Editor's note: Joy Behar's new nightly show debuts Tuesday, September 29 on HLN at 9 PM ET. Joy Behar says Ukranian officials are wrong to try to block Elton John from adopting a 14-month-old boy. NEW YORK (CNN) -- On a recent tour of a Ukrainian orphanage, Elton John and his partner met Lev, a 14-month old HIV-positive boy. They immediately fell in love with the child, but their possible bid to adopt the adorable tiny dancer was rejected by Yuriy Pavlenko, Ukraine's Family, Youth and Sports Minister. Mr. Pavlenko, here are some tips about family, youth and sports. Family doesn't mean a huddle of orphans sharing a few soiled mattresses, it's not youth if you die of AIDS before you reach kindergarten, and wrestling over dinner scraps is not a sport. But that could be Lev's fate now, because the Ukrainian government said Elton and his beau David Furnish are too old to adopt the boy. It sounds like the real reason is they're too gay. John and Furnish tied the knot in 2005, becoming one of Britain's first gay civil unions, but Ukraine doesn't recognize gay unions. Ukrainian Orthodox Church spokesman Father Georgy Gulyaev called Elton John a sinner and said, "thank God it's impossible under Ukrainian law for [him] to adopt a child." Apparently in the Ukraine, God's No. 1 priority is preventing gay couples from giving sick kids a better life. God would never want something like that to happen. Father Gulyaev said homosexuality "represents the dead end of human development." That's odd, I thought the dead end of human development was represented by 14th century thinking like his. This guy's head is stuck in the Dark Ages. He hasn't even progressed to the Middle Ages yet. Some conservative religious leaders like to harp about the "damage" to families done by gay marriage, as if traditional marriage is so perfect. Since many of them have taken vows of celibacy, they've never witnessed firsthand the damage dinner with the in-laws can cause (one of the few advantages of the celibate life, I guess). There are even a few married Bible-thumpers spending their time trying to keep sex out of our lives -- yet they talk about sex more than anyone! Sex is usually the first and only factor they consider when judging -- I mean, when "dispensing enlightenment upon" -- others.  Watch Joy Behar speak about adoption » Sure, Elton John may be gay, but he's also a renowned musician, a celebrated humanitarian, and has been knighted by the Queen of England. In fact, for some people he is the Queen of England. Plus, there's no downside to gay adoption. In the United States, organizations like the National Adoption Center, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all agree that having homosexual parents does not negatively affect children. But you know what does negatively affect children? Growing up with no parents. So now 14-month-old Lev is stuck in some depressing orphanage that makes Guantanamo Bay look like the presidential suite at the Waldorf. He'll likely end up in foster homes and -- if he lives long enough -- maybe he can turn into a bitter, vodka-swilling drunk. All because the Ukrainian government won't let him be adopted by two loving gay parents who are fabulously rich and want to give him a home with the best healthcare available, dressed in Versace jammies and cashmere Huggies. Not to mention all the play dates with Brangelina's kids. Let's hope Sir Elton finds a different, more tolerant country willing to let him be a poor child's loving father. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Joy Behar.

do experts say there is a downside to gay adoption?

Who thought about adopitng a 14-month-old boy?

Answer: adopting a 14-month-old boy.

Answer: Yuriy Pavlenko,

Answer: no

Answer: David Furnish

Answer: Elton John

Answer: Yuriy Pavlenko, Ukraine's Family, Youth and Sports Minister.

Answer: Elton and his beau David Furnish are too old

Summary:
Joy Behar: Elton John, partner mulled adopting 14-month-old boy .
She says Ukrainian officials were wrong to reject idea of adoption .
She says their real objection seemed to be to a gay couple adopting a child .
Behar: Experts say there's no downside to gay adoption .


Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He is completing a book on the history of national security politics since World War II, to be published by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely on current events.

Julian Zelizer says it's not enough for Republicans to oppose Obama's plans, they must offer their own ideas.

PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- One of the best Marx Brothers movies, "Horse Feathers," played in movie theaters at the height of the Great Depression in 1932.

