Editor's note: Janet Tavakoli is president of Chicago-based Tavakoli Structured Finance and the author of "Dear Mr. Buffett: What An Investor Learns 1,269 Miles From Wall Street" (Wiley, 2009), a book about the causes of the global financial meltdown. Her company is a consulting firm for institutions and institutional investors on derivatives, the securitization of assets, and mergers and acquisitions. Her firm has done work for investment banks but not for Goldman Sachs; she worked for the company in the 1980s. Janet Tavakoli says Goldman Sachs' record profits were enabled by the taxpayer-funded bailout. CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. announced record earnings Tuesday of $3.44 billion for the second quarter of 2009. Goldman's stock price leapt 77 percent for the first half of 2009, and closed Tuesday at $149.66 a share. Without an ongoing series of front- and backdoor bailouts financed by U.S. taxpayers, most of Goldman's record profits would not have been possible. In April 2009, Goldman Sachs' CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, who received record salary and bonus compensation of $68.5 million in 2007, said that bonus decisions made before the credit crisis looked "self-serving and greedy in hindsight." Now, they look self-serving and greedy with foresight. Goldman set aside $11.4 billion for employee compensation and benefits, up 33 percent from last year. That's enough to pay each employee more than $390,000, just for the first six months of this year. In June, Goldman bought back its preferred shares, repaying $10 billion it received from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, and setting it free of limits on executive compensation and dividends. But pay is not the key issue. U.S. taxpayers deserve a large cut of the profits, not the chump change -- less than a half-billion dollars -- they got from preferred shares in the company and the relatively small amount they could get from warrants in its stock. U.S. taxpayers should insist that a large part of Goldman's revenues and profits belong to the American public. TARP money was just part of a series of bailouts and concessions that allowed Goldman to prosper at the expense of a flawed regulatory system. In March 2008, Goldman, a primary dealer in Treasury securities, was among the beneficiaries of a massive backdoor bailout by the Federal Reserve Bank. At the time, Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, was treasury secretary. In an unprecedented move, the Fed created a Term Securities Lending Facility, or TSLF, that allowed primary dealers like Goldman to give non-government-guaranteed "triple-A" rated assets to the Fed in exchange for loans. The trouble was that everyone knew the triple-A assets were not the safe securities they were advertised to be. Many were backed by mortgage loans that were failing at super speed. The bailout of American International Group, or AIG, ballooned from $85 billion in September 2008 to $182.5 billion. Of that money, $90 billion was funneled as collateral payments to banks that traded with AIG. American taxpayers may never see a dime of their bailout money again, but Goldman saw plenty. Goldman may be the largest indirect beneficiary of AIG's bailout, receiving $12.9 billion in collateral, including securities lending transactions, from AIG after the government bailed out the insurance company. The key question is whether Goldman asked AIG to insure products that were as dodgy as the doomed deal from Goldman Sachs Alternative Mortgage Products exposed by Fortune's Allan Sloan in his October 16, 2007, Loeb Award-winning article: "Junk Mortgages Under the Microscope." If the federal government had not intervened and if AIG had gone into bankruptcy, Goldman probably would not have received its $12.9 billion from AIG. U.S. taxpayers and the American economy are owed some of the bailout money passed directly through AIG to Goldman. Wall Street firms also reaped trading windfalls when AIG needed to close out its derivative transactions. This was the most lucrative windfall business in the history of the derivatives markets. When AIG left money

Who deserves a large share of what Goldman made?

In what quarter did Goldman Sachs report record profits?

Goldman and Wall Street brought down what country's economy?

Answer: Group Inc. announced record earnings Tuesday of $3.44 billion for the second quarter of 2009.

Answer: U.S. taxpayers

Answer: second

Answer: CHICAGO, Illinois

Answer: Goldman Sachs' record profits were enabled by the taxpayer-funded bailout.

Answer: $3.44 billion for the second quarter of 2009.

Answer: Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Answer: U.S.

Summary:
Tavakoli: Goldman Sachs reported record second-quarter profits .
She says Goldman and Wall Street helped bring down the U.S. economy .
Goldman reaped huge profit enabled by help it got in federal bailout, she says .
Tavakoli: Taxpayers deserve a large share of what Goldman made .


Editor's note: Jared L. Cohon is president of Carnegie Mellon University. Jared Cohon says Pittsburgh shows the power of education and innovation to revive an economy in crisis. (CNN) -- This week the international community is converging on my chosen hometown of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as heads of state gather for the G20 summit. Pittsburgh may seem like an unlikely choice for such a high-profile event, but a closer look shows why this city personifies the transformative power of education and research, and how the practical application of innovation can drive growth and improvement in quality of life the world over. Pittsburgh is a city that was largely written off as a rusted industrial center. But as heads of state from around the world tour the city this week, they will see running trails replacing former industrial railways and they will find green hotels and LEED-certified buildings rising where abandoned steel mills once stood. These changes are creating jobs, bringing new commerce and making Pittsburgh the most livable city in the United States, according to the Economist magazine. President Obama has praised our city as a "bold example" of the new green economy. A significant part of Pittsburgh's renaissance can be attributed to its two major research universities: Carnegie Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh. Having one such institution is an advantage in today's global economy; having two (very close to each other) puts Pittsburgh in a very small group of American cities. The shape of today's research university, with its heavy dependence on federally sponsored research, can be traced to World War II and its immediate aftermath, with a major boost a decade later when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik. But what began as a response to national security threats has turned into the engine of America's -- and the world's -- prosperity. As my colleague, the Dean of Carnegie Mellon's College of Engineering, Pradeep Khosla has written, the industries that have fueled economic growth have come out of the American research university enterprise. Biotechnology, nanotechnology, digital communications, and computers and software that have improved our quality of life and economic standing all have their origins in research universities. The companies that apply this research create jobs and fuel economic growth and wealth generation in ways that the world has never before experienced. According to one report prepared for the White House, 50 percent of the growth in the American economy in the last 40 years has been due to investments in research and development. Obviously, the private sector is a major driver of R&D, but federally funded research at universities throughout the United States plays a key role. The presence of a major research university does not, by itself, guarantee economic progress beyond the direct jobs that the university creates. Realizing the full potential of a university depends on effectively tapping into the brilliance and ingenuity of its faculty and students and the innovations they create. Technology commercialization -- shaping a bright idea into a commercially successful product -- has been described as a "contact sport". It requires an innovative and entrepreneurial campus culture and an ecosystem surrounding it that supports technology-based economic development with facilities, money and people who know how to take ideas to the market. More than a decade ago, Carnegie Mellon embraced Pittsburgh's economic development as one of its institutional strategic priorities. We changed our technology transfer policies to make it easier and faster for our faculty and alumni to create local companies based on our technology. We joined forces with the University of Pittsburgh and partnered with state and local government and industry to strengthen the entrepreneurial ecosystem on which we all rely. Today, there are more than 200 Pittsburgh companies commercializing Carnegie Mellon technology. Our economic development efforts have also included company attraction. With state and local government support, we built a building on campus for global technology companies, which see value in being so close to our faculty and students. There are now hundreds of new jobs in that building, created by Intel, Google and Apple. Disney set up their first research lab here, but they're across the street -- the new building is full. The success of the American research

Answer: federally funded research at universities

Summary:
Jared Cohon: Pittsburgh economy has been reinvented through innovation .
He says universities have played a key role in economic revival .
He says G-20 meeting focuses attention on role of universities .
Cohon: Nations must focus on key role of education and research .


