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

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

Answer: questioned by a person of color.

Answer: arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr.

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

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


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

Who said health care reform would be costly?

What would the health care reform lead to?

Cap and trade bill is disguised as what?

Answer: The Heritage Foundation

Answer: result in a massive government

Answer: national energy tax,

Answer: Our health care system

Answer: his second hundred

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

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


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

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

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

Have parents out there ever even heard of this term?

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

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

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

It gets even worse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are our kids doing this?

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

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

who should be aware of what's happening?

who are are sending explicit photos of themselves?

Answer: is facing felony

Answer: parents

Answer: teenagers

Answer: Phillip

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


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

Who greeted the dalai lama with a fist bump?

Answer: mayor of Memphis, Tennessee.

Answer: Memphis Mayor Myron Lowery

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I

Who says Muslims worldwide have shared concern about key issues?

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

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

Answer: Nafees Syed

Answer: Palestinian-Israeli issue

Answer: Muslim countries,

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

Answer: positive signal

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would go far toward energizing fight against cancer?

What kind of legislations is she looking for?

Who  dedicated herself to fighting the disease?

Answer: Nancy G. Brinker

Answer: Nancy G. Brinker

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

Answer: Nancy Brinker

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

Answer: breast

Answer: 1980.

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

Answer: Nancy Brinker

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


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

what is Nancy Grace's debut novel called?

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

What does Grace say about the main character?

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

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

Answer: Hailey Dean,

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

Answer: "The Eleventh Victim"

Answer: "The Eleventh Victim"

Answer: heroine of the novel

Answer: "The Eleventh Victim"

Answer: Hailey Dean.

Answer: Nancy Grace

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

Answer: Hailey Dean, a psychology student

Answer: "The Eleventh Victim."

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

Answer: "The Eleventh Victim."

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


Editor's note: Nathaniel Frank is author of "Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America" and is senior research fellow at the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara, that has focused on gender, sexuality and the military. He also teaches on the adjunct faculty at New York University.

Nathaniel Frank says there's no evidence that letting gays serve openly would harm the military.

(CNN) --   This week, four senior retired officers wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post predicting "grave harm" to the military if President Obama moves forward with his vow to let gays serve openly.

"Our experience," they wrote, "and that of more than 1,000 retired flag and general officers," suggest that lifting the ban would harm unit cohesion, recruitment and retention, and would ultimately "break the All-Volunteer Force."

The argument is an old one, and was an effective canard in defeating President Clinton's move to lift the ban in 1993. But it has never been rooted in fact or evidence, and the effort of these officers to defeat equal treatment this time around will face mountains of opposing data and a dramatically changed cultural landscape.

The officers who oppose openly gay service do not base their arguments on any new information. In addition to their own experience -- an impressive credential that's nevertheless too vague to hang an argument on -- the officers rely on a single poll.

They cite an unscientific survey -- it does not draw from a representative sampling but from newspaper subscribers -- indicating that 58 percent of the military oppose lifting the ban and that, if it's lifted, 24 percent claim they will leave or consider leaving after their tour ends.

But it's naïve at best, and disingenuous at worst, to confuse this opinion survey with a sound prediction of actual behavior. When both Britain and Canada proposed lifting their gay bans in the 1990s, similar opinion surveys found much higher numbers -- about two-thirds in both cases -- claiming they, too, would leave. In each case, no more than three departures were attributed to the policy change. Three.

In fact, the evidence showing that openly gay service works is overwhelming. Since 1957, when the U.S. military began doing its own studies on gays in the military, every last bit of research has shown that openly gay service works.

Studies of foreign militaries include a 1993 Government Accountability Office study of allied nations that found that "the presence of homosexuals in the military is not an issue and has not created problems in the functioning of military units"; a 1994 assessment by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences finding that predicted negative consequences of ending gay exclusion in the Canadian Forces never materialized; the 2000 assessment of the British Ministry of Defense, calling its new policy of equal treatment "a solid achievement" with "no discernible impact" on recruitment or other critical variables; and four academic studies conducted by the Palm Center, where I work, finding that lifting bans in Britain, Israel, Canada and Australia had no negative impact on military readiness, including on recruitment and retention.

The officers writing in The Washington Post question the relevance of foreign militaries to this debate, mocking the idea that the U.S. military "must emulate Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada." But they failed to note that 24 of our closest allies let gays serve openly, including Britain, whose combat-tested soldiers and sailors serve shoulder to shoulder with U.S. forces.

While our military and culture are unique in the world, it's an astonishing vote of no-confidence in American troops to say that they are not capable of doing what 24 other militaries have done successfully. Ours is a professional, disciplined fighting force, and the assertion that a diverse military would lack order and discipline is, as Rep. Patrick Murphy, an Iraq War veteran, has said, "an insult" to him and the entire U.S. military.

But it's not just foreign militaries that provide real evidence on gay service. A majority of U.S. troops

who are accepted widely today in military?

Answer: 58 percent of the military

Answer: gays

Summary:
Nathaniel Frank: Some retired military officers oppose letting gay troops serve .
He says they don't understand wide acceptance of gays today in military .
He says many other nations have approved gay service without harm .
Frank: Polls vastly exaggerate number of officers who might leave .


