promotes thought from across the ideological spectrum. He has worked for Sallie Mae, former Michigan Gov. John Engler and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Frank Micciche says Detroit has to justify its bailout while Wall Street is getting more without tough scrutiny. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- There was good news and bad news in the recent filings Chrysler and General Motors made with the federal officials overseeing their multibillion-dollar rescue. The good news was that, if the federal government can see its way clear to adding another $21 billion or so to the more than $17.4 billion they received in bridge loans in December -- including a cool $7 billion by the end of March to forestall their insolvency -- the companies are confident that they will be able to retool, return to profitability and repay the money provided them. The bad news: it won't happen until late in President Obama's first term, if at all, and in the meantime they will eliminate at least 50,000 jobs this year alone, close even more plants than previously announced and discontinue several of their most recognizable lines of cars. If you think keeping the automakers afloat for another few years is expensive, you won't believe how much it would cost to let them fail. In the same report, GM CEO Rick Wagoner put the price tag for the feds should his company file for bankruptcy at $100 billion. Such is the through-the-looking-glass nature of bailout economics, circa 2009. Of course, even Wagoner's worst case scenario is a pittance compared to the more than $600 billion that will eventually flow to Wall Street through the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Which begs the question of why, after four months and nearly $400 billion in capital from the U.S. Treasury, we have still not seen anything remotely resembling the detailed disclosures and strategic planning required of the automakers from the banks that have received TARP funds? For that matter, shouldn't the state and local governments that stand to receive hundreds of billions of dollars under the recently enacted economic stimulus bill have to submit something, anything, that would explain how they intend to use this money, what their spending will do to speed and sustain the nation's overall recovery and what they will do to wean themselves from this emergency aid once the crisis has passed? Small nonprofits and community organizations that receive federal grants will tell you that the paperwork and scrutiny that comes with even the most modest federal award is often so exhaustive as to nullify the benefits of the grant. Not so, apparently, if your request is in the billions. Perhaps the secret to avoiding the withering glances of bean-counting bureaucrats is to ask for serious cash from Uncle Sam. How do we square the double standard in reporting required of Chrysler and GM, whose combined request is in the range of $40 billion, with the inability of even a pit bull like U.S. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, to get answers as to exactly where and to what end the TARP money has gone? It may be that the situation on Wall Street is so complex, and the stakes so high, that lawmakers themselves have little confidence in their abilities to map a successful recovery for the industry, so they are relying on the sheer magnitude of their spending and the ingenuity of those left standing on Wall Street to work their market magic and revive the economy. The idea of a single "Car Czar" to oversee the rebuilding of the auto industry is now out the window, replaced by a task force led by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers, two of the most over-extended men in the history of American government. But it's still easier for Washington to imagine that they can manage Chrysler and GM back onto the road to viability than that anything short of massive infusions of vaguely traceable capital will unfreeze the credit markets and restore financial stability. In the meantime, the automakers await word

Question: What does Frank Micciche say?

Question: What kind of plans were required to be given?

Answer: Detroit has to justify its bailout while Wall Street is getting more without tough scrutiny.

Answer: detailed disclosures and strategic planning

Summary:
Frank Micciche: Auto companies are planning job cuts and plant closings .
He says they were required to give detailed plans in return for bailout money .
Micciche: Wall Street firms getting much more money from federal government .
He says the bankers haven't been required to provide their restructuring plan .