Editor's note: Jay S. Winuk, co-founder of MyGoodDeed, is the brother of Glenn J. Winuk, an attorney and volunteer firefighter and EMT who died in the line of duty when the South Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed on September 11, 2001. This week Glenn was posthumously honored with the 9/11 Heroes Medal of Valor from the United States of America. Jay Winuk says September 11 is best observed as a day of service to others. NEW YORK (CNN) -- The upcoming eighth anniversary of the attacks of September 11 raises a compelling question for millions of Americans: How should we best observe this uniquely tragic day in our nation's history? Surely, it should not be a holiday. This is no time for days off from work and three-day weekends to enjoy barbeques and white sales. No, September 11 is a day for reflection, and its historical and emotional significance should not lessen with time or be diminished in any way. It is a day to focus on the substantial lessons learned. I'm a 9/11 family member. My brave brother, Glenn J. Winuk, was a partner at a large law firm, Holland & Knight, located two blocks from the World Trade Center. For almost 20 years Glenn was also a volunteer firefighter and an emergency medical technician. When the Towers were hit, Glenn borrowed rescue equipment and ran from safety toward the South Tower to participate in the rescue effort. He died when the South Tower collapsed. Soon after the attacks, I co-founded, with my friend David Paine and other 9/11 family members and friends, a grassroots initiative called MyGoodDeed. Our goal? To establish the anniversary of September 11, 2001 as an annually recognized national day of service. Our widely shared view was that there would be no better way to pay tribute to those thousands lost and those millions who rose in spontaneous, compassionate and effective service to help rebuild our spirit and our nation in the aftermath of the attacks. Supported by all the leading 9/11 family, survivor and volunteer organizations, the initiative has since attracted the attention and participation of millions of people around the world, from all 50 states and more than 170 nations and territories. People choose whatever form of kindness and service they'd like to perform each 9/11. And with acts large and small, they are making a real difference in the lives of people and communities in need. Some make donations -- clothing, books, eyeglasses, money, blood. Some help repair schools and parks and beaches. Some send care packages to our troops overseas, or work in soup kitchens. Some read to the blind, or visit the elderly. This Sunday, retired New York Giants great George Martin is leading a fundraising walk from New York to New Jersey to raise money for the health care of thousands of rescue and recovery workers of Ground Zero who are ailing as a result of their service after 9/11. There is no limit to what people can do to participate. Of note is that just like those who died in the horror of that September morning, those who engage in service on 9/11 represent a wide range of political preferences, ages, races, religions, economic status and geographic locations. Unlike as suggested recently by some conservative journalists and bloggers, this 9/11 service phenomenon is not new and is certainly not about some kind of liberal agenda intended to diminish the meaning of September 11 or redefine it for political gain. Indeed, the notion of engaging in service to mark each 9/11 began during the Bush administration, and has been widely supported by both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill. In fact, in 2004 the U.S. Congress unanimously passed House Congressional Resolution 473, saying the anniversary of September 11 should be a national day of service and compassion. In April of this year, President Obama signed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, substantially bi-partisan legislation that included a provision formally establishing September 11 as a "National Day of Service and Remembrance." The 9/11 community largely applauded this major step forward. And as I watched the president sign this legislation

Does President Obama support 9/11 as a national day of service?

What day should you not skip work or go shopping?

Which day in September is recognized as a national day of service?

On which day in September do people choose to do acts of kindness?

Answer: signed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, substantially bi-partisan legislation that included a provision formally establishing September 11 as a "National

Answer: co-founder of MyGoodDeed,

Answer: September 11

Answer: 11

Answer: 11,

Summary:
Jay Winuk: 9/11 has been recognized as a national day of service .
He says it's not a day to skip work or go shopping .
He says people choose to do acts of kindness, large or small .
Winuk: There's no political agenda, Bush and Obama have supported it .


Editor's note: Jeffrey D. Sachs is director of the Earth Institute and a professor at Columbia University. He also serves as special advisor to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on the U.N. Millennium Development Goals. From 2002 to 2006, he was director of the U.N. Millennium Project. He is president and co-founder of Millennium Promise, a nonprofit organization aimed at ending extreme global poverty and achieving the Millennium Development Goals. He has twice been named among the 100 most influential leaders in the world by Time magazine and is the author of the bestsellers "Common Wealth" and "The End of Poverty." Jeff Sachs says the G-20 countries must take steps to cushion the poor from the financial crisis. (CNN) -- The G-20 meeting in London, England, on April 2 will be watched by the entire world with urgency and with a yearning for hope, vision and programmatic clarity. The preparatory work is not adequate. The G-20 discussions do not move sufficiently beyond financial regulation. I would like to suggest the following main points for G-20 leadership in the global recovery. The G-20 needs to combine stimulus, economic development and sustainability: stimulus to get the world recession reversed, development to ensure that all of the world (not merely the rich countries or the G-20) shares in the benefits, and sustainability to address the world's grave risks of climate change, water stress and loss of biodiversity. The world's 3 billion poor, especially the 1 billion poorest of the poor, are suffering powerful and destabilizing blows from the crisis, and these will get worse and threaten global security unless there is specific attention and action. The G-20 cannot limit its focus to regulating the financial sector, reforming the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, avoiding protectionism and reciting the measures that individual countries are taking. This would leave the world gasping for direction and hope. The G-20 must offer a vision that is big enough to quell global fears and action bold enough to protect the desperately poor while guiding the cooperative decision-making of the world's economic authorities. The G-20 must push forward based on real policy coordination. The world does not have a system of effective cooperation. The United States, for example, does not engage in comprehensive and deep coordination with other countries. The poor countries, with half the world's population, and the poorest countries, with roughly one-fifth of the world's population, have not been brought into the equation. The G-20 package for stimulus should include: First, fulfillment by all countries of stimulus measures already announced and a commitment to undertake new joint stimulus measures, especially priority public outlays on infrastructure, the social safety net and sustainable energy, as may be needed during the coming years. Second, establishment of a high-level G-20 coordination group, backed especially by China, the European Union, Japan and the United States, to work full-time on coordinating monetary, fiscal and financial policies for stimulus and long-term recovery. Such cooperative macroeconomic programming does not now exist. Third, increased currency support extended from the world's five major central banks (the U.S. Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and the People's Bank of China) for emerging market economies facing the loss of loans from international banks (e.g. Eastern Europe). The Fed's currency swap lines to Brazil, Mexico, Korea and Singapore last fall played an important stabilizing role. The other central banks can and should do more, as can the Fed vis-à-vis other countries. Fourth, a G-20 commitment to gradual and orderly currency readjustments to help rebalance the world's financial and trade flows. The Asian currencies should gradually appreciate against the euro, which in turn should appreciate gradually against the dollar. Squabbling about bilateral rates between the dollar and Chinese renmenbi should be put to rest. G-20 actions for the poor should include: First, establishment of an urgent special food security program, which would make grants to low-income, food-deficit countries (including Africa, Haiti, Afghanistan and elsewhere