Editor's note: Nell Minow is editor and chairwoman of the Corporate Library, an independent research company, and was named one of the 20 most influential people in corporate governance by Directorship magazine and "the queen of good corporate governance" by BusinessWeek Online. She has co-written three books. Nell Minow says AIG's board must be held accountable for the $160 million in bonus payments. (CNN) -- The stories about the outrageous $160 million bonus payments at AIG have all omitted the most important names. They are the members of AIG's Board of Directors Compensation Committee. These people should have been on the hot seat before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises, alongside CEO Ed Liddy. Although there is a lot of blame to go around, ultimately the buck stops -- or, I should say, the bucks should have stopped -- with them. Why haven't we learned that it is the boards who are responsible for the massive failures of strategy and risk management at these companies? Regulators, journalists, securities analysts and investors routinely ignore the most obvious indicators of investment risk that are presented by bad boards of directors. This is particularly obvious in the case of AIG, which has been a serial offender in corporate governance, especially in executive compensation. Those of us who remember former CEO Hank Greenberg's departure from AIG in 2005, after a corporate governance meltdown that included excessive compensation, appreciate the irony of his comment to ABC News that the retention bonuses were "mind-boggling." Mr. Kettle, Pot is on line 1. Compensation committees are not responsible for individual pay packages below the CEO, but they are responsible for determining their overall structure -- and for making sure that the CEO's job includes effective management on compensation issues. Retention of employees may be a legitimate goal of a compensation program, but it can be accomplished in a way that is both effective and credible by being tied to performance goals and by delaying vesting until after the bailout funds are returned to taxpayers. The Corporate Library released a report in February about the boards of the bailout companies, many of which were outliers in their governance and compensation practices. Some of these were clear indicators of investment and liability risk. In several cases, we found individuals who not only sat on more than four corporate boards but also sat on more than one of these particularly troubled boards during this period. Former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, for example, served on the boards of Morgan Stanley, General Motors and Wachovia -- and at various times was also a director at Merck, VF Corp., Krispy Kreme and Cousins Properties. Several other directors from these troubled boards also sat on either five or six boards altogether. We call the phenomenon of directors who serve on four or more corporate boards "overboarding." Overboarding can limit the time and attention a director has for each board. It can also be an indicator of -- or a contributor to -- so many relationships and connections that it makes it more difficult to provide the respectful skepticism necessary for independent oversight. In all, 11 of the 27 companies we identified as "troubled" had at least one overboarded director. Six had more than one; at Merrill Lynch, there were five. By comparison, fewer than 30 percent of S&P 500 companies have even a single overboarded director, and fewer than 5 percent have more than one. Another key finding from our analysis: Shareholders at these companies were well aware of the relative weakness of these boards and had expressed their dissatisfaction by withholding votes from many of these individuals the year before these companies collapsed. At least 13 individual directors, all of whom sat on at least three corporate boards during this period, had received a 13 percent or higher negative vote. The highest of these was a 38.58 percent negative vote received by Sir Winfried F.W. Bischoff at McGraw-Hill, where he sat on the compensation committee. Bischoff also served on the boards at Citigroup (as chairman and interim CEO), Eli Lilly and Prudential. Although the businesses of

who  is ultimately responsible for the firm's mistakes?

what does she say about finance firm board members ?

what is it that Nell Minow say people overlook

Answer: AIG's board

Answer: the boards

Answer: must be held accountable for the $160 million in bonus payments.

Answer: obvious indicators of investment risk

Summary:
Nell Minow: People often overlook crucial role of company board of directors .
She says AIG's board is ultimately responsible for the firm's mistakes .
Minow: Compensation committee members should be held to account .
She says many finance firm board members are too busy on other boards .


Editor's note: On CNN's "State of the Union," host and Chief National Correspondent John King goes outside the Beltway to report on the issues affecting communities across the country. Joe Ray, left, says the cost of providing full-time workers with health care is worth it. PORTLAND, Maine (CNN) -- Joe Ray has no complaints about the economy but plenty of worries about what he sees and hears in Washington. His company, Free Range Fish & Lobster, processes 8 million pounds of fish a year, plus shellfish and lobsters. A recession means restaurant sales are down some, but that decline is more than offset by the surge in people looking for seafood as they eat more meals at home. "We're up about 30 percent," Ray said during a tour of the operation along the Portland waterfront. He says the cost of providing full-time workers with health care is expensive but worth it. "To keep good employees," he said. "So you don't have to keep changing the flow of people that are coming in and out. It costs money to do that, too." But when it comes to the debate over national health care reform, Ray sees the price as out of line with what the country can afford right now.  Watch CNN's John King preview Sunday's show from a dock in Maine » "I think I'd rather just be left alone," Ray said. "Just pay my bill and try to deal with it that way." A fiscal conservative, he has a simple view of President Obama. "Right now, he is just spending, spending, spending, and I just hope it helps the country," Ray says. Paul Hogan is on the other end of the country's health care tug-of-war "It is just a crazy system, and it needs to be fixed," said Hogan, a retired attorney who held a party at his Kennebunkport home Wednesday evening to watch Obama's speech to Congress. He posted notice of his viewing party on the Obama political organization Web site but in the end watched the speech with a half-dozen friends and neighbors. No strangers signed up, as was common at such events during the Web-driven Obama presidential campaign. "I think it is much harder to get people involved in an issue," Hogan said. "I think there are lots of people who will get involved every two years or every four years and will talk to their neighbors for elections." Maine is an interesting stage in the health care debate for a number of reasons. Consider just these two: • The decline in support for Obama's handling of health care has been pronounced among Americans who consider themselves political independents, and in Maine, nearly four out of every 10 voters is "unenrolled" or independent of any political party. In the latest CNN polling, for example, 45 percent of all Americans disapproved of how Obama is handling his job as president. Among independents, his disapproval rating was 53 percent. And specifically on health care, 44 percent of all Americans approve of Obama's handling of the health care issue, while 53 percent disapprove. Among independents, only 33 percent approve of the president's handling of health care, while 61 percent disapprove. • Maine's two U.S. senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, are among the handful of realistic Republican targets as the White House tries to get at least modest GOP support. Snowe, in particular, has a crucial voice at the moment because of her seat on the Senate Finance Committee. We visited Snowe's Portland office the morning after the president's speech, and it was clear that she was getting mixed advice. "No gov't h c.," an office worker scribbled on a legal pad as she took one of the dozens of morning calls. "Supp Publ Opt," is another notation made during a call a few minutes later, shorthand for supporting the public option that Obama and most Democrats would prefer

What is the name of John King's show on CNN?

What state does Olympia Snowe represent?

Answer: John King

Answer: "State of the Union,"

Answer: Maine's

Summary:
CNN's State of the Union with John King airs Sunday at 9 a.m. ET .
King travels to Maine to get voters' take on health care reform .
Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, has been a key figure in health care negotiations .