Editor's note: Glenn Beck is on CNN Headline News nightly at 7 and 9 ET and also is host of a conservative national radio talk show. Glenn Beck has some lines McCain can use in tonight's speech to articulate his vision for change NEW YORK (CNN) -- Campaigns are ugly. Watching the way politicians act makes you long for the respect and self-control of the Sopranos. Throughout, there are legitimate attacks and outright lies. Every once in a while, I get a call on my radio show from someone telling me that Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim, who admitted it in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, and has a fake birth certificate. No, no, and no. As I tell them, there are legitimate reasons not to vote for Barack Obama, no need to make them up. But the newest target is Sarah Palin. Let's take a quick look at just a fraction of what she has faced in her first few days as John McCain's choice for vice president. iReport.com: Do you think Palin is being treated unfairly? "Sarah Palin believes God told her to go to war with Iraq!" There has been some hard-core journalistic malpractice on this one. The Associated Press ran this headline about a speech she gave at her church: "Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'" In the story, they omit the first part of the sentence they're quoting along with the entire previous sentence for good measure. Here are her actual words: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." Palin is clearly praying that we're doing the right thing in Iraq, something sensible for an introspective woman of faith concerned about the lives of our troops to do. She's not saying that she just received a text message from heaven's BlackBerry ordering her to launch missiles. Sorry to disappoint you. And for those of you who think politicians asking God for guidance is offensive, might I remind you of this famous politician's prayer: "Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will." --Barack Obama "She has no experience!" It's fair to assume that Barack Obama believed he was qualified to be in the White House when he announced he was running for president. At that point, he had been a U.S. Senator for 767 days. When Sarah Palin was announced as a vice presidential candidate, she had been the governor of Alaska for 634 days. While I'm sure those extra 133 days were filled with personal discovery, I can't imagine anyone seriously trying to make the case that Obama is experienced and Palin isn't. Unless, of course, you're Matt Damon, who said a Palin presidency would be a really "scary thing" because she has been "governor of Alaska for...for less than two years!" (Damon originally expressed his presidential preference for Obama in December 2006, when he had been a senator for less than two years.) More importantly, Palin's career has been filled with executive experience. She's the only one of the four in this race who has run a business, town, and/or state (a state that gives her crucial energy experience in the middle of an energy crisis). When Obama's campaign complains that Palin would be one heartbeat away from the presidency, they should consider that their candidate would be zero heartbeats away. "But Obama is running a huge campaign -- Palin was just a small town mayor!" Believe it or not, this one was actually trotted out by Obama himself. "My understanding is, is that Gov. Palin's town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees.

Question: What did Sarah Palin say?

Question: What jobs did she get the experience from?

Answer: God told her to go to war with Iraq!"

Answer: has run a business, town, and/or state

Summary:
Glenn Beck: Many of the things you've heard about Sarah Palin aren't true .
Beck: She didn't say the Iraq war is a task from God .
Palin has substantial executive experience in several jobs, Beck says.
Beck: She doesn't oppose teaching contraception in sex-ed classes .


Editor's note: Glenn Beck is on CNN Headline News nightly at 7 and 9 ET and also is host of a conservative national radio talk show. Glenn Beck says Wall Street's troubles began with a wild craze for subprime mortages. NEW YORK (CNN) -- "Greed is good." At least, that's what Michael Douglas' character Gordon Gekko claimed in the movie Wall Street. But, just like Gekko, the modern-day companies that followed that motto now find themselves wondering how everything could collapse so fast. You know the names by now: Countrywide Financial, Bear Stearns, IndyMac, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, AIG. And that's not even counting companies like Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, and Goldman Sachs that, while still in existence, have lost untold billions in market value and have laid off thousands of employees. Maybe greed isn't so good after all. Lehman was founded in 1844 when Henry Lehman, a German immigrant, opened a small shop in Montgomery, Alabama. His brothers joined him six years later and, by 1858 they were busy turning cotton provided by local farmers into a cash crop -- a business that didn't have anything to do with helping low-income families afford 27-bedroom McMansions. More than 150 years later, after surviving the Great Depression, Black Monday, the savings and loan crisis and the dot-com bust, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy protection. They had gone 14 years as a public company without ever reporting a single quarterly loss. Now they will never again post a profit. Bear Stearns' story is eerily similar. Founded in 1923. Survived every crisis. Never posted a quarterly loss until last year. Gone without a trace. So how did 235 years of rock-solid American finance disappear virtually overnight? Well, it's not as complicated as you think. If you replace all of the acronyms invented by the brainiacs on Wall Street with references to things that Main Street understands, it becomes a lot easier to see how it all happened. Here's a quick story I invented that does just that. (Note to any Wall Street executives who might be reading this: I know this simple little story isn't perfect, but let's remember that you're the ones who tried to make everything complicated and I'm the one who still has a job.) It's just before Christmas,1996, and as you watch overeager parents trample each other to buy Tickle Me Elmo dolls for their kids, you see an opportunity. "This isn't a Tickle Me Elmo bubble," you think to yourself, "this is a long-term trend. Every person in America will soon own a Tickle Me Elmo, maybe even two. It's the American dream." You approach your local banker about a loan and, naturally, he loves your idea. In fact, he loves it so much that for every $1 you have in your account, he's willing to lend you $34. Great deal, you think, as you max out your credit line and buy as many Tickle Me Elmos as you possibly can. Sales are easy at first. People are lining up to buy your dolls and the prices are going far higher than you ever thought. The only person happier than you is your banker. But the following year something unexpected happens: Kids stop asking for Tickle Me Elmos. You try to cut the price, but no buyers show up. You cut the price more, but your store remains empty. Panic sets in. You're pretty sure that this downturn is just temporary (after all, who wouldn't want a Tickle Me Elmo?) but you're quickly running out of cash. Your only option is to buy time and hope that Tickle Me Elmos start flying off your shelves again. You visit every bank in town and, using your piles of Tickle Me Elmo dolls as collateral (which, of course, you purchased with money you didn't have) you get as much new capital as possible. Soon that money is