What group must do more than just financial regulation

What number of poor are suffering from the global economic crisis

Answer: The G-20 discussions

Answer: especially the 1 billion poorest of the

Answer: G-20

Summary:
Jeffrey Sachs: When G-20 meets, it must do more than just financial regulation .
He says the world's 3 billion poor are suffering from global economic crisis .
Sachs: World needs food security plan for poor nations with aid from U.S., others .
He says health and clean energy should be key priorities for the G-20 .


Editor's note: Jeffrey Wright is a stage and screen actor who has won a Tony, Emmy and Golden Globe. Wright has appeared in "Angels in America," "Basquiat," "The Manchurian Candidate," "Syriana," "W." and "Casino Royale." Actor Jeffrey Wright says a nation that put a man on the moon should be able to take race out of policing. NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Obama expressed what many Americans feel regarding the recent arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis "Skip" Gates -- that the Cambridge, Massachusetts, police responded "stupidly." Obama is catching some flak for that, but I applaud him for having had the courage to speak his heart and mind. I wonder if the president himself has ever experienced the blunt end of racial profiling, or if he personally knows of anyone other than Professor Gates who has. Among African-American males in this country, the small minority is those who have not or do not. Did some prior experience or knowledge inform his response about the Gates incident? I have no facts to back this up, but, to me, it seemed personal. If it was, I understand. I was arrested last July in Shreveport, Louisiana, outside a bar where dozens of members of the cast and crew of the movie "W." and I had gathered to celebrate the end of filming. There was no bar brawl as widely reported -- nor even a pre-election political argument. Nine police cars and a fire engine responded; seven people were arrested. Two of the seven suffered minor head wounds at the hands of the Shreveport police. Josh Brolin and I were pepper sprayed by cops, and while face down in the street, I was made to feel the business end of a Taser. The truth of what led to the whole morass has never been accurately reported. I was asked to leave the bar by a white female bartender who took exception to a comment I made. As with Professor Gates, the police in my case backed unquestioningly the suspicion of a white woman that the black man she accused must be guilty of something. Once that die of accusation was cast, a ghost of racial bias, misperception, and the potential abuse of police authority was set free to make mischief. The bar was one of two places in downtown Shreveport that serves food after 10 p.m. A few nights before my arrest, I had gone there very late after work to grab a bite to eat. It was before closing, and there were a few customers and employees inside, but the door was locked. I knocked and asked, over the music streaming from inside, if I might buy a small pizza. The bartender insisted that they were closed. "Whatever," I said with a shrug of resignation and walked back to my hotel room. Four nights later and in a festive mood, we gathered at this same establishment. Upon seeing the bartender who had a few nights before told me that the place was closed, I asked her for a drink, which she poured. I quipped, "Ah you're going to serve me tonight!" At that, she pulled the drink away and told me that I had to leave. I asked if she was kidding. She went on to say that if I didn't leave, she would call the police. As I stepped away to tell friends what had happened, a call was made to Shreveport police. Two cops, the first of many, arrived in minutes, and I was physically escorted outside although neither of them had the curiosity to ask what had transpired before they arrived. A mess ensued. To their credit, Josh and the others arrested followed me outside with a few others from our group. The cops physically released me and were seeming to be ready to let me go altogether when, out of the corner of my eye, I saw another member of the film crew driven headlong into the sidewalk by two newly arrived cops. Josh verbally objected to their actions, at which point

who catches flak for remarks on professor's arrest?

who applauds Obama for having courage to speak his mind?

Answer: Obama

Answer: Jeffrey Wright

Answer: Actor Jeffrey Wright

Answer: Obama

Answer: having had the courage to speak his heart and mind.

Summary:
Jeffrey Wright: President Obama catches flak for remarks on professor's arrest .
Wright applauds Obama for having courage to speak his mind .
Actor says he too was victim of arrest in which race played a part .
He says political leaders need to address race and policing .


Editor's note: Jim Rogers is chief executive officer of Charlotte, North Carolina-based Duke Energy, which generates much of its power from coal-burning plants and is making investments in clean energy technology in China. Jonathan Lash is the president of the World Resources Institute. Ming Sung is Asia Pacific representative of the Clean Air Task Force.

Jim Rogers, CEO of coal-burning Duke Energy, wants the U.S. to join with China against greenhouse gases.

(CNN) -- There is a lot of rhetoric on Main Street and in our nation's Capitol these days portraying China as a job-stealing polluter whose economy is growing at the expense of the United States.

But business leaders and policy advocates who work in China see a different picture: a China that is investing heavily in innovation and determined to win the global race to supply its citizens and the world with clean energy technologies.

China is the largest producer of solar water heaters, with 50 percent of the world's production and 65 percent of all installations.

It produces 30 percent of the world's photovoltaic sets and is installing wind turbines faster than any other nation.

China's expanding middle class is increasingly mobile, with more than 50 million electric bicycles, and China is developing the first mass-produced plug-in hybrid electric car.

The country has 14 nuclear power plants under construction and plans to start 10 more next year.

Although there has been much talk about creating "green jobs" in the United States, China leads the world with its massive investment in energy efficiency and renewable power.

China's growth has come with a heavy price: pollution.

China produces 80 percent of its electricity from coal and now leads the world in greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants.

Dirty air and contaminated water affect many millions of Chinese and are two of the nation's most serious problems.