In the film, the comedian Groucho Marx played the new president of Huxley College, Quincy Adams Wagstaff.

During one of the most memorable scenes, Groucho introduces himself to faculty and students by singing about his philosophy of governance: "Your proposition may be good/But let's have one thing understood/ Whatever it is, I'm against it!/And even when you've changed it or condensed it, I'm against it/ I'm opposed to it/On general principle. I'm opposed to it."

If Republicans want to rebuild their party after the calamity of 2008, the party leadership needs to avoid the Quincy Adams Wagstaff approach to politics.

When Obama proposed his economic recovery bill last week, the first words to come out of House Minority Leader's John Boehner's mouth sounded a bit like Wagstaff.

With the economy imploding and the international economic crisis worsening, Boehner said: "Right now, given the concerns that we have over the size of the package and all of the spending in this package, we don't think it's going to work. And so if it's the plan that I see today, put me down in the 'no' column."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been more restrained in his response, leaving open the door to compromise.

If Boehner is simply acting as Dr. No to get a better deal, Republicans can come out of the negotiations over the economic recovery bill as partners, planting the seeds for a new Republican approach toward dealing with economic matters.

But if Boehner's plan is for his party to act as an oppositional force -- trying to block, delay and prevent legislative action -- then the GOP could find itself in big trouble.

If the Republicans don't agree with Obama's approach, given the severity of the crisis, they need to offer an alternative rather than just sitting still.

To be sure, there is the possibility that if the economy continues to deteriorate after a bill has passed and the public loses faith in Obama, the House GOP could reap the benefit from their opposition. They could say "we told you so." But even that would be a high-risk maneuver, particularly given the state of public opinion about the Republican Party.

Even if a bill passes and the economy continues to struggle, voters would be looking at a Republican Party that didn't have anything better to offer. The public likes hard-working politicians.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal ideas didn't always work -- some like the National Recovery Act were downright failures -- but voters valued a president who tried to offer arguments about how to end the crisis and who rolled up his sleeves to make the nation better.

The election of 2008 revealed that the Republican Party lacks the kind of big ideas that Ronald Reagan used in 1980 to bring the conservative movement into power. The various factions of the conservative movement came together around the themes of anti-communism, deregulation and tax cuts.

Reagan didn't just sell tax cuts for the wealthy as good in themselves, but connected them to supply-side economics, which claimed that cuts would stimulate investment, generate economic growth and ultimately bring more revenue into the coffers of Treasury.

Even after the Soviet Union collapsed, Republican leaders found ideas to sell their movement to the public. Newt Gingrich and a cohort of young Republicans focused on sharp attacks about the dangers of government intervention and corruption of government.

For a short time it seemed that under George W. Bush, the war on terrorism would

What did Zelizer say GOP should do if it opposes the stimulus plan?

Answer: it's not enough for Republicans to oppose Obama's plans, they must offer their own ideas.

Answer: GOP

Answer: they must offer their own ideas.

Answer: could find itself in big trouble.

Answer: Julian Zelizer

Answer: want to rebuild their party

Summary:
Julian Zelizer: House Republicans are signaling they will oppose stimulus plan .
He says Republicans are in trouble if they simply act as an opposition force .
Democrats gained sway for decades by seeking to improve the economy, he says .
Zelizer: If GOP opposes stimulus plan, it should offer alternatives of its own .


Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He is the co-editor of "Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s" and is completing a book on the history of national-security politics since World War II, to be published by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely on current events. Julian Zelizer says Obama and Congress must decide whether to rein in presidential power. PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- Executive power has been one of the defining characteristics of President George W. Bush's administration. President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and many members of the White House pushed to expand executive power -- as much as any specific domestic or foreign policy -- from the beginning of the administration. The Bush administration formed in a direct conversation with the presidential politics of the 1970s. Several members of the Bush administration came of professional age working in the Nixon and Ford administrations. They watched an assertive Congress respond to the Watergate scandal by revitalizing legislative power through the War Powers Act of 1973, the Budget Reform of 1974, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the Independent Counsel Act in 1978. The Bush administration thought vesting Congress with so much power was dangerous, because it saw the legislative branch as inefficient. Building on efforts  since President Ronald Reagan to reverse the congressional reforms of the 1970s, the current White House spent enormous political energy, before and after 9/11, trying to reclaim power for the executive branch. The expansion of presidential power is not unique to the Bush administration. It began early in the 20th century and, despite some exceptional periods such as the 1970s, continued steadily throughout. But in several respects, this expansion was bigger in scale and scope than under previous presidents. For example, as a way to agree to legislation without agreeing to follow the intention of Congress, Bush issued statements when he signed bills -- doing so far more frequently than preceding presidents. When Congress passed a bill banning the use of torture in December 2005, Bush added a signing statement allowing him to bypass the law in his role as Commander-in-Chief. Bush also used executive orders to achieve policy objectives without obtaining congressional consent. Most of the president's national security programs were also conducted under high levels of secrecy and sometimes ignored rules such as those spelled out by FISA. Even when Republicans controlled Congress between 2002 and 2006, the president barely consulted with the leadership. After the 2000 elections, many Republican moderates were optimistic they would have more power than ever because the White House would be forced to court their vote in the evenly divided Senate. But they were wrong. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island said he was disillusioned early in the Bush administration when Cheney met with a group of Republican moderates. Cheney simply listed the bills the administration would pursue -- such as canceling U.S. support for the International Criminal Court and cutting taxes -- and informed them the president expected their vote. The chances for restoring a better balance of power remain unclear. There was a notable silence on the issue during the 2008 presidential campaign. Congressional Democrats and President-elect Barack Obama have been extremely critical of Bush's muscular approach to the executive branch. But though Obama has promised to reverse a number of executive decisions made by Bush, it is hard to tell how far he will go. Most important, it is extremely rare in the postwar period for presidents to voluntarily relinquish power. Democrats in Congress might not be willing to do to Obama what they did to Richard Nixon or even Jimmy Carter in the 1970s. After decades of Republican rule, Democrats now believe they have an opportunity to build a new majority. In addition, in a time of true crisis there will be less incentive to challenge the institutional prerogatives of their president. But Congress and the White House must do something to reverse the trends of the past eight years. We need an executive branch that is accountable and a Congress that is active. So what can be done? The first solution is informal. The White House must alter the dynamic

who must decide whether to strengthen legislative role?

whose role was diminished during the bush administration?

Answer: Obama and Congress

Answer: Obama and Congress must decide whether to rein in presidential power.

Answer: Lincoln Chafee

Summary:
Julian Zelizer: Bush administration sought to rebuild presidential power .
He says they wanted to reverse Watergate-inspired reforms from the 1970s .
Zelizer says Congress' role was diminished during the Bush administration .
He says Obama, Congress must decide whether to strengthen legislative role .


Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. His new book, "Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security -- From World War II to the War on Terrorism," will be published in December by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely about current events.

President Obama is taking a huge step in his presidency. After weeks of careful deliberation, the president has sided with military officials who have been pushing for an escalation of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Explaining his objectives and exit strategy, Obama is expected to announce that he will be sending 30,000 troops, and possibly more, into the region.

With this decision, Obama inches closer to becoming a wartime president. Even though the White House insists that they will continue to work hard on their domestic agenda, historically, presidents who become involved in protracted ground wars find that their presidencies are defined by their military conflicts. The politics that surround a military operation play an enormous role in the political success or failure of an administration.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and many congressional Democrats realize the human and political risks that come from this war. As news broke of President Obama's decision, Pelosi said: "the American people believe that if something is in our national security interest, we have to be able to afford it. That doesn't mean that we hold everything else" stagnant because of those operations.

But war sucks the political oxygen out of almost any presidency. There have been several modern presidents who started their term with an ambitious domestic vision and who ended up with their presidencies totally consumed by war.

President Harry Truman, who served from 1945 to 1953, pulled off a historic upset in his reelection bid against Thomas Dewey in 1948. In the campaign, Truman castigated a "do-nothing" Congress.