Question: what happened to major companies due to the fiasco?

Question: Who says that firms still own too many toxic mortgages they can't sell?

Question: Who collapsed due to the subprime mortgage fiasco?

Question: what does glenn beck say

Answer: lost untold billions in market value and have laid off thousands of employees.

Answer: Glenn Beck

Answer: Lehman

Answer: Wall Street's troubles began with a wild craze for subprime mortages.

Summary:
Glenn Beck: Hundreds of years of Wall Street history vanished this week .
Major companies collapsed due to the subprime mortgage fiasco, he says .
Beck: Firms still own too many toxic mortgages they can't sell .
A new government agency could form to buy up mortgages, Beck says .


Editor's note: Glenn Beck is on CNN Headline News nightly at 7 and 9 ET and also is host of a conservative national radio talk show. Glenn Beck says the decisions Washington makes today could have fateful consequences for the future. NEW YORK (CNN) -- Dear America: Happy 300th Birthday! It's 2076 and we've just invented the time-fax machine. (Actually, "we" didn't invent the time-fax machine, the State did -- they pretty much control everything now.) I'm faxing this back to you in 2008 because that seems to be the year we had the best chance to reverse our course and get back to the vision laid out by our founding fathers -- a vision that didn't include the government being in the insurance business. I don't have a lot of time (the State only gives us one 30-minute break per day) so let me give you some advice: Stop worrying so much about who runs the country and start worrying about who runs your towns, your states, and your Congress. I know you're all distracted by the presidential election, but for all the money and time poured into it, the truth is that you're choosing between two roads that will lead you to the same destination. Sure, one may be the Autobahn and the other a two-lane highway, but you'll end up at the same place either way. Decades of Republicans and Democrats alike have all chipped in to lead you to where you are today. Believing that one person, from either party, can change that by themselves is a big mistake. Presidents are like captains of a large ship: They can map out a course and shout out orders, but without the trust and hard work of the people who actually move the rudders, their commands mean nothing. In retrospect, the lack of trust and confidence you now have in your leaders was really the root cause of everything that's happened since. While our founding fathers designed a brilliant system of checks and balances, separation of powers and democratic elections, trust was the one thing they couldn't mandate in the Constitution. Unfortunately, it's also the foundation upon which everything else is built and once it began to erode, our whole house inevitably began to crumble. Looking back now, it's pretty obvious that our trust in government declined at about the same rate as our partisanship increased. People became so concerned about getting their party into power at any cost that the truth didn't even seem to matter anymore. That's probably one of the reasons why George Washington hated the idea of political parties so much. Here's what he said about them in his 1796 farewell speech: "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty." I know that George had a habit for using big words, so allow me to translate into 2008 English: Political parties that put their own success over that of the country's will be the death of America. If you don't believe him yet, just wait a few more years...you're about to see firsthand how right he was. After all, if power corrupts, then the kind of absolute power gained by political parties (and feared by Washington) corrupts absolutely. The best advice I can give you is to stop thinking in terms of left and right and start thinking in terms of right and wrong. Demand the best leaders possible, and then demand the best out of them. Believe me, when you see what's coming your

Question: Why did people lose trust in government?

Question: What did the people lose trust in?

Question: What did uncontrolled partisanship cause?

Question: What does Beck say about America in 2076?

Question: What caused people to lose trust in the government?

Question: What did Glenn Beck say?

Answer: partisanship increased.

Answer: in your leaders

Answer: trust in government declined

Answer: we've just invented the time-fax machine.

Answer: partisanship increased.

Answer: the decisions Washington makes today could have fateful consequences for the future.