Although the United States has made great strides in reducing pollution in recent decades, we are still the world's second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, with emissions per capita four times higher than China's.

Our nation is also heavily dependent on coal and imported oil. We are moving ahead in solar energy, wind and efficiency, but we are doing so in a fragmented, state-by-state approach that reflects our democracy and regulatory structures.

By forging relationships with leading Chinese state-owned and private energy and technology companies, U.S. companies -- at times working with the federal government -- can create a "ladder of cooperation" with the Chinese to lead the world forward on climate change.

We will not climb this ladder overnight but one rung at a time.

With the United Nations' climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, just two months away, it is imperative that our two nations establish a more trusting, give-and-take relationship upon which good business partnerships are built.

The World Resources Institute, the Clean Air Task Force and Duke Energy have started this work, with great prospects for results.

WRI, an independent, non-partisan environmental research organization, is working with China to calculate its greenhouse emissions as a key part of its next national Five-Year Plan to advance its economy.

The intent is to develop reportable and verifiable measures in the plan that could facilitate China's participation in an international climate agreement.

Duke Energy recently announced a memorandum of understanding with the China Huaneng Group, China's largest power generator, and the ENN Group, one of the nation's largest private energy companies.

The focus of these efforts is to cooperatively develop and commercialize an array of clean energy technologies.

The Clean Air Task Force -- an environmental organization advancing clean technology in the United States and China -- is pivotal to Duke Energy efforts.

It has created a network of a dozen Chinese and U.S. companies to develop joint business ventures to build advanced, low-carbon coal technology in China and around the world.

This network is expanding to include an array of other renewable and clean energy technologies.

Historically, Americans have known little about China and, at times, are

who are the biggest polluters
what do the authors want
Who should cooperate?

Answer: China

Answer: the U.S. to join with China against greenhouse gases.

Answer: United States and China

Summary:
Authors urge 80 percent less greenhouse gas by 2050 .
They want big polluters U.S., China to cooperate .
Goal: Create path for Chinese participation in climate agreement, authors say .
They say Clean Air Task Force to build low-carbon coal technology in China .


Editor's note: John Feehery worked as a staffer for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republicans in Congress. He is president of Feehery Group, a Washington-based advocacy firm that has represented clients including the News Corp., Ford Motor Co. and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He formerly was a government relations executive vice president for the Motion Picture Association of America. John Feehery says Al Franken's victory gives liberal Democrats a dominant position in Washington (CNN) -- The metric system is the kind of thing that you can expect from the 60-vote filibuster-proof majority Democrats now have in the United States Senate. After the Watergate scandal in 1974, Democrats trounced Republicans in the mid-term elections, getting 61 seats in the Senate and 291 in the House. In the Senate, they adjusted the rules to make it harder for Republicans to filibuster (reducing the magic number from 67 to 60 to invoke cloture, which ends debate). In the House, they passed all kinds of reforms to take power away from senior members and give it to junior members. And Congress mandated that the American people embrace the metric system. The metric system idea never really caught on, and although the pain of Watergate afflicted Republicans for another two elections, they eventually pulled themselves out of their deep hole, with some good ideas and a charismatic leader, who promised to restore America to greatness. Democrats have once again reached the magic number of 60, as Norm Coleman finally threw in the towel against the one-time joke writer for Saturday Night Live, Al Franken. Republicans have little reason to laugh, though, as they look at their diminished ranks and wonder how they have put themselves in such a weakened position. It was only four-and-a-half years ago that the GOP was on the top of the world, and some of their more smug strategists were confidently predicting a permanent Republican majority. This is a good time for such self-reflection. Republicans lost three top-notch senators in the last election -- Norm Coleman, Gordon Smith and John Sununu -- who lost not because they were bad senators, or because they had scandals, or because they had lost touch with constituents. All three lost because they were Republicans. In other words, the brand killed them. And if you look at the latest polls, the GOP brand hasn't gotten any better in the last six months. In fact, according to Gallup, even 38 percent of Republicans have a negative view of the Republican Party. But let's not throw in the towel yet, my Republican friends. Just as in the mid-1970s, when Democratic overreach led to a Republican resurgence, the house that Franken has built will inevitably collapse on its own leftward-self. A new Gallup poll shows that the American people are starting to catch on that Democrats are pushing the country to a place that it doesn't want to go. The poll "finds a statistically significant increase since last year in the percentage of Americans who describe the Democratic Party's views as being "too liberal," from 39 percent to 46 percent. This is the largest percentage saying so since November 1994, after the party's losses in that year's midterm elections." It is no surprise that Americans would have that impression of Democrats in the White House and in Congress. When they passed a so-called stimulus bill that Republicans branded as pork-filled, they lost their credibility on fiscal responsibility. When the president assumed control over General Motors, dictated terms to Chrysler, and then refused to allow some banks to pay back their TARP loans, independent voters grew nervous about the government's stepped-up intervention in the private sector. And last week, when Democrats passed a climate change bill that Republicans insist will sharply raise energy prices for middle-class families, moderate Democrats started to jump ship. In fact, 44 Democrats defied intense pressure from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and voted no. Democrats are now making plans to intervene in the health care marketplace, with some liberals insisting on a government-run

What does Feehery do?
Feehery says what about Democrats?
Where are liberals dominant?

Answer: president of Feehery Group,

Answer: a dominant position in Washington

Answer: Washington

Summary:
John Feehery: The Republican Party is struggling, but isn't dead .
He says there are five good reasons to think the GOP will bounce back .
U.S. system is designed to provide checks on the majority party, he says .
Republicans are in position for creative thinking about ideas, Feehery says .