Editor's note: On CNN's "State of the Union," host and chief national correspondent John King goes outside the Beltway to report on issues affecting communities across the country. County administrator Brenda T. Buck is trying hard to help create eight to 10 sawmill jobs for Jefferson County. FAYETTE, Mississippi (CNN) -- The odds are against Brenda T. Buck, and she knows it. So she counts on what she calls the Sandwich Philosophy: "Take it one bite at a time." Buck is the county administrator in Jefferson County, a rural area in southwest Mississippi dotted with small churches, modest homes and markers noting a Civil War skirmish. "It is a great small town, and everybody knows everybody," Buck says. If you look through the statistics, three things jump out: • The Census Bureau lists the population of Jefferson County as 86 percent African American, the highest percentage of any county in the United States. • It is the fourth-poorest county in the United States, with a median income of $15,037. • The unemployment rate in August was 18.6 percent, the highest of Mississippi's 82 counties. "It has not always been this way," says Angelia Shelvy, a single mother of three who is among the unemployed. "I think we are forgotten." Shelvy had a job making $10,000 a year as a teacher's assistant, but she left it to take a job paying twice as much, signing on with a union that provides workers to nuclear power plants. Her parents agreed to care for her children when she had to travel, for months at a time, as far away as Arizona. Shelvy thought it was the right thing to do for her family, but phone calls to home at bedtime proved otherwise. Her 4-year-old, especially, had a rough time adjusting. "I'm like, 'You have Granny.' He's like, 'No, I don't want Granny; I want you to hold me,' " Shelvy told us. "I missed Mother's Day twice; for two years I missed it. ... So I decided that it was more important for me to be here with my children." Back home now, she has been searching for work since March, looking as far as 90 minutes away from Fayette. "I did Internet searching, different jobs, hospitals, different schools," she said. "They're not hiring. They either say they are not hiring, or I'm not qualified. I don't have enough years of experience. 'We'll call you later.' 'Get back with us.' And it's been stressful for me." Buck spends hours a day trying to help, and most of her time with the Board of Supervisors is spent debating economic development ideas. At home, too, she is reminded of the bleak local jobs market. Her husband isn't there. He's working 900 miles away, at the moment, in Indiana. "He works with a company that has been going into a lot of the car plants" during refittings and downsizing, Buck said. "We have four kids. ... He is here basically maybe a total combination of, maybe, two months out of the year." The county got a modest amount of federal money to buy new police cruisers. But its requests for stimulus money to improve its roads have been ignored, at least to date, and as Buck continues to press those requests, she also is pushing smaller economic development grants. Reliable Mat LLC is her current obsession. The screeching hum of a giant saw greets visitors, and inside the warehouse are dozens of pallets of neatly stacked firewood, waiting to be loaded on 18-wheelers and distributed across the country for the coming winter. On the grounds, there are 10 workers, some running giant logs through the saw, others stacking and wrapping the wood for shipment. On average, the men make about $100 day, and Paul Southerland, the company's general

What are breadwinners forced to do sometimes?

Who is working to bring jobs to Jefferson County?

Answer: Jefferson

Answer: travel,

Answer: Brenda T. Buck

Answer: southwest Mississippi

Answer: County administrator

Answer: Brenda T. Buck

Summary:
Jefferson County is fourth-poorest in U.S.; the recession came late but hit hard .
Sometimes, breadwinners must leave state, and their families, to scrape by .
County administrator Brenda T. Buck wants to bring jobs close to home .
She considers every new job created in her county a small victory .


Editor's note: On CNN's "State of the Union," host and chief national correspondent John King goes outside the Beltway to report on issues affecting communities across the country. Pope McLean Jr. tells CNN's John King that a lot of farms are hurting because of the global recession. LEXINGTON, Kentucky (CNN) -- Crestwood Farm is tucked into the rolling hillsides of Kentucky's legendary bluegrass country. Kipling and Unbridled Energy are among the stallions critical to the reputation -- and the bottom line -- of the McLean family business. And just how do the stallions prove their value? "When their progeny does well on the race track," Pope McLean Jr. said. "Can't bluff that. That's when they prove what they are worth." Pope McLean Sr. got into the horse business in college and took over Crestwood Farm in 1970. His son worked on the farm while growing up. After college he took a job in the financial sector, but in 1991 he returned to Crestwood. His brother Marc returned a few years later, and their younger sister Grandison joined after she graduated from college. "It's been pretty much a family business since that point," Pope McLean Jr. said during a tour of the 1,000 acre property. Kentucky is to horse racing what Michigan is to the domestic auto industry. Racing and breeding thoroughbreds is a multibillion-dollar business in the state and the source of some 100,000 jobs. But "The Sport of Kings" is hardly exempt from these painful economic times, and in fact is taking a severe blow in the global recession. "It's truly an international industry, so we have people, a lot of buyers, from Europe come in. And they have dialed back," McLean said. "Domestic buyers have dialed back their participation, as well. The good horses are still bringing decent money, but everyone has to lower their expectations." At this year's Keeneland September Yearling Sale, which McLean calls the horse industry's version of the NBA draft, the gross was down more than 41 percent from last year, the largest year-to-year drop in the 66-year history of the auction. "The prices are down, and our production costs increased with commodity prices going up and so forth, so it definitely puts a squeeze on commercial breeding operations," McLean said. "A lot of farms are hurting. And then you have the credit squeeze that has hurt a lot of farms, too." McLean sees another lean year next year, and then hopes for a rebound because of an odd twist to the laws of supply and demand. In 2008, when the stock market was plummeting, 30 percent fewer mares were bred, so the supply of horses available at auction the year after next will be smaller. "I think people just decided to pull back," McLean said. "So the supply of horses available at auction will be reduced and that should start to help market conditions." At Crestwood, McLean predicts an "about even" year. "We're down at bit," at the moment, he says. "I feel pretty sure there will be quite a few farms that will go out of business." Out of business is an all too common theme in Hazard, a coal country town in Eastern Kentucky's Appalachia region about 120 miles away from Lexington and horse country. Statewide, the unemployment rate in Kentucky is 11.1 percent. Hazard is the county seat in Perry County, where the jobless rate has been on a steady climb and is 12.7 percent. On Main Street, a clothing and novelty store is closing down, along with an adjacent print and copying shop. Fallout, locals say, from the closing of a uniform plant that had employed more than 140 people, and then a Weyerhaeuser lumber facility that employed 180. Joanne Caron knew there were problems when Weyerhaeuser canceled weekend shifts, "but we didn't think it would be that drastic." The bad news came suddenly in March when workers were told their jobs were

How many jobs does the horse racing industry create?

What is the source of 100,000 jobs in Kentucky?

What have the domestic and international buyers dialed back?

What is the unemployment rate in Kentucky?

Answer: 100,000

Answer: Racing and breeding thoroughbreds

Answer: their participation,

Answer: 11.1 percent.

Answer: "Domestic buyers

Answer: 11.1 percent.

Summary:
Jefferson County is fourth-poorest in U.S.; the recession came late but hit hard .
Sometimes, breadwinners must leave state, and their families, to scrape by .
County administrator Brenda T. Buck wants to bring jobs close to home .
She considers every new job created in her county a small victory .