Summary:
Glenn Beck: America in 2076 could be a very scary place .
Beck imagines a country that is controlled by an all-powerful state .
People lost trust in government because of uncontrolled partisanship, he says .
Beck: Bailing out industries amounts to socializing their losses .


Editor's note: Gloria Borger is a senior political analyst for CNN, appearing regularly on CNN's "The Situation Room," "Campbell Brown," "AC360°" and "State of the Union With John King" as well as other programs during special event coverage. Gloria Borger says President Obama's plans are running into Americans' widespread mistrust of government. (CNN) -- So now comes the hard part. Now that a key Senate committee has finally moved a health care bill, President Obama can get to work to try and figure out a final version of reform. Now that Gen. Stanley McChrystal has recommended a large troop buildup in Afghanistan -- setting off an internal debate about recalibrating strategy -- the president can decide what he wants to do about the war. And now that the stock market is on the rebound -- while unemployment remains high -- Obama can figure out how to come up with a "son of stimulus" package that targets jobs. Tough decisions are part of the president's job description, after all. But here's the tricky part: how to convince the public that you -- and government -- will do the right thing, or are even capable of it. Sure, distrust of government is as old as government itself. And there's an inherent conflict in current public thinking, as scholars William Galston and Elaine Kamarck point out: While people want government to solve big problems like health care, they don't trust the government to do it. "There is nothing new about this ambivalence," they write in an essay aptly titled "Change you can believe in requires a government you can trust." They write, "But how ... the president deals with it may make the difference between success and failure." So what's a president with a big agenda to do? He could have narrowed it, but instead decided to play "all-in." Because he was so popular, and because voters were so ready for a change, there was some thought the country might buy into the notion that good leadership could actually change the ethos of bad government. Obama probably believed it, too. So when the economic stimulus package was hatched, with hardly a Republican vote, the White House remained hopeful that, in the end, its success would restore confidence in their work. And they have since toiled mightily to brag about the stimulus package as evidence that government can work. After all, if FDR could do it, why not Barack Obama? Instead, the stimulus has become a handy target. Wall Street may be doing well, both conservatives and liberals rail, but the jobs elsewhere are not coming back. And as the president now moves to ask the nation to support an overhaul of health care, voters are still asking: Why should we trust the government to do that? Consider these numbers: At the end of the Bush administration -- with an unpopular president -- just 17 percent of the American public trusted the government to "do the right thing" all or most of the time. And for all of the popularity of Barack Obama, that number now stands at a measly 23 percent. After Bill Clinton lost health care reform -- and control of the Congress -- trust in government in 1994 was at an all-time low: 21 percent. We're almost there now. Ronald Reagan understood, and used to his benefit, the antipathy toward government. He used to joke that the scariest words in the lexicon were "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." He wanted to make government smaller, and his overall success with that notion prompted President Clinton to famously tell Congress "the era of big government is over." Well, it's back. The question is whether President Obama can convince us that more government is what we want -- and need. As Reagan once told us, "Trust, but verify." If only we could. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Gloria Borger.

Question: Who is still distrustful of the government?

Question: Who has to make crucial decisions?

Question: What does she say about the White House?

Answer: Americans'

Answer: President

Answer: remained hopeful that, in the end, its success would restore confidence in their work.

Summary:
Gloria Borger: Congressional recess provides chance for health care discussion .
She says some people more interested in shouting than serious talk .
She says Congress is grappling with a tough, complex issue .
Borger: Stop reducing complicated issues to simplistic sound bites .