When he returned to the White House after the election, Truman fought for an ambitious domestic agenda in 1949 and 1950, which he called the Fair Deal, which included national health care, civil rights, fair housing and more.

While a conservative coalition of southern Democrats and Republicans in Congress defeated most of his proposals, it was the Korean War, which began in the summer of 1950, that brought down his presidency.

When the military operations against North Korea bogged down into a stalemate by 1951, Republicans ripped into the administration for refusing to use enough air power against the communists.

Truman, whose approval ratings plummeted to 23 percent by 1952, decided that he should not run for reelection. "If we had been less trusting, if we had been less soft and weak, there would probably have been no war in Korea!" Republican candidate and military hero Gen. Dwight Eisenhower said on the campaign trail.

Republicans focused their campaign on Korea, Communism and corruption. The Democratic nominee, Adlai Stevenson, lost; Republicans gained control of Congress.

President Lyndon Johnson was on the verge of becoming a transformative president in the winter of 1965. Since taking office, Johnson had presided over the passage of a sweeping body of domestic measures unequaled by almost any president in American history other than Franklin Roosevelt. His accomplishments included Medicare and Medicaid, federal education assistance, civil rights and voting rights, environmental regulations, immigration reform and much more.

Yet all those accomplishments seemed to disappear in the political psyche after the "Americanization" of the war in the spring of 1965, when Johnson authorized a vast increase of ground troops to Vietnam. By 1968, public opinion had turned against the war, with anti-war protesters organizing against "Johnson's War."

In the history books, Vietnam has swamped our memory of Johnson's presidency and eclipsed much of what he accomplished in those early years. "That bitch of a war," Johnson lamented toward the end of his life, "killed the lady I really loved -- the Great Society."

Most recently, there was the experience of President George W. Bush. During the 2000 campaign and in the early months of his presidency, Bush pushed for a type of "compassionate conservatism" that sought to extend

Which other presidents were weakened by war?

Answer: Obama

Answer: Woodrow Wilson School.

Answer: Obama

Answer: the political oxygen out of almost any presidency.

Answer: Harry Truman,

Answer: Truman

Summary:
Julian E. Zelizer: The Obama presidency resembles that of Lyndon B. Johnson .
Zelizer says both aimed high and worked skillfully with congressional leaders .
A president can shape legislation without dictating the details, professor says .
Zelizer: Obama has gotten big results from Congress by keeping leaders on his side .


Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. His new book, "Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security -- From World War II to the War on Terrorism," will be published this fall by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely about current events. Julian E. Zelizer says it's vital that new media provide support for journalism that strives for objectivity. (CNN) -- Last week, Sen. John Kerry convened a discussion of the troubled state of journalism in America by way of a hearing by the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. In Kerry's home state of Massachusetts, the Boston Globe is barely surviving. Several major metro papers have closed down, and there are indications that many more could soon follow. Experts have been warning in recent months that much of the newspaper industry may not survive. While the end of the metro newspaper would constitute a huge blow to journalism and the political system, realistically there might be nothing that we can do. The popularity of news on the Web and the potential of mobile devices such as the Kindle makes it difficult to see how we can sustain news in print -- unless electronic delivery can produce enough revenue to support the cost of newspaper staffs. Sometimes technological innovations and consumer preferences cause changes that are irreversible. The industry has seen other important shifts in the way that Americans receive their news, such as the advent of television news in the 1950s and 1960s. But the real issue is not whether we can save the newspapers, but how we can create the best Internet news system possible. As Kerry said in his opening statement: "There also is the important question of whether online journalism will sustain the values of professional journalism, the way the newspaper industry has." The first challenge we must address has to do with editorial control. A great danger of blog-based news is that information disseminates instantly with very little editorial supervision. On too many sites, information goes right from writer to reader. In the heyday of daily newspapers and network news, the news cycle was slow, lasting over the course of a day. There was a considerable amount of time for reporters, editors, and producers to check and verify information before it reached the public eye. Those days are gone. The result is too often that incorrect information circulates quickly. It will be crucial that television news networks continue to maintain Web sites which have the financial capital to support an editorial and production staff and that the newspapers which do survive find ways to expand their online operations, turning them into commercially lucrative ventures. Only they can finance the kind of infrastructure that good journalism requires. The second challenge we face has to do with polarization. Most studies of politics show that polarization has increased significantly throughout American politics. The media are both a product and cause of this political phenomenon. In Congress, there are fewer centrists in either party who are willing to compromise. Unfortunately, we have seen a similar phenomenon in the news business. During the 1990s, FOX News promoted a style of journalism framed within a clear conservative perspective. In recent years, liberals have mimicked these efforts. The nightly broadcasts of MSNBC have offered a counterpoint on the left, with television shows offering news from a liberal perspective. Bloggers on the Web follow this model as well. Not believing that the norm of objectivity is attainable, they prefer to present their political views openly and tend to be much more partisan in how they interpret world events. Moreover, readers and viewers tend to go for their information to sites and channels where they can see their own perspectives confirmed. It will be difficult to counteract these kinds of trends since they are so deep-rooted in American politics. But at a minimum, someone needs to fund reporters who keep covering the story and who at least strive to achieve as much objectivity as possible. There are many Web sites that do undertake this mission, but it will be essential that there is continued and expanded support for reporting as the metro newspapers slowly vanish