Editor's note: On CNN's "State of the Union," host and chief national correspondent John King goes outside the Beltway to report on the issues affecting communities across the country. Christine Quinn, speaker of the New York City Council, and her partner, Kim Catullo, talk to John King. NEW YORK (CNN)  -- As she lobbies members of the New York Senate these days, the politician in Christine Quinn can understand what the gay rights activist in her sometimes cannot. "The fear of the unknown," is how she describes it. "This is a vote they've never cast before. And they don't know how people are going to react. You are in a position where people's reaction to you is the key to your success. And the unknown creates fear and fear often creates paralysis." Quinn is the openly gay speaker of the New York City Council, and a proponent of legalizing same sex marriage in New York state. "It is really encouraging to see what's happening around the country in places where you really wouldn't expect it, like Iowa," says Quinn's longtime partner, Kim Catullo. "To be in a place like New York and not have it just doesn't seem to make sense." The New York Assembly passed legislation allowing same-sex marriages earlier this month, and the question now is whether there are enough votes in the state Senate to pass the legislation before the legislature adjourns for the year. Go behind the scenes with John King as he discusses his report from New York Quinn, who spent time in Albany this past week meeting with undecided senators, is cautiously optimistic. "It was amazing how much openness there was," she said of private meetings with lawmakers who are undecided and even a few who have said they are likely to oppose the legislation. "We just all have to create a moment for them to step forward. So I really think it is going to happen this month, before the legislative session is over." Maggie Gallagher sees the Senate math quite differently. "We are now working in 24 Senate districts," says Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriages. "We know we have generated thousands of phone calls to legislators. I don't think they will be passing a gay marriage bill this session."  Watch both sides assess chances of passing same-sex marriage bill » The New York legislation is part of a growing national debate, and one which will gain even more attention because of the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy and the nomination of federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill it. "Not tomorrow. Not likely in the coming year unless the courts move dramatically faster than we are used to seeing them move," is how Columbia Law School Professor Suzanne Goldberg answers when asked when the issue of same-sex marriage is likely to make the Supreme Court docket. "But certainly some time in the next couple of years we're likely to see the Supreme Court issue a position or two on this issue." Goldberg knows Sotomayer well; the judge is also a lecturer at Columbia. "We've never spoken about the issue," Goldberg told us. "I have no inside information about her views. What I would say is that she is both a wise person and a thoughtful person and being wise and thoughtful are the right ingredients for reaching what to me is the right answer on this issue, which to me is that equality applies to all people." The likelihood of the issue reaching the Supreme Court in the next year or two raises the stakes in the state battles. Opponents of California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage vow to try again in 2010 in hopes of a different result. A new federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 was filed this week and could well be among the cases that make it to the Supreme Court eventually. Five states now allow same-sex marriage: Maine, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts

Who hopes President Obama will change mind?

Who is lobbying hard against same-sex marriages?

Who passed bill allowing same-sex marriages?

Answer: legalizing same sex marriage

Answer: allowing same-sex marriages

Answer: Christine Quinn, speaker of the New York City Council, and her partner, Kim Catullo,

Answer: earlier this month,

Answer: Gallagher,

Answer: The New York Assembly

Answer: Quinn

Answer: Christine Quinn

Summary:
N.Y. Assembly passed bill allowing same-sex marriages; willl state Senate pass it?
Christine Quinn, openly gay politician, optimistic; says opponents fear the unknown .
National Organization for Marriage lobbying hard against it, head thinks it won't pass .
Proponents hope President Obama will change mind, support issue .


Editor's note: Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist and CNN political contributor, was a political consultant for Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992 and was counselor to Clinton in the White House.

Paul Begala says Republicans are failing to respond to the real economic pain felt throughout the U.S.

(CNN) -- As the fight over President Obama's economic recovery package heats up, the two sides are beginning to define themselves with admirable clarity.

The president says we have a crisis that is heading toward a catastrophe.

In announcing his new Economic Recovery Advisory Board, President Obama declared, "The situation could not be more serious. These [new unemployment] numbers demand action. It is inexcusable and irresponsible for any of us to get bogged down in distraction, delay, or politics as usual, while millions of Americans are being put out of work."

The Republicans, on the other hand, have honed their economic message: Denial, Delay, Do Nothing.

Denial

It begins with denial. Former Bush adviser Karl Rove and Fox News host Bill O'Reilly opined in December that it's the media's fault. The said the press is overhyping bad news; the economy, they suggested, is not really all that bad. "So you are agreeing with me," O'Reilly said, "that there is a conscious effort on the part of The New York Times and other liberal media to basically paint as drastic a picture as possible, so that when Barack Obama takes office, that anything is better than what we have now?"

"Yes," said Mr. Rove.

OK. I guess if you're wealthy like Mr. Rove and Mr. O'Reilly you can afford to pretend the recession is a vast media conspiracy. But for the 3.7 million Americans who have lost their jobs in the Bush-Republican recession, Messrs. Rove and O'Reilly seem dangerously out of touch.

Delay

"Let's slow down. Let's take our time," said Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Nebraska). "Few things are going to be as important as this." Generally that's good advice. But with the economy losing 19,000 jobs a day, is delay really a wise strategy? Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) seems to think so. He told CNN's John King, "We could shelf this bill and start again. That's what we really need to do."

Do Nothing

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is widely considered a rising star in the GOP. He was even mentioned as a potential running mate for 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain. His strategy, again articulated to John King on "State of the Union," is to do nothing -- let companies, communities and families fail.

"We're going to go through a process of deleveraging," Sanford said. "And it will be painful. The question is, do we apply a bunch of different Band-Aids that lengthen and prolong this pain or do we take the Band-Aid off? I believe very strongly: Let's get this thing over with, let's not drag it on."

Set aside the callousness of Sanford's metaphor -- that joblessness at the highest level since the Great Depression is somehow like a scratch that doesn't even need a Band-Aid.

Focus instead on Sanford's substantive message: You're on your own. Write if you get work. This befits a party which has high-ranking members who deny the effectiveness of the New Deal. What's next, denying that the federal government put a man on the moon?

What Bipartisanship?

Given the GOP's combination of flat-earth economics and scorched-earth politics, it should come as no surprise that it looks like 98.6 percent of Washington Republicans oppose President Obama's economic recovery package. They either do not understand the depth of the recession or they do not realize the results of the recent election.

I don't know what more President Obama can do. He has named three prominent Republicans to his Cabinet (Robert Gates at Defense, Ray LaHood at Transportation and Judd Gregg at

What is the attitude of some in the GOP?

Answer: Republicans

Answer: Do Nothing

Summary:
Begala: McCain's VP choice unqualified to be heartbeat from the presidency .
Choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is "shockingly irresponsible," he says .
Begala says choice makes McCain's age, health, and judgment central issues .