Editor's note: Gloria Borger is a senior political analyst for CNN, appearing regularly on CNN's "The Situation Room," "Campbell Brown," "AC360°" and "State of the Union With John King," as well as special event coverage. Gloria Borger says we could be in for a month of venting sessions aimed at members of Congress. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ah, the summer. Time for all those members of Congress to go home, meet with their constituents, get their input on health care reform and take back what they have learned from the voters. Not exactly. In some town hall meetings around the country, anger and fear are trumping any constructive argument -- at least so far. Recently, for instance, Sen. Arlen Specter held a town hall meeting with Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services secretary. In attempting to answer questions, they were shouted down by folks more interested in venting than discussing. On the conservative FreedomWorks Web site, the display was headlined "Specter Gets Schooled." Above the video of the event, the site says "... this is a must watch and a must emulate at town halls across the country over the next month." Really? What about those folks who are actually interested in debating and discussing a very complex issue they're trying to digest? There are some who may actually want to figure out the best way to solve the health care problem. What ever happened to asking questions about the quality of care, the cost of insurance, the impact of any public plan on the health care system? After all, this has been a turbulent economic time for this country, and another huge shock to the system is naturally worrisome. Especially when it comes to an issue as complex as health care. But it's not just the folks at these town halls who have learned how to heckle. Their bad behavior is a derivative of the questionable quality of the political debate they listen to every day. Indeed, if there's one thing we've gotten really good at over the years, it's this: reducing complicated problems to bite-sized slogans. It seems to work, so we keep doing it. Ipso facto, Obama's reform ideas become "socialism" to his Republican critics. And the administration is not above creating a handy bogeyman of its own: the insurance companies. At least according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who accuses them of "full-force carpet-bombing and shock and awe against the public option." Too bad they actually support the rest of reform, and are still running positive ads about the effort. They weren't at the table at all 16 years ago when Hillary Clinton's effort at reform failed. The world has changed since then, and the congressional plans for reforming health care have changed, too. But the invective of the debate, sad to say, has not. The effort on Capitol Hill has been serious. I hate to sound like Pollyanna, but members of Congress are actually doing some real work. Some policy differences may never get resolved because they are too ideological; others are regional, and that's tough, too. But they're working at it, for hours on end, behind closed doors. No cameras, no grandstanding. One of those working the hardest, Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, was derided at a town hall recently on the matter of his own health insurance. So here's the fellow who is spending every waking hour trying to get a bipartisan measure that can pass the Senate -- and be fair to Iowans -- and he goes home and gets an earful. Maybe the discourse will become more productive as the summer progresses. And maybe not. But the health care dilemma remains, no matter how loud the discussion. As John F. Kennedy told us, "To govern is to choose." Especially when the choices are not easy. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Gloria Borger.

Question: In what are more people interested than serious talk?

Answer: in venting


Editor's note: Hank Sheinkopf, a CNN contributor, is a longtime political consultant who was a member of the media team for President Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign. Sheinkopf was a media consultant for Eliot Spitzer's campaign for New York attorney general in 1998 and has represented candidates around the country and the world. He represented Rep. Steve Israel, a Democrat whose name has been mentioned for the New York senate seat, in 2000, but hasn't had a business relationship with him since. Sheinkopf, who also represents corporate clients, does not represent any of the other politicians whose names have been mentioned for the Senate seat. For a rival view, read here. Hank Sheinkopf says Caroline Kennedy hasn't earned the nod for a Senate seat from New York. NEW YORK (CNN) -- Judging by the screaming newspaper headlines and the steamy ecstasy of the gossip columns, people from other worlds might presume that it has already come to pass: that a woman who happens to be named Caroline Kennedy was pole-vaulted above the crowd and sent with magic wand and golden slippers to the U.S. Senate from New York, in the hope of saving the Empire State and bringing goodness to all its inhabitants. After all, why shouldn't she be sent to the Senate? Her unique experience of writing a book or two, smiling well, appearing from time to time -- but not too often -- at city mayoral news conferences announcing help for those who attend New York City public schools -- and, well, just being a Kennedy -- should suffice. Her social standing alone, some might argue, would give her the advantage of all advantages. A Kennedy. Camelot. Ah! The greatness of it all? Not. The man who has to make the decision whether or not New York is to be so vaunted in representation is Gov. David Paterson, the former lieutenant governor who had the fortune of replacing morally triangulated Gov. Eliot Spitzer after Spitzer's resignation in the face of a publicly humiliating sex scandal. Paterson will have to face the voters in 2010. So will his pick to fill the seat that will be left vacant after Hillary Clinton is confirmed as secretary of state in early 2009. The governor's poll numbers suggest that voters like him. Paterson has taken a tack much unexpected by challenging all to tighten belts, cut spending, pay more fees to the state and get rid of waste after Wall Street's collapse and the subsequent free fall in tax collections from the financial services business. Paterson could have a tough time. Voters don't like losing money, they hate losing services, and all the earnest explanations about fighting the good fight together won't put better food on the table or pay the bills. He needs someone who can help him win, and he needs someone who can win. He and the senator he chooses will both face the voters together. With that in mind, is Caroline Kennedy the correct choice? On the issues of the day, Kennedy has been mighty silent. Financial cretins stealing for fun, profit and because they can? Not a word. The wars? Syllable-less. Millions of humans evaporated in Africa's inner madness? Quiet and silent. The auto bailout? Nada. The printing of a trillion soon-to-be inflated dollars that will further sap our savings? On such matters, Kennedy remains absolutely silent. What about the destruction of the economy of western New York? Does she know that there is a deeply pained world beyond the Westchester County border just a bit north of New York City that benefited little from some fairy-tale place called Camelot and less from well-orchestrated and timed public relations campaigns afforded only by the rich? Why should Caroline Kennedy be named a U.S. senator? Is it because merit no longer matters? Surely, Kennedy offers the dazzle of an unmistakable surname and the kind of celebrity appeal that seems to follow members of the New York social elite. But for the white ethnics who gave their vote to Democrats on the promise of fairness and merit, Kennedy's star quality may not suffice