What is endangered by rise of new media?

What did Sen. John Kerry hold a hearing on?

Answer: objectivity.

Answer: a discussion of the troubled state of journalism in America

Answer: it's vital that new media provide support for journalism that strives for objectivity.

Answer: "There also is the important question of whether online journalism will sustain the values of professional journalism, the way the newspaper industry has."

Answer: it's vital that new media provide support for journalism that strives for objectivity.

Summary:
Julian E. Zelizer: The Obama presidency resembles that of Lyndon B. Johnson .
Zelizer says both aimed high and worked skillfully with congressional leaders .
A president can shape legislation without dictating the details, professor says .
Zelizer: Obama has gotten big results from Congress by keeping leaders on his side .


Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. His new book, "Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security -- From World War II to the War on Terrorism," will be published this fall by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely about current events. Julian Zelizer says some of President Obama's political vulnerabilities have started to emerge. PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- June has been rough for President Obama. After experiencing enormous success during his first months in office, some of his political vulnerabilities have started to emerge. As Republicans begin to think about the 2010 midterm elections and moderate Democrats decide how they should vote on Obama's most ambitious initiative, health care, the White House must prevent these weaknesses from becoming debilitating. The first vulnerability is the tension between the left and center of the Democratic Party. Since his election, President Obama has struggled to navigate the divisions that exist between the liberal base of the party, who were the core of his early support, and moderate Democrats, who were also instrumental to his victory. At first, the administration relied on good will and political capital from the election to overcome conflicts, such as when Obama agreed to reductions in the size of the economic stimulus package to placate the conservative Democrats and some Republicans despite the objection of progressives. But the tensions are becoming more pronounced and more difficult to resolve. The president has disappointed gay rights activists for not fulfilling promises they thought he had made on the issue of gay rights. Last week, they expressed their frustration with the Department of Justice's legal brief supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that prohibits same-sex partners from receiving marriage benefits and protects states that don't recognize same-sex marriages. Obama failed to calm the storm even when he extended some employment benefits to the same-sex partners of federal workers. He came under fire for having declined to provide health care and retirement benefits on the grounds that such a move would violate the Defense of Marriage Act. These kinds of left-center tensions will intensify when Congress delves into the final negotiations over health care this summer. Progressive Democrats insist that without a public insurance option health care reform will fail in the long run. Several Democratic moderates have been pushing alternatives that fall far short of that goal. The second vulnerability is the deficit. When Republicans have turned away from cultural issues and toward economics, they have been finding more success at attracting the interest of independents and moderates. Recent polls have shown that the public is concerned about the growing size of the deficit and Republicans have finally gained a bit of political traction by linking Obama's policies to the government's red ink. To be sure, this is not a home run issue for the GOP. Many commentators have pointed to the hypocrisy of Republicans making anti-deficit arguments following the tax-cutting and spending spree that took place under President Bush. Moreover, deficits have a poor track record in terms of being a winning campaign issue. There have not been any presidential candidates or major midterm elections in recent history that hinged on anti-deficit arguments. Many presidents, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, survived while growing the deficit. Polls have shown the public is also notoriously fickle about how much weight it gives to the deficit as an issue, and is often misinformed about the actual size of the deficit. Nonetheless, warning about rising deficits has been an effective tool for weakening the political strength of an incumbent administration. Regardless of the economics of the issue, with some respected economists saying short-term deficits don't matter, many Americans perceive the budget deficit as a symbol for whether a president is keeping federal spending under control. While Republicans might not take back Congress by focusing on the deficit, they can erode Obama's political standing and make it more difficult for him to pass legislation. Finally, there is the economy. The irony for Obama is that as the economy has stabilized, it has become a greater source of political danger. Without an immediate crisis,