Editor's note: Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist and CNN political contributor, was a political consultant for Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992 and was counselor to Clinton in the White House. Begala is not a paid political consultant for any politicians or candidates.  Click here for a rival view Paul Begala says McCain's VP choice,  Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is completely unqualified to be president. (CNN) -- John McCain needs what Kinky Friedman calls "a checkup from the neck up." In choosing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, he is not thinking "outside the box," as some have said. More like out of his mind. Palin a first-term governor of a state with more reindeer than people, will have to put on a few pounds just to be a lightweight. Her personal story is impressive: former fisherman, mother of five. But that hardly qualifies her to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. For a man who is 72 years old and has had four bouts with cancer to have chosen someone so completely unqualified to become president is shockingly irresponsible. Suddenly, McCain's age and health become central issues in the campaign, as does his judgment. In choosing this featherweight, McCain passed over Tom Ridge, a decorated combat hero, a Cabinet secretary and the former two-term governor of the large, complex state of Pennsylvania. iReport.com: 'McCain pick might be a gimmick' He passed over Mitt Romney, who ran a big state, Massachusetts; a big company, Bain Capital; and a big event, the Olympics. He passed over Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas senator who is knowledgeable about the military, good on television and -- obviously -- a woman. He passed over Joe Lieberman, his best friend in the Senate and fellow Iraq Kool-Aid drinker. He passed over former congressman, trade negotiator and budget director Rob Portman. And he also passed over Mike Huckabee, the governor of Arkansas. For months, the McCainiacs have said they will run on his judgment and experience. In his first presidential decision, John McCain has shown that he is willing to endanger his country, potentially leaving it in the hands of someone who simply has no business being a heartbeat away from the most powerful, complicated, difficult job in human history. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

Answer: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is completely unqualified to be president.

Summary:
Begala: McCain's VP choice unqualified to be heartbeat from the presidency .
Choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is "shockingly irresponsible," he says .
Begala says choice makes McCain's age, health, and judgment central issues .


Editor's note: Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist and CNN political contributor, was a political consultant for Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992 and was counselor to Clinton in the White House. He was a co-host of "Crossfire" on CNN with Robert Novak from 2002 to 2005. Paul Begala says he admired Robert Novak for his skepticism about authority, work ethic and faith in his beliefs. (CNN) -- In our innumerable debates, I delighted in calling Bob Novak "the finest mind of the 12th century." One time, though, he scowled and growled, "I prefer the 15th century. Spanish Inquisition. Those were the days." Novak left this world on Tuesday, but he also left his mark. Needless to say I disagreed with Bob about virtually every political issue, and sometimes our on-air debates continued as profanity-laced shouting matches after the show ended. Despite our profound differences, though, we were friends. Here's why: Bob was an iconoclast. He loved poking conventional wisdom in the eye. If all the media elite were perched on the same wire, Bob would land on the opposite wire and gleefully squawk at them. Bob was an ideologue more than a partisan. One of the many sources of tension between us was the fact that I am a partisan Democrat who believes that, from time to time, my personal ideological agenda must take a backseat to advancing a broader progressive agenda carried by my party. Not Bob. He was a conservative first, last and always, and when he felt the Republican Party had strayed from his hard-core anti-tax, anti-government ideology he would hammer the GOP with the same withering ridicule he usually dispensed to Democrats. Bob was deeply skeptical of authority. He was a lowly lieutenant in the United States Army, and he instinctively distrusted big shots -- a rarity in a town that is often dazzled by rank. For a guy who said he preferred business to government, he was not afraid to show his contempt for network executives with whom he disagreed. Bob had a remarkable work ethic. In the predawn hours after the 2004 presidential debate in Miami, Bob slipped in the shower, breaking his hip. The injury was terribly painful, and Bob was rushed to the hospital. Within 24 hours he was propped up in bed, working the phones and banging out a column on his laptop. Bob was an old-school reporter. Most pundits (your humble author included) devour the reporting of others and regurgitate our opinions. While strongly opinionated, Bob also reported. His sources, especially in the GOP, were wide and deep. When I was a White House official, one of my most dreaded responsibilities was dealing with Bob. He didn't support much of anything we were trying to do, but he never lied to me, never broke his word, and tried his hardest to get things right. Accuracy mattered enormously. Bob could be civil. This will astonish some, because Bob could also be rude. But he taught me at least one lesson in civility. On "Crossfire," I carried a debate over into the commercial break. I badgered and hectored and attacked the guest who was on the right. I was angry and I let him have it. "Wait just a #*& $@#^ minute," Bob screamed at me. "You're out of line. You're being rude. Get off his back. He's come here on our show to make his case and you're abusing him. We call them 'guests' for a reason, Paul." He was right. Bob loved sports. One tiny island of common ground Bob and I could share was a love of sports. When James Carville and I joined "Crossfire" in 2002, CNN had a much-hyped debut planned for April 1. Bob didn't care. Maryland was playing for the NCAA basketball championship and he was going to be there. Producers pleaded, but Bob was unmoved. He did the show via satellite from Atlanta, Georgia,

What were Bob Novak's political beliefs?

Who says Bob Novak was a friend even though they differed on many issues?

What relation was Bob novak to Paul Begala?

Answer: he admired Robert Novak for his skepticism about authority, work ethic and faith in his beliefs.

Answer: hardest to get things right.

Answer: conservative

Answer: Paul Begala

Answer: co-host of "Crossfire" on CNN with Robert

Summary:
Begala: McCain's VP choice unqualified to be heartbeat from the presidency .
Choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is "shockingly irresponsible," he says .
Begala says choice makes McCain's age, health, and judgment central issues .


Editor's note: Peggy Wallace Kennedy is the daughter of George C. Wallace and Lurleen Wallace, who both were governors of Alabama. She lives in Montgomery, Alabama, with her husband, Mark Kennedy, a retired state Supreme Court justice. They have two sons, Leigh, a decorated veteran of the Iraq war, and Burns, a college sophomore.

Peggy Wallace Kennedy says her father sought absolution for his segregationist views.

MONTGOMERY, Alabama (CNN) -- I heard a car door slam behind me and turned to see an elderly but spry woman heading my way.

The night before, a gang of vandals had swept through the cemetery desecrating graves, crushing headstones and stealing funereal objects.

My parents' graves, situated on a wind-swept hill overlooking the cemetery, had not been spared. A large marble urn that stood between two granite columns had been pried loose and spirited away, leaving faded silk flowers strewn on the ground.

I was holding a bouquet of them in my arms when the woman walked up and gave me a crushing hug. "Honey," she said, "you don't know me, but when I saw you standing up here on this hill, I knew that you must be one of the girls and I couldn't help myself but to drive up here and let you know how much me and my whole family loved both of your parents. They were real special people."

I thanked her for her kind words as we stood side by side gazing down at the graves of Govs. George Wallace and Lurleen Wallace.