Question: What  makes Kennedy a good candidate?

Question: Who has to worry about facing voters in 2010?

Question: Who hasn't been vocal on key issues?

Answer: Her unique experience of writing a book or two, smiling well, appearing from time to time

Answer: Gov. David Paterson,

Answer: Kennedy

Summary:
Hank Sheinkopf: Some treating Caroline Kennedy's Senate bid as a done deal .
He says Kennedy hasn't been vocal on many of the key issues we face .
Sheinkopf: What qualifies Kennedy to be given priority for the vacant seat?
He says Gov. Paterson has to worry about facing voters in 2010 .


Editor's note: Harry Shearer is an actor, author, director, satirist, musician, radio host, playwright, fine artist and record label owner who is the voice of a variety of regular characters on "The Simpsons," most notably Mr. Burns, Smithers and insufferable neighbor Ned Flanders. Harry Shearer says the White House isn't getting actively involved in protecting New Orleans from flooding. (CNN) -- I spent much of this month in my adopted hometown of New Orleans, Louisiana. Uncharacteristically for August, the streets and restaurants and galleries and music clubs were largely full and throbbing with energy. There are hubs of entrepreneurs all over town trying to invent the future. And thankfully, Mayor Ray Nagin's term is only months away from its end. Between my weeks in the Crescent City, I joined some local folks in traipsing up to the Aspen Institute to share the news of New Orleans with interested outsiders. One talked about the progress in rebuilding homes. Another discussed the reform of the public-school system, the decoupling of the schools from a centralized board, resulting in the city becoming the leader in charter-school enrollment. A third talked about the move to neighborhood medical clinics, an effort to replace the hospital beds missing in the flooding's wake. A fourth reported the good economic statistics, marred only by the continuing shortage in affordable rental housing (80,000 units were whacked by the flood). And a fifth discussed the citizen activism that is helping, along with a determined U.S. attorney (who's just sent Rep. William Jefferson and his brother Mose to jail), to clean up local politics. After all, it was New Jersey pols, not New Orleans ones, who got snagged in a scheme involving black-market kidneys. Wish we'd thought of that. All good news. And all transpiring under a shadow, one made all too evident early last week when the city experienced a collective shudder as the spinning cyclonic shape of Hurricane Bill appeared on TV screens. New Orleans, hit so hard by what so many (including President Obama in his Sunday interview with the local newspaper) still see fit to describe, mistakenly, as a natural disaster, is making remarkable progress, while the agency that so disastrously failed at building a protective system mandated by Congress -- the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -- may be making some of the same mistakes in rebuilding that system. And the White House, for the second consecutive administration, seems not to care. Me? I'm a humorist, a comic actor, a sometime musician-filmmaker-novelist-blogger. What the hell do I know about what happened to the city I love? Since the levees collapsed, I've been reading the local newspaper, the Times-Picayune, watching and listening to the local media, which, post-disaster, have rediscovered their mission to make local news more than a recitation of the previous day's murders, car crashes and celebrity misbehaviors. While the national media packed up and moved away after the initial orgasm of anger at FEMA, the local media reported something remarkable: The Corps was claiming that the flooding was due to the "overtopping" of its levees and floodwalls, while two teams of pro-bono forensic investigators were finding evidence that no overtopping had occurred. As the Corps started denigrating these investigators, they kept digging, and kept coming up with the real story, available now for all to see (though all too few have) as the ILIT report from the University of California at Berkeley and the Team Louisiana report from Louisiana State University. Their conclusions: The "hurricane protection system" built by the Corps had serious design and construction flaws, baked into the system over 40 years under administrations of both parties, that caused catastrophic failure in more than 50 locations under storm surge conditions markedly less than the system was advertised to withstand. You and I, federal taxpayers, had paid to flood New Orleans. Since the Obama administration took office, the Corps has: announced that one part of the new "system" will be built using a

Question: Who does Harry Shearer say is ignoring the problem?