Editor's note: John Feehery worked for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republicans in Congress. He is president of Feehery Group, a Washington-based advocacy firm that has represented clients that include News Corp., Ford Motor Co. and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He formerly was a government relations executive vice president for the Motion Picture Association of America. John Feehery says he's proud Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, but now the president needs to earn it. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Usually, when a president wins the Nobel Peace Prize, it is uniformly seen as a positive development for America and for the world. Both opponents and allies tend to celebrate the fact that an American president actually got recognized by a bunch of Norwegians for something he achieved. But with Barack Obama, who surprisingly picked up his first Nobel Prize on Friday, the reaction was not altogether positive from either the left or the right. You would expect that conservatives would raise questions about the president's award. Conservatives raise questions about everything the president does. But liberals also joined in. Mickey Kaus of Slate said that the president should say thanks, but no thanks. "Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he's honored but he hasn't had the time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish." Liberal columnist Richard Cohen wrote a mocking column, comparing Obama's award to a fictional award given to Sarah Palin for promising to "read a book someday." We are all glad that Norway loves Obama, but come on. Let's get serious. I am reminded of when Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf decided to retire the jersey of longtime White Sox player Harold Baines. It was a little premature for Baines to get his uniform retired when he himself was playing for another team. (Baines played a couple more years, surely the only instance where a player's uniform was retired before the player was.) Awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize is similarly premature. In fact, the White House seemed as surprised as anybody about the gesture. I imagine that when Obama first picked up the line, he thought it was a crank call. "I won what?" he must have exclaimed. But it is no joke. It seems that President Obama won his first Nobel Peace Prize, for, well, being President Obama. Just the very idea of a President Obama is enough to make the Nobel Selection Committee swoon. The president said he was humbled by this award. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, he has much to be humble about. When it comes to peace, it is hard to see what notable accomplishments have been achieved thus far in the Obama presidency. That is not a slap at him. Peace takes time. It took John Hume and David Trimble about 30 years of really hard and dangerous work in Northern Ireland before they got a Nobel Peace Prize. And despite all of that hard work, peace and reconciliation is still elusive in that region. Mr. Obama hasn't even been able to get a peace deal between Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who continue to snipe at each other over the health care public option and Afghanistan. Peace hasn't exactly broken out in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, or Iran either. Nobel Prizes usually go for some fairly notable accomplishments. Nelson Mandela spent much of his life protesting apartheid and serving a prison sentence. He is a man who deserved a peace prize. Mikhail Gorbachev allowed the Soviet Union to collapse without much of a whimper. That was an accomplishment that deserved a peace prize. But what exactly has President Obama done to deserve such an award? And if he actually does something in the future, does that mean he gets another one? Apparently, the voting on the peace prize started shortly after the president was sworn in. Perhaps he is getting the peace prize because of his inaugural address. Yep, a lot of people came to that speech, and peace mostly reigned on that day (except for those people with tickets to the Inauguration who got stuck

Who was elected president?
who won nobel prize?
Whose  win surprised the right?

Answer: Dennis Hastert

Answer: Obama

Answer: Barack Obama,

Summary:
John Feehery: Obama's Nobel Prize win surprised the right, the left, Obama himself .
Hard to see any notable achievements for peace by Obama so far, Feehery says .
He says Obama won because he was elected president and wasn't George Bush .
Obama voters should share the prize, because they elected him, Feehery says .


Editor's note: John M. McCardell Jr., president emeritus at Middlebury College, is founder and president of Choose Responsibility, a nonprofit organization that seeks to engage the public in debate over the effects of the 21-year-old drinking age. John McCardell says the 21-year-old drinking age isn't preventing widespread binge drinking. (CNN) -- One year ago, a group of college and university presidents and chancellors, eventually totaling 135, issued a statement that garnered national attention. The "Amethyst Initiative" put a debate proposition before the public -- "Resolved: That the 21-year-old drinking age is not working." It offered, in much the way a grand jury performs its duties, sufficient evidence for putting the proposition to the test. It invited informed and dispassionate public debate and committed the signatory institutions to encouraging that debate. And it called on elected officials not to continue assuming that, after 25 years, the status quo could not be challenged, even improved. One year later, the drinking age debate continues, and new research reinforces the presidential impulse. Just this summer a study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry revealed that, among college-age males, binge drinking is unchanged from its levels of 1979; that among non-college women it has increased by 20 percent; and that among college women it has increased by 40 percent. Remarkably, the counterintuitive conclusion drawn by the investigators, and accepted uncritically by the media, including editorials in The New York Times and The Washington Post is that the study proves that raising the drinking age to 21 has been a success. More recently, a study of binge drinking published in the Journal of the American Medical Association announced that "despite efforts at prevention, the prevalence of binge drinking among college students is continuing to rise, and so are the harms associated with it." Worse still, a related study has shown that habits formed at 18 die hard: "For each year studied, a greater percentage of 21- to 24-year-olds [those who were of course once 18, 19 and 20] engaged in binge drinking and driving under the influence of alcohol." Yet, in the face of mounting evidence that those young adults age 18 to 20 toward whom the drinking age law has been directed are routinely -- indeed in life- and health-threatening ways -- violating it, there remains a belief in the land that a minimum drinking age of 21 has been a "success." And elected officials are periodically reminded of a provision in the 1984 law that continues to stifle any serious public debate in our country's state legislative chambers: Any state that sets its drinking age lower than 21 forfeits 10 percent of its annual federal highway appropriation. But it's not 1984 anymore. This statement may seem obvious, but not necessarily. In 1984 Congress passed and the president signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. The Act, which raised the drinking age to 21 under threat of highway fund withholding, sought to address the problem of drunken driving fatalities. And indeed, that problem was serious. States that lowered their ages during the 1970s and did nothing else to prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol witnessed an alarming increase in alcohol-related traffic fatalities. It was as though the driving age were lowered but no drivers education were provided. The results were predictable. Now, 25 years later, we are in a much different, and better, place. Thanks to the effective public advocacy of organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, we are far more aware of the risks of drinking and driving. Automobiles are much safer. Seatbelts and airbags are mandatory. The "designated driver" is now a part of our vocabulary. And more and more states are mandating ignition interlocks for first-time DUI offenders, perhaps the most effective way to get drunken drivers off the road. And the statistics are encouraging. Alcohol-related fatalities have declined over the last 25 years. Better still, they have declined in all age groups, though the greatest number of deaths occurs at age 21,

What did 135 college officers question?
What does McCardell say about alcohol?

Answer: the 21-year-old drinking age

Answer: 21-year-old drinking age isn't preventing widespread binge drinking.

Summary:
John McCardell: 135 college officers joined in questioning 21 as drinking age .
He says binge drinking is flourishing in locked rooms and remote areas .
He says U.S. is one of very few countries with such a high drinking age .
McCardell says alcohol is a reality in lives of 18- to 20-year-olds .