which month has been difficult for obama?

Which month has been difficult for President Obama

Answer: size of the deficit

Answer: June

Answer: June

Summary:
Julian E. Zelizer: The Obama presidency resembles that of Lyndon B. Johnson .
Zelizer says both aimed high and worked skillfully with congressional leaders .
A president can shape legislation without dictating the details, professor says .
Zelizer: Obama has gotten big results from Congress by keeping leaders on his side .


Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. His new book, "Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security -- From World War II to the War on Terrorism," will be published this fall by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely on current events.

Julian E. Zelizer says so far the Obama presidency resembles that of Lyndon B. Johnson.

PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- While pundits have compared President Obama to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, less attention has been paid to another, perhaps more apt parallel -- Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Sometimes the similarities are striking. Both aimed high, seeking major legislation to reshape America -- Johnson with civil rights and Medicare, Obama with health care and energy legislation. Both Johnson and Obama understood that Congress was a credit-claiming institution whose members did not like to have proposals rammed down their throats.

Johnson's style of political leadership was famous. A creature of the Senate, Johnson loved to lean on legislators and intimidate them into supporting his agenda.

As Senate majority leader from 1955 to 1961, Johnson had been famous for subjecting colleagues to the "Treatment" whereby the hulking Texan cornered a legislator in the hallway, stood eye to eye and made his arguments about a bill until he received assurances of support for particular legislation. Although Johnson slightly changed his posture once he was president, he still relied on this kind of interaction to build support.

As president from November 1963 until January 1969, Johnson worked closely with the Southern committee chairmen and ranking Republicans who dominated the House and Senate. Johnson sought to achieve a delicate mix of maintaining control over deliberations -- thinking of ways to obtain what he wanted without giving the appearance of it being a presidential-led idea -- all while responding to the concerns of the chairmen.

The back-and-forth deliberations with House Ways and Means Chairman Wilbur Mills over the creation of Medicare in 1965 have become the classic example of how a president can work the chamber while allowing a congressional leader into the room to shape a bill in ways with which he'll be comfortable. Johnson agreed to redesign the particulars of the legislation so that the final program would protect the fiscal integrity of Social Security (under which it was included) and contain long-run costs.

Thus far, Obama has taken a similar approach with the economic stimulus and, more recently, with his budget proposal. The president outlined to Congress the basic ideas he wanted in the final product but then left to lawmakers the work of designing the details.

While the downside has been that Obama relinquished control over the structure of the legislation, House and Senate Democrats have felt invested and empowered to produce what Obama's team viewed as successful results.

The second similarity is that Johnson, like Obama, distanced himself from the arguments of liberals who said that conservatives did not need to be feared. Johnson was consumed by his fears of a right-wing resurgence, even after trouncing Republican Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election.

Johnson constantly warned advisers that the most dangerous political force in the country as far as he was concerned was not the left on college campuses but what he called the "reactionary element" within the GOP, and he took this into consideration when shaping legislative proposals.