After a few moments, the woman leaned into me and spoke almost in a conspiratorial whisper. "I never thought I would live to see the day when a black would be running for president. I know your daddy must be rolling over in his grave."

Not having the heart or the energy to respond, I gave her bony arm a slight squeeze, turned and walked away. As I put the remnants of the graveyard spray in the trunk of my car, I assumed that she had not bothered to notice the Barack Obama sticker on my bumper.

When I was a young voter and had little interest in politics, my father would mark my ballot for me. As I thought about the woman in the cemetery, I mused that if he were alive and I had made the same request for this election, there would be a substantial chance, though not a certainty, that he would put an "X" by Obama's name.

Perhaps it would be the last chapter in his search for inner peace that became so important to him after becoming a victim of hatred and violence himself when he was shot and gravely injured in a Laurel, Maryland, shopping center parking lot. Perhaps it would be a way of reconciling in his own mind that what he once stood for did not prevent freedom of opportunity and self-advancement from coming full circle; his final absolution.

George Wallace and other Southern governors of his ilk stood defiantly in the 1950s and '60s in support of racial segregation, a culture of repression, violence and denial of basic human rights.

Their actions and the stark images of their consequences that spread across the world galvanized the nation and gave rise to a cry for an end to the American apartheid. The firestorms that were lit in Birmingham, Oxford, Memphis, Tuscaloosa, Montgomery, Little Rock and Selma were a call to arms to which the people responded.

And now a new call to arms has sounded as Americans face another assault on freedom. For if the stand in the schoolhouse door was a defining moment for George Wallace, then surely the aftermath of Katrina and the invasion of Iraq will be the same for George W. Bush.

The trampling of individual freedoms and his blatant contempt for the rights of the average American may not have been as obvious as an ax-handle-wielding governor, but Bush's insidiousness and piety have made him much more dangerous.

Healing must come, hope will be our lodestar, humility will reshape the American conscience, and honesty in both word and deed

what does the daughter says about Wallace?

what does Peggy Wallace Kennedy says about his dad?

Ex-segregationist Wallact sought absolution for what?

Answer: her father sought absolution for his segregationist views.

Answer: her father sought absolution for

Answer: his segregationist views.

Answer: her father sought absolution for his segregationist views.

Summary:
Peggy Wallace Kennedy: My dad, George Wallace, might have backed Barack Obama .
Ex-segregationist Wallace sought absolution for his earlier views, daughter says .
She says Obama will help heal the nation after wounds of Katrina and Iraq war .


Editor's note: Penn Jillette -- the larger, louder half of Penn & Teller -- is a magician, comedian, actor, author and producer. Obama and McCain both promise a government that will watch over us ... "I don't like that," says Penn Jillette. (CNN) -- Everyone I talk to seems to think the president of the United States right now is stupid. The Bush presidency is stupid speeches, stupid high gas prices, stupid bad economy, stupid war on terrorism, stupid war on drugs, stupid hurricane fixing, stupid global warming, stupid war -- stupid, stupid, stupid. They all seem to think we need to get a smarter guy in the White House fast, and Bush is so stupid, that task shouldn't be too hard. Not me. I'd like to say that I believe every president in United States history, including the stupid one we have now, is smarter than me. My alma mater is Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Greatest Show on Earth Clown College, so I'm damning with faint praise, but I'm stupider than this here stupid president. Maybe I'm less stupider than Bush than I'm stupider than Jefferson. But I'm stupider than all the stupid in both of them put together. The idea, especially from the Democrats that I know, is, we just get a smarter guy in the White House, and all the problems will go away. We'll have smart speeches, smart high gas prices, smart bad economy, smart war on terrorism, smart war on drugs, smart hurricanes, smart global warming, smart war in Georgia -- smart, smart, smart. Barack Obama is way smarter than Bush -- so way, way smarter than me. Obama is way more charismatic than me. He did his big speech for about 80,000 people; I'll do my show tonight in Vegas for about 1,000 people. He's more ambitious than I; he's going to be the next president of the United States, and I couldn't even get to week three of "Dancing with the Stars." Obama is a great leader. He can fire people up and get them to do what he wants. He does smart speeches that promise everyone everything they need and make us feel good about our country and how much greater our government could be. But I don't think our next president being a great leader is a good thing. I'm worried about someone smarter than Bush taking over that tremendous power. Charisma and ambition increase my fear exponentially, and a great leader scares me to death. We need someone stupid enough to understand that the president of the United States can't solve many problems without taking away freedom and therefore shouldn't try. The only reason John McCain scares me a little less is because I think he's a little less likely to win. They both promise a government that will watch over us, and I don't like that. I don't want anyone as president who promises to take care of me. I may be stupid, but I want a chance to try to be a grown-up and take care of my family. Freedom means the freedom to be stupid, and that's what I want. I don't want anyone to feel my pain or tell me to ask what we can do for our country, or give us all money and take care of us. Gene Healy at the Cato Institute explains that the Founding Fathers wanted the president "to faithfully execute the laws, defend the country from attack and check Congress with the veto power whenever it exceeded its constitutional bounds." That sounds like plenty to me. You gotta be smarter than me to do all that, but you don't have to be as smart as Obama, and you sure don't have to be a great leader. Our first seven presidents averaged a bit more than three public speeches a year, and they didn't promise jobs for everyone, day care, dental exams and free stuff. It's really hard to find someone

What everyone is thinking according to Penn Jillette ?

For what reason does McCain scare Jillette less?

Answer: "I don't like that,"

Answer: seems

Answer: is a great leader.

Answer: likely to win.

Answer: is way smarter than Bush

Summary:
Everyone thinks we need to get a smarter guy in the White House, says Penn Jillette .
Jillette: Obama is a great leader who fires people up, gets them to do what he wants .
McCain scares Jillette a little less because he's a little less likely to win .
Ron Paul, Bob Barr say they want much smaller government .