Editor's note: John Rice is founder and CEO of Management Leadership for Tomorrow (MLT), a New York-based national nonprofit organization seeking to develop "the next generation of African American, Hispanic and Native American leaders in major corporations, nonprofit organizations and entrepreneurial ventures." John Rice says there's a tremendous need for new leaders in the nonprofit world. NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Obama has challenged all Americans to participate in the volunteer service movement and to support initiatives that help solve the problems that plague our communities. He recently introduced the Social Innovation Fund, intended to help increase the impact of the most effective and innovative nonprofits in our communities. This is a tremendous step in the right direction, but in order to expand these initiatives, we need a broader pool of leaders with a deep understanding of the communities they are serving and who have the skills, experience and relationships required to succeed in leadership roles. According to the Bridgespan Group, a leading nonprofit consulting firm, the number of vacant senior manager roles in the nonprofit arena is ever increasing, with 24,000 positions available in 2009 alone. Over the next 10 years, this sector will need to attract and develop more than two times the number of people currently employed in order to fill these roles. This next generation of leaders must come from within the communities that struggle most, as these leaders are the most passionate about making change and have the most to gain if successful.   Watch John Rice on preparing for leadership roles » The good news is that there is an incredible desire among young African-Americans to give back to their communities. Darren Smith is a young investment banker who grew up in one of New York's underserved neighborhoods and won a scholarship to Baruch College in New York, where he graduated with honors. If you were to ask him what he wants to accomplish in his life, he will say that he aspires to do two things: become a business leader and build a nonprofit that has a large impact in the community in which he grew up. He believes that developing strong business skills, broad relationships and a track record of success will prepare him to maximize his impact in the community. Smith is one of thousands of talented African-American students and young professionals eager to become corporate or entrepreneurial leaders in sectors such as finance, technology, consulting and entertainment, where they have a broad sphere of influence that extends into their communities. Yet minority leaders remain dramatically under-represented in leadership positions and in the pipeline to those roles. Despite representing 13.5 percent of the U.S. population, African-Americans hold less than 3 percent of senior executive positions and represent only 5 percent of MBA graduates. To address this issue, I founded Management Leadership for Tomorrow (MLT), a nonprofit that provides high-potential young people such as Smith with the "key ingredients" they need to realize their career potential -- the step by step career roadmap, coaching and mentoring, hard and soft skill development, door-opening relationships and a high-performing peer community. Every senior leader would say they would not be where they are today if they had not gotten some or all of these ingredients, but remarkably these key ingredients are not taught in even the best schools. Instead they are passed down through informal channels to which minorities still have more limited access. As a result, too many African-Americans who overcome a challenging home environment and troubled K-12 education system to attend college are not achieving their full career potential. Here at MLT, we have had exciting results to date: nearly 40 percent of the minority students at top business schools such as Harvard, Wharton and Kellogg completed MLT's MBA Prep program and 95 percent of the undergraduates who complete our Career Prep program land fast-track jobs at America's leading firms across all sectors. While participating in MLT's Career Prep program as a college student, Smith and several other MLT fellows founded a mentoring organization that prepares high school students from New York's most underserved communities for college. Like Smith, nearly 90 percent of our alumni desire to launch or

What does John Rice say?
What does Rice say is crucial?
He says there's a huge need for what?

Answer: there's a tremendous need for new leaders in the nonprofit world.

Answer: for new leaders in the nonprofit world.

Answer: new leaders in the nonprofit world.

Summary:
John Rice: President Obama is stressing need for national service .
He says there's a huge need for leaders in the nonprofit world .
Rice: It's crucial to train leaders from minority communities .
He says these leaders can help change communities in desperate need .


Editor's note: Join Roland S. Martin for his weekly sound-off segment on CNN.com Live at 10:30 a.m. ET Wednesday. If you're passionate about politics, he wants to hear from you. A nationally syndicated columnist, Martin has said he will vote for Barack Obama in November. He is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith" and "Speak, Brother! A Black Man's View of America." Visit his Web site for more information. Roland S. Martin says Lifeway Christian Stores should be given hell for its actions against GospelToday. (CNN) -- In the 19 years that Teresa Hairston has published her magazine, GospelToday, she has never faced a major situation with Christian bookstores across the country that carry the publication. She's tackled any number of issues over the years,and has featured a number of celebrities and ministers, ranging from Yolanda Adams to Bishop T.D. Jakes to Kirk Franklin. But when the Atlanta, Georgia, entrepreneur decided to feature five female pastors on her cover this month, she says, Lifeway Christian Stores treated her like she had converted her Christian publication to something akin to the tastes of porn purveyor Larry Flynt. Apparently, the owner of Lifeway, the Southern Baptist Convention, wasn't too happy with Hairston telling the story of female pastors, because the women go against their 2000 decree that only men can serve in the role of reverend or pastor. According to Hairston, the Christian company didn't even give her the courtesy of a heads-up. "We got an anonymous tip," she told me Tuesday on The Tom Joyner Morning Show, and after checking it out, she discovered that the magazine had been removed from the shelves in all of Lifeway's 100-plus stores nationwide and had been placed behind the counter. "They have never called me," Hairston said. "Never sent an e-mail. Nothing. I had to go see my distributor to verify what they had done." The actions of Lifeway didn't stun me. I had seen this movie before. A few years ago, my wife was a longtime Lifeway teacher. She had taught at the company's teaching centers for years, but then one day, she was notified that she would have to take down her Web site and comply with their rules against female pastors or be dropped as a teacher. Her crime? Calling herself the Rev. Jacquie Hood Martin. It wasn't that she did so for the heck of it. She graduated from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; was the first female staff pastor at Houston's Brookhollow Baptist Church/the Church Without Walls, a Southern Baptist Convention church; and has been leading folks to the Lord all over the country for 20 years. She was angered by Lifeway's decision but made it clear that she didn't serve the bookstore or even the Southern Baptist Convention. She made a commitment to serving Jesus Christ and was not about to back away from her call to ministry because a male-dominated organization decided that its interpretation of the Bible calls for a woman not to be in the pulpit. So she cut them off and kept on calling herself the Rev. Jacquie Hood Martin. Religious folks will quickly say that Scripture is clear that women can't be pastors and lead men, yet Hairston says that when she featured Pastor Paula White on her cover two years ago, Lifeway didn't take any action against the magazine. Anyone who has served in a church or been a member of any faith knows that there are those who have strict interpretations of their faith's writings, while others have a different interpretation. I've heard Brookhollow's pastor, the Rev. Dr. Ralph Douglas West Sr., preach several sermons stating that what Paul wrote in 2 Timothy with regards to only men preaching was specific to that church and not a blanket ban. Second, there were instances where Paul wrote that his views were his own and not mandates from God. That is a doctrinal fight that any of us can have any time (and I love it how these same Bible thumpers ignore

What kind of publication was placed behind store counters?

Who was featured on the magazine's cover?

Where did Lifeway stores put Christian magazine?

What was featured on the cover of the magazine?

Who put a Christian magazine behind the counter?

Answer: magazine

Answer: Southern Baptist Convention,

Answer: five

Answer: Christian Stores should be given hell for its actions against GospelToday.

Answer: five

Answer: five

Answer: placed behind the counter.