With domestic policy, Johnson avoided programs that could be tagged as "socialistic," and on foreign policy he worked hard to demonstrate a tough stance against communism. Recently released telephone conversations have revealed that Johnson was obsessed with the 1966 midterm elections after the 1964 election was over, realizing that historically those results were not likely to be good for the White House.

Obama has been reluctant to embrace liberal arguments about an end to the Age of Reagan, courting conservative journalists such as David Brooks instead of liberal pundits such as Paul Krugman. He accepted compromises on legislation in response to moderates in both parties and agreed to a financial bailout that pleased Wall Street, not Main Street. And his administration has steered clear of explicitly nationalizing banks, a step that could be called socialist

What did Zelizer say about Obama and Lyndon Johnson?

What did Julian Zelizer compare the Obama presidency with?

What did the professor say about a president?

whome does The Obama presidency resembles?

Answer: presidency resembles that of

Answer: Lyndon B. Johnson.

Answer: so far the Obama presidency resembles that of Lyndon B. Johnson.

Answer: Lyndon B. Johnson.

Summary:
Julian E. Zelizer: The Obama presidency resembles that of Lyndon B. Johnson .
Zelizer says both aimed high and worked skillfully with congressional leaders .
A president can shape legislation without dictating the details, professor says .
Zelizer: Obama has gotten big results from Congress by keeping leaders on his side .


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

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

How many key questions should Democrats ask themselves?

Who says Democrats need to be asking themselves questions?

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

Answer: the youngest child

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

Answer: several

Answer: Julian E. Zelizer

Summary:
Julian E. Zelizer: The Obama presidency resembles that of Lyndon B. Johnson .
Zelizer says both aimed high and worked skillfully with congressional leaders .
A president can shape legislation without dictating the details, professor says .
Zelizer: Obama has gotten big results from Congress by keeping leaders on his side .


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

What represents growing burden on economy?

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

Answer: Americans

Answer: health care costs

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

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


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

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

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

Answer: better relations with the United States.

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

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

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

Answer: overwhelmingly favor better

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


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

What is essential in reducing number of new HIV infections?

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

What is essential to reducing the number of infections?

Answer: testing

Answer: take steps to protect their partners from infection.

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

Answer: were HIV-negative.

Answer: relief

Answer: testing.

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


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

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

Answer: we know

Answer: Leonard Pitts

Answer: African-American students.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer: author

Answer: author of "Crazy Love,"

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

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


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

Who leads the Genocide Prevention Task Force?

When will the panel's final report be released?

What are the thoughts of Albright and Cohen?

What do Madeleine Albright and William Cohen co-chair?

Answer: Madeleine K. Albright

Answer: next week.)

Answer: we believe that leadership is an indispensable ingredient.

Answer: former U.S. secretary of state.

Answer: Genocide Prevention Task Force.

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


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

What does she suggest naysayers to to improve conditions?

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

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

Answer: African-American

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


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

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

Answer: police

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


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

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

Who has helped erase insecurity for many?

Answer: Sonia Sotomayor

Answer: McCain's decision

Answer: has helped boost self-confidence for many.

Answer: "I am a Wise Latina."

Answer: "I am a Wise Latina."

Answer: Sonia Sotomayor

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


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

how long have baby boomers dominated politics?

who are known as the "greediest generation"?

Which generation is unlikely to repeat the mistaked of boomers?

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

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

Answer: 30 years,

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

Answer: baby boom

Answer: Gen X.

Answer: "The Greediest Generation."

Answer: baby boomers

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Swine flu focusing attention on?

What is the swine flu focusing attention on?

Answer: three

Answer: alcohol-based hand sanitizers

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

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

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


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

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

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

Answer: failures

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

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

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


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

In the present American culture, Latinos are what?

In what light are Latinos seen in American culture?

Answer: marginalized and demonized and feared.

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

Answer: Sonia Sotomayor

Answer: affirms that Latinos matter in America.

Answer: marginalized and demonized and feared.

Answer: Sonia Sotomayor's nomination

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