Editor's note: Peter Bergen is CNN's national security analyst and a fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington and at New York University's Center on Law and Security. His most recent book is "The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda's Leader." Peter Bergen says it's crucial to correctly frame the nature of a war before beginning it. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama and his foreign policy advisers and speechwriters are wrestling with one of the most important speeches of his presidency, his inaugural address. One of their toughest conceptual challenges is how to describe and recast what the Bush administration has consistently termed the "war on terror." The dean of military strategists, Carl von Clausewitz, explains the importance of this decision-making in his treatise "On War": "The first, the supreme, the most decisive act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish...the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into something that is alien to its nature." Clausewitz's excellent advice about the absolute necessity of properly defining the war upon which a nation is about to embark was ignored by Bush administration officials who instead declared an open-ended and ambiguous "war on terror" after the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001. Bush took the nation to war against a tactic, rather than a war against a specific enemy, which was obviously al Qaeda and anyone allied to it. When the United States went to war against the Nazis and the Japanese during World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt and his congressional supporters did not declare war against U-boats and kamikaze pilots, but on the Nazi state and Imperial Japan. The war on terror, sometimes known as the "Global War on Terror" or by the clunky acronym GWOT, became the lens through which the Bush administration judged almost all of its foreign policy decisions. That proved to be dangerously counterproductive on several levels. The GWOT framework propelled the Bush administration into its disastrous entanglement in Iraq. It had nothing to do with 9/11 but was launched under the rubric of the war on terror and the erroneous claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The theory was that he might give such weapons to terrorists, including al Qaeda to whom he was supposedly allied, and that he therefore threatened American interests. None of this, of course, turned out to be true. The Bush administration's approach to the war on terror collided badly with another of its doctrines, spreading democracy in the Middle East as a panacea to reduce radicalism. It pushed for elections in the Palestinian territories in which, in early 2006, the more radical Hamas won a resounding victory, propelled to power on a wave of popular revulsion for the incompetence and corruption of the Fatah party that had dominated Palestinian politics since the 1960s. Imprisoned by its war on terror framework, the Bush administration supported Israel in a disastrous war against Hezbollah in Lebanon in the summer of 2006. Hezbollah is not only a terrorist group but is also part of the rickety Lebanese government and runs social welfare services across the country, yet for the Bush administration its involvement in terrorism was all that mattered. As is now widely understood in Israel, the war against Hezbollah was a moral and tactical defeat for the Israeli military and government. Events in the current Israeli incursion in Gaza will determine whether history repeats itself. Under the banner of the war on terror, the Bush administration also tied itself in conceptual knots conflating the threat from al Qaeda with Shiite groups like Hezbollah and the ayatollahs in Iran. In 2006, for instance, President Bush claimed that "the Sunni and Shiite extremist represent different faces of the same threat." In reality, Sunni and Shiite extremists have been killing each other in large numbers for years in countries from Pakistan to Iraq. The groups have differing attitudes toward the United States, which Sunni extremists attacked in 1993 and again on 9/11, while Shiite militants have never done so. So

Who never correctly framed the "global war on terror"?

What President is being criticized here?

What does Bergen say the president went to war against?

Who went to war against the tactic of terrorism?

What did Bergen say the president actually went to war against (what "tactic")?

Answer: Bush administration officials

Answer: Bush

Answer: a tactic,

Answer: Bush administration officials

Answer: Bush

Answer: on terror,

Answer: terror."

Summary:
Peter Bergen: Bush never correctly framed the "global war on terror"
He says the president went to war against the tactic of terrorism .
Instead, Bergen says, the U.S. should be leading a war vs. al Qaeda .
Bergen: al Qaeda is a formidable enemy, but not the equivalent of fascism .


Editor's note: Peter Bergen is a fellow at the New America Foundation, a Washington-based think tank that promotes innovative thought from across the ideological spectrum and at New York University's Center on Law and Security. He's the author of "The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda's Leader." Peter Bergen says deals with the Taliban could further destabilize the situation in Afghanistan. (CNN) -- It is a longstanding cliché that there is no military solution in Afghanistan, only a political one. Linked to this is the newer, related notion, rapidly becoming a cliché, that the United States should start making deals with elements of the "reconcilable" Taliban. As with many clichés, there is some truth to both these notions, but neither of these comforting ideas are a substitute for a strategy that is connected to what is happening on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Sunday's New York Times ran an interview with President Obama in which he said that, just as the U.S. had made peace agreements with Sunni militias in Iraq, "There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and in the Pakistani region." He also cautioned that this could be "more complex" than was the case in Iraq. It's not only going to be more complex, but doing deals with the Taliban today could further destabilize Afghanistan. Before getting to why that is the case, let's stipulate first that there are always going to be some local commanders of the Taliban who can be bribed, coerced or otherwise persuaded to lay down their arms. In fact, the Afghan government already has had an amnesty program in place for Taliban fighters for four years. Thousands of the Taliban already have taken advantage of the amnesty, a fact that tends to be glossed over in most of the recent discussions of the issue. That being said, there are nine reasons why doing deals with most of the various factions of the insurgencies in Afghanistan and Pakistan that are labeled "the Taliban" are more in the realm of fantasy than a sustainable policy. First, the Afghan government is a sovereign entity and any agreements with the Taliban must be made by it. Right now the weak and ineffectual Afghan government is in no position to negotiate with the Taliban, other than to make significant concessions of either territory or principle, or both. Second, while Obama didn't talk about dealing with Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, it is worth pointing out the Taliban leadership, including Mullah Omar, has in the past several months taken every opportunity to say that it has no interest in a deal with the Afghan government. And just last week, Mullah Omar urged the Pakistani Taliban to refocus their efforts on attacking U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Those statements should be taken at face value. Third, Mullah Omar's intransigence is utterly predictable. He was prepared to sacrifice his regime on the point of principle that he would not hand over Osama bin Laden after 9/11. And he did. This does not suggest a Kissingerian realism about negotiations, but rather a fanatical devotion to his cause. Fourth, the Taliban believe they may be winning in Afghanistan, and they also are confident that they are not losing, which for an insurgent movement amounts to the same thing. They see no need to negotiate today when they can get a better deal down the road. Fifth, the Taliban leadership is largely in Pakistan. Side deals done with the Afghan Taliban will have little or no effect on the fact that the command and control of the insurgency is in another country. Sixth, when Pakistan's government has done "peace" deals with the Taliban in the Pakistani tribal regions in 2005 and 2006 and in the northern region of Swat earlier this year, they were made following military setbacks by Pakistan's army. Those deals then allowed the militants to regroup and extend their control over greater swaths of Pakistani territory. Why would new agreements with the Taliban on either side of the Afghan-Pakistan border yield different results? Seventh, "reconcilable" Afghan Taliban leaders have already reconciled to the

Who said Taliban is gaining more support?

Answer: Afghan government

Answer: Afghan

Answer: Taliban

Answer: Peter Bergen

Summary:
Peter Bergen: Idea of dealing with moderate Taliban is gaining more support .
Bergen says it's not likely to be a strategy for success in the Aghanistan war .
Taliban leadership thinks it's winning the war and won't cut a deal, he says .
Bergen: Afghan government too weak to engage in meaningful talks .