Answer: the White House isn't getting actively involved in protecting New Orleans from flooding.

Summary:
Harry Shearer: There is much good news in New Orleans, but still problems .
He notes report that Corps of Engineers levee design and construction led to breach .
Shearer says there may be flaws with the Army Corps' levee rebuilding .
He says Obama is ignoring problem, as Bush did previously .


Editor's note: Harvard Business School Professor Clayton M. Christensen and Innosight Institute Executive Director of Education Michael B. Horn are the co-authors along with Curtis W. Johnson of "Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns." Clay Christensen says the sudden burst of federal spending on schools holds great danger. (CNN) -- Historically the federal government has been a small investor in the nation's education system. With the recent economic stimulus bill, however, this changed virtually overnight. There is great danger in the sudden and massive amount of funding -- nearly $100 billion -- that the federal government is throwing at the nation's schools. District by district, the budgetary crises into which all schools were plunging created the impetus for long-needed changes. The most likely result of this stimulus will be to give our schools the luxury of affording not to change. This is borrowed money that we're pumping into our schools, and it comes at a price. Charging education isn't changing it. That our schools need to change should not be surprising. Just walk into your local school and enter a classroom. Odds are high that it won't look too different from a classroom from a generation or two ago. Sure, there might be some computers in the back of the room and perhaps an interactive white board instead of a chalkboard, but chances are high that students will still be sitting at desks lined up in neat rows with a teacher at the front delivering the same lesson on the same day to all the students. This might be acceptable if society and the skills many people need to succeed in today's economy hadn't changed either, but they have. While U.S. schools stand still, the rest of the world is moving forward, and this has a price tag -- not just for individual children, but also for the nation. We urge the federal government to consider four criteria when creating new programs or grants for states and districts to help transform an outdated educational system into one fit for the 21st Century. First, don't fund technology that simply shoves computers and other technologies into existing classrooms. We've spent well over $60 billion in the last two decades doing just that, and there is now overwhelming evidence that when we do it, the current unsatisfactory system co-opts the technology to sustain itself. We should instead use technology funding to bolster new learning models and innovations, such as online-learning environments, to level the playing field and allow students from all walks of life -- from small, rural communities to budget-strapped urban schools -- to access the rich variety that is now available only to children in wealthy suburban districts. Second, don't fund new school buildings that look like the existing ones. If the architecture of new buildings is the same as that of existing schools -- designed around teachers delivering monolithic, one-size-fits-all lessons to large batches of students -- it will lock students into another century in which the physical infrastructure works against the flexibility needed for student-centric learning. Instead, invest in bandwidth as an infrastructure of change. The government has a productive history in investing in infrastructure that creates change and innovation -- from allocating land to those building the transcontinental railroad and the land-grant colleges in 1862 to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency funding the creation of the Internet. To allow all districts to realize the power of online learning to advance us toward a student-centric system, the federal government should help deliver broadband capabilities necessary not just for today's needs, where schools already lag, but also in anticipation of tomorrow's. Third, don't fund the institutions that are least likely to change. Our research shows that institutions are good at improving what they are structured to do, but that transformative innovations that fundamentally change the trade-off between cost and quality -- disruptive innovations -- come from start-up institutions. This means that there is a high probability that spending money on existing schools of education will only result in their doing more of the same, for example. Meanwhile,

Question: what would be a big mistake?

Question: What should technology do?

Question: Where should the money go?

Question: what should be used to create new forms of schooling?

Answer: the sudden and massive amount of funding -- nearly $100 billion -- that the federal government is throwing at the nation's schools.

Answer: bolster new learning models and innovations,

Answer: instead use technology funding to bolster new learning models and innovations,

Answer: use technology funding

Summary:
Christensen, Horn: Federal spending on schools is set to jump .
They say it would be a big mistake to use money to let failing schools resist change .
Co-authors: Federal money should go to innovators challenging traditional ways .
They say technology should be used to create new forms of schooling .