Answer: celebrities

Answer: Lifeway's 100-plus stores nationwide

Summary:
Lifeway stores put Christian magazine behind counter .
Magazine featured female pastors on its cover .
Lifeway has no respect for freedom of the press, Martin says .
Lifeway, Southern Baptist Convention should apologize, he says .


Editor's note: Join Roland S. Martin for his weekly sound-off segment on CNN.com Live at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday. If you're passionate about politics, he wants to hear from you. A supporter of Sen. Barack Obama, Martin is a nationally syndicated columnist and Chicago, Illinois-based radio host. He is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith" and "Speak, Brother! A Black Man's View of America." Please visit his Web site. Roland S. Martin urges the candidates to stop with the lofty talk and simplistic solutions and be specific. (CNN) -- If you are a member of America's middle class in this presidential year, you are sort of like a blue-chip football recruit, lavished with praise, attention and adoration from fawning coaches and alumni who would love nothing better than to land the prized player to win the national championship. For "Coach" John McCain and "Coach" Barack Obama, the title to win is president of the United States, and like the big-time football coaches, they will say and do anything to make it happen. Tax cuts? Oh, absolutely, we don't want you to feel any more pain. Let the rich -- and the poor -- deal with carrying the burden. You want more jobs? Sure, we're going  to force companies that send jobs overseas to make them stay at home because we know you need those long disappearing and high-paying manufacturing jobs that helped build this nation. Can't afford to send your kids to college? Don't sweat it. We've got tax credits, Pell grants, super-duper loans and all kinds of other options to make this a reality. Are they cutting back on health care at your job? No big deal. Coach McCain says he's got some nifty tax credits lined up to tickle your fancy and ignite your soul. Coach Obama? He's going to go for the whole enchilada by pushing for virtual universal health care. Oh, these guys are wonderful with their sales pitches. They have the ability to make every single one of you feel so special and loved; no one else is more important to them -- at that moment. I must admit, the pathetic pining and pandering for middle-class votes has turned so moronic that at times it drives me nuts. First, who in the world are we even talking about? If you listen to the candidates and their campaigns, those in the middle class could make upward of $200,000 a year, while some suggest middle class means earning as little as $20,000. I moderated a panel Tuesday for the National Black MBA Association and heard descriptions of the lower middle class, the middle class and the upper middle class. Someone even suggested that it's really about a "state of mind." That's right. It boils down to how we feel and think. If that's the case, then you can have $5 million in the bank, but if you love your family, go to church and share the same values as others around you, you're middle class. Please, can we just stop with lofty talk and plain-spoken and simplistic solutions and be as specific as possible? There are really four fundamental issues affecting middle-class voters. Jobs We've seen a loss of 600,000 jobs under President Bush, so how exactly will McCain and Obama create jobs? Is there anything in their past that shows they have the ability to do just that? I've heard "drill, drill, drill!" from McCain, and Obama says we're going to turn the old textile and steel mills into a green machine by targeting wind and other sources of energy. Housing Congress is providing a backstop for Wall Street -- making billions available if cash is needed. What will McCain and Obama actually do to keep folks from losing their homes? Oh, I know a lot of people suggest that these middle-class folks should have read the fine print and not gotten

What did Martin say that candidates will offer?

What are the bigges middle-class issues?

What class are the candidates pandering to?

What class does Roland S. Martin say candidates offer anything and everything to snag?

What doe Martin say about "pathetic pining and pandering for middle-class votes"?

Answer: pathetic pining and pandering for middle-class votes

Answer: lofty talk and simplistic solutions

Answer: four fundamental

Answer: middle-class

Answer: middle-class

Answer: turned so moronic that at times it drives me nuts.

Answer: nationally syndicated columnist and Chicago, Illinois-based radio host.

Answer: pathetic pining and pandering for middle-class votes

Summary:
Roland S. Martin: Candidates offer anything and everything to snag middle class .
Martin: "Pathetic pining and pandering for middle-class votes ... moronic"
Martin: Jobs, housing, health care, education are the big middle-class issues .


Editor's note: Join Roland S. Martin for his weekly sound-off segment on CNN.com Live at 11:10 a.m. ET Thursday. If you're passionate about politics, he wants to hear from you. A nationally syndicated columnist and Chicago-based radio host, Martin has said he will vote for Barack Obama in November. He is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith" and "Speak, Brother! A Black Man's View of America." Visit his Web site for more information. Roland Martin says Gov. Sarah Palin talks tough but ducks a lot of difficult questions. (CNN) -- Do you know what was so great about Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Michael Jordan? They were three of the biggest trash talkers in the history of the NBA, but they had the game to back it up. Somebody should tell that to Gov. Sarah Palin. Sen. John McCain's vice presidential running mate has been running around the country, firing up her -- yes, her, and not necessarily McCain's -- loyal supporters by blasting Sen. Barack Obama for "palling around with terrorists" and demanding that the American people know exactly when he learned of the past of 1960s radical William Ayers. She has stoked the crowds by saying, "This is not a man who sees America the way that you and I see America." We all know what that is designed to do: Portray Obama as a foreigner who isn't as American as she. Or you. Or Joe Six-pack, the hockey mom, soccer mom, Wal-Mart mom, NASCAR dad and the other coded words she uses regularly. But what is truly pathetic is that Palin talks tough, but is really scared of facing her own issues. Since she is good at proclaiming that the American people need to know who Barack Obama is -- an attempt to paint him as a shady figure who might occupy the White House -- the American people deserve to hear Palin answer if her husband, Todd, a former member of the Alaska Independence Party, agreed with its founder, who wanted to secede from the union. Is there anything more anti-American than wanting to sever ties with the country?  Send Roland Martin your questions and listen to his program on CNNRadio and CNN.com Live, Thursday at noon ET. It's critical that Palin answer questions about whether she disagrees with John McCain's criticism of the Bush administration's decision to remove North Korea from the terrorist nation list. She spoke in favor of it. McCain didn't. Are they on the same page or not? The American people deserve to hear from Palin as to why she didn't say a word to rebuke the hateful, pathetic and degrading comments made at rallies featuring her, such as when someone in the crowd called Obama a terrorist, someone else shouted, "Off with his head" and others suggested he is a traitor. Lastly, don't you think the self-described maverick needs to own up to what really happened with the firing of the commissioner in Alaska? She was declared by a special investigator to have been within her rights in firing the commissioner, but she was blasted for abuse of power and violating the state's ethics act. So what did she say in a conference call with Alaska reporters -- who were not allowed by the McCain camp to ask follow-up questions? That she was cleared of all wrongdoing, legally and ethically. That's right. She repeated over and over and over an absolute lie, and we are supposed to say, "Hey, it's all fine. She winks at us. We love her hockey mom schtick. Don't worry about that abuse of power thing." Well, after having to deal with Vice President Dick Cheney being accused of beating the drum for war by berating and pushing our intelligence apparatus to match his political views on Iraq, don't you think we should really care about someone who has been accused in a report, authorized by Democrats and Republicans, of using their power and influence to get their way? Sure

what Palin has ducked?
what did palin do
what did martin say
what Roland Martin says?
did she lie about something

Answer: a lot of difficult questions.