Editor's note: Peter Bergen, CNN's national security analyst, is a fellow at the New America Foundation, a Washington-based think tank that promotes innovative thought from across the ideological spectrum, and at New York University's Center on Law and Security. He's the author of "The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda's Leader." Peter Bergen says Osama bin Laden is still alive and still significant eight years after September 11. HELMAND, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Eight years after September 11, the "war on terror" has gone the way of the dodo. And President Obama talks instead about a war against al Qaeda and its allies. What, then, of al Qaeda's enigmatic leader, Osama bin Laden, who has vanished like a wisp of smoke? And does he even matter now? The U.S. government hadn't had a solid lead on al Qaeda's leader since the battle of Tora Bora in winter 2001. Although there are informed hypotheses that today he is in Pakistan's North West Frontier Province on the Afghan border, perhaps in one of the more northerly areas such as Bajaur, these are essentially guesses, not "actionable" intelligence. A longtime American counterterrorism analyst explained to me, "There is very limited collection on him personally." That's intelligence community shorthand for the fact that the usual avenues of "collection" on a target such as bin Laden are yielding little or no information about him. Those avenues typically include signal intercepts of phone calls and e-mails, as well as human intelligence from spies. Given the hundreds of billions of dollars that the "war on terror" has consumed, the failure to capture or kill al Qaeda's leader is one of its signal failures. Does it even matter whether bin Laden is found? Yes, it does. First, there is the matter of justice for the almost 3,000 people who died in the September 11 attacks and for the thousands of other victims of al Qaeda's attacks around the world. Second, every day that bin Laden remains at liberty is a propaganda victory for al Qaeda. Third, although bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri aren't managing al Qaeda's operations on a daily basis they guide the overall direction of the jihadist movement around the world, even while they are in hiding. Those messages from al Qaeda's leaders have reached untold millions worldwide via television, the Internet and newspapers. The tapes have not only instructed al Qaeda's followers to continue to kill Westerners and Jews, but some also carried specific instructions that militant cells then acted on. In March 2008, for instance, the al Qaeda leader denounced the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper as a "catastrophe" for which punishment would soon be meted out. Three months later, an al Qaeda suicide attacker bombed the Danish Embassy in Islamabad, killing six. Some reading this may think: But what's the proof that the al Qaeda leader is still alive? Plenty. Since September 11, bin Laden has released a slew of video and audiotapes, many of which discuss current events. After a nine-month silence, for instance, bin Laden released a 22-minute audiotape on March 14, sharply condemning the recent Israeli invasion of Gaza. Are these tapes real? Not one of the dozens of tapes released by bin Laden after 9/11 has been a fake. Indeed the U.S. government has authenticated many of them using bin Laden's distinctive voiceprint. And what about the persistent reports that he is ill? In 2002, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said bin Laden had kidney disease, for which he required a dialysis machine, and was therefore likely dead. But the stories of bin Laden's life-threatening kidney problems are false, judging by his appearance in videos that he released in 2004 and again in 2007, in which he showed no signs of illness. On the 2007 tape, the al Qaeda leader had even dyed his white-flecked beard black, suggesting that as the Saudi militant entered his fifth decade, he was not

The war on terror has failed to capture who?

Answer: Osama bin Laden

Answer: Osama bin Laden

Answer: Osama bin Laden

Summary:
Peter Bergen: Osama bin Laden still inspires al Qaeda .
He says 8 years after 9/11, the "war on terror" has failed to capture him .
He says law of averages suggests bin Laden will eventually be caught or killed .


Editor's note: Peter Bregman is chief executive of Bregman Partners Inc., a global management consulting firm, and the author of "Point B: A Short Guide to Leading a Big Change". He writes a weekly column, How We Work, for HarvardBusiness.org. Peter Bregman says good times persuaded people to sacrifice what they loved for money. NEW YORK (CNN) -- I started my consulting business 11 years ago with a laptop computer in a living room. It grew quickly. The first year I made more money than I had in the previous three combined, the second year I doubled that and by the third year I began to fantasize about retiring within the decade. Then everything crashed; the dotcom revolution, the financial services industry and my business. I had a large number of subcontractors and a small number of employees who had become friends. I also had a bad feeling things wouldn't turn around quickly. My wife and I were in a tough spot. We had one child and another on the way, bills that were accumulating and hopes for the future that were moving out of reach. However bad it was then, these days it's worse. Back then the recession hit certain sectors and left other ones alone. Home prices were going up, so people felt protected, and there were loans to help. Today, everything's been hit, nothing's going up and credit is frozen. Many have already lost jobs, homes, self-identities, luxuries and necessities. And there's more to come. That's especially true for many older Americans, who might not have 10 years to recover and who don't have sources of income other than their savings -- which have dwindled dramatically. They don't deserve to live with the fear they now feel. I'm still living in a rental apartment because I didn't want to take out a loan I couldn't pay back. I saved money. Invested it. And now my investments are down 70 percent. But it is what it is. And when we wake up in the morning we are left with the question, "Now what?" It's actually a great question, because in a situation in which we've lost control, it gives us a little back. "Now what?" means we have a choice, in this moment, to do something. What's it going to be? I think it's a mistake to try to rebuild what we've lost. We have less now and I think we can do better with less. Having less forces choices. And consciously making those choices can bring us closer to the things we care about. Which can make a poorer life richer than a rich one. Because the research is clear. Above a basic threshold, more money doesn't make us happier. But we think it will, so we do all sorts of things that make us unhappy in order to get it. A senior leader in an investment bank called to tell me she was leaving her job. She realized she wouldn't make much money in the next few years and didn't want to miss her children growing up. Did you get that? She was willing to miss her children growing up if the money was good enough. People act in ways they'd rather not in order to make money that doesn't make them happy. Maybe, if we do this downturn right, we can get out of that cycle. So, what makes you happy? Is it spending time with people you love? Working on a pet project? Having the time to exercise? Being part of a community and feeling cared for? Knowing the answer enables you to make decisions that will prioritize those things. Of course, losing money can break people apart; we fight about money, people lose jobs and get depressed; tension rises as mortgage bills sit on the kitchen table unpaid; resentment builds when one person doesn't live up to his own and others' expectations. But I am also seeing the opposite. Losing money can bring you

What did Peter Bregman say people during the boom sacrifice to obtain more money?

What does Peter Bregman suggest people should do during hard times?

Does Bregman think money increases happiness?

Answer: they loved

Answer: chief executive of

Answer: good times

Answer: sacrifice

Answer: doesn't make us happier.

Summary:
Peter Bregman: In the boom, people sacrificed their joys for more money .
He says beyond a certain point, money doesn't increase happiness .
Bregman: Use hard times to evaluate what makes you happy and pursue it .