Answer: talks tough but ducks a lot of difficult questions.

Answer: said he will vote for Barack Obama in November.

Answer: Gov. Sarah Palin talks tough but ducks a lot of difficult questions.

Answer: repeated over and over and over an absolute

Summary:
Roland Martin: Gov. Palin talks tough on the campaign trail .
Martin: Palin has ducked questions about many difficult issues .
Palin has given only a limited number of interviews, Martin says .
Palin hasn't been forthcoming on the Alaska ethics investigation, he says .


Editor's note: Join Roland S. Martin for his weekly sound-off segment on CNN.com Live at 11:10 a.m. ET Wednesday. If you're passionate about politics, he wants to hear from you. A nationally syndicated columnist, Martin has said he will vote for Barack Obama in November. He is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith" and "Speak, Brother! A Black Man's View of America." Visit his Web site for more information.

Roland Martin says Howard Dean bucked other leaders and insisted on a 50-state Democratic strategy.

(CNN) -- If Sen. Barack Obama is able to prevail over Sen. John McCain on Tuesday, all of those Democrats who ripped Howard Dean's 50-state strategy over the last four years should call the head of the Democratic National Committee and offer a heartfelt apology.

First in line should be New York Sen. Charles Schumer, Chicago, Illinois, Rep. Rahm Emanuel and my CNN colleague, political strategist James Carville.

When Democrats were in the final stages of winning back Congress in 2006, those three were at odds with Dean, saying he should forget about his pie-in-the-sky plan to have the Democratic Party competitive in all 50 states.

They reasoned that money spent on get-out-the vote efforts in non-congressional elections was futile, and all the effort should be on reclaiming Congress.

But Dean resisted their suggestions, weathering repeated calls for him to resign after that election.

Dean's insistence on having a Democratic Party that existed in the heartland, and not just California, New York and Massachusetts, was brilliant in that it made clear that the party recognized the rest of America. iReport.com: What would you ask Obama?

The Democratic Party earned its liberal label because it ignored the moderate and conservative voices that paved the way for the Reagan revolution to win three consecutive elections. Yet the decisive wins weren't just on the national level.

Texas is a prime example. What used to be a blue dog Democratic state now has Republicans holding every statewide office.

But things are looking up. In Dallas County, all of the county positions except for a handful were in the hands of the GOP, especially the judges. That changed four years ago, and now the party could solidify itself this time around.

The same thing in Harris County. The state's most populous county saw Republicans take everything in sight. This time around, Democrats are poised to take back Houston and surrounding cities.

Texas Democratic leaders used to cry the blues when an election was near, but after seeing the massive turnout during the primary, they have been able to build their voter database and cultivate a new generation of politicians to run for office.

Will the state go red? Sure. But with a rock solid black vote, the ability to attract more Hispanic voters and a growing appeal to whites, Democrats may soon make Texas a competitive two-party state.

If Democrats are going to achieve success on the national level, they must have significant enthusiasm on the local level. It's hard to get your supporters ginned up for a national campaign if they see no infrastructure, especially local get-out-the-vote operations.

When Obama announced that he was implementing a 50-state strategy, he was laughed at. But here we are with six days left in the campaign and the Republicans are having to spend precious dollars on ads in Montana, North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada, GOP locks in past elections.

Obama deserves a lot of the credit for this because his "change" campaign theme, along with the horrible leadership of Republicans nationwide, is helping his candidacy. But changing the attitude among the nation's Democrats was also vital, and that's where Dean played a role.

The former governor of Vermont saw firsthand the sorry shape of the party when he ran for president in 2004. Republicans, led by Karl Rove, perfected their voter registration efforts, targeting voters down to the neighborhood, block and household.

They knew that to win they

What party is associated with Howard Dean?

Answer: Howard Dean

Answer: 50-state Democratic

Answer: Democratic

Answer: 50-state

Answer: Howard Dean

Answer: Howard Dean bucked other leaders and insisted on a 50-state Democratic strategy.

Answer: Democratic Party competitive in all 50 states.

Summary:
Roland Martin: DNC chair Howard Dean stuck to his 50-state strategy .
If Obama wins, other top Dems should apologize to Dean, he says .
Martin says the party needed to rebuild its local infrastructure .
Dean's strategy is creating a year-round base for Democratic efforts, he says .


Editor's note: Jordan Lorence is senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit organization of Christian attorneys. He has litigated religious liberty and free speech cases since 1984, including the Southworth case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1999, involving mandatory student fees at public universities, and a 2004 case that resulted in a California Supreme Court ruling that marriage licenses issued by San Francisco to same-sex couples were invalid.

Jordan Lorence says Rick Warren's views on marriage shouldn't bar him from Barack Obama's inauguration.

SCOTTSDALE, Arizona (CNN) -- Proponents of redefining marriage couldn't wait for the new president to be sworn in before demanding that he erase from the inauguration ceremony a prominent American who disagrees with them.

The target of their rhetorical bombardment is Rick Warren, the popular Christian pastor from Southern California.

President-elect Barack Obama has asked Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. Not so fast, cries Kathryn Kolbert, head of People for the American Way, an organization that claims to advance equality and freedom of speech and religion (but not for Rick Warren and those who agree with his marriage views) in a piece published on CNN.com.

Warren's grave sin? Along with 52 percent of California voters, he supported California's Proposition 8, which affirmed the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. What a radical!

Though Warren will only be praying for the country's future (not giving a speech about marriage), Kolbert and others are pressuring Obama to set a precedent for his administration of publicly shunning someone who supports the traditional definition of marriage.

They want people like Warren silenced and ostracized for their "hate speech," defined today as disagreeing with their agenda to impose a redefinition of marriage on an unwilling America. Obama, to his credit, has resisted their strident demands.

The attacks on Warren are the latest in a series of coercive, intimidating attacks on supporters of traditional marriage.

Now, activists have ramped up their strong-arm tactics by pushing the president-elect to ban Warren from appearing at the inauguration.

This is amazingly audacious, in light of the fact that on marriage, the overwhelming majority of Americans and, indeed, humanity, agrees with Warren. Americans have voted to preserve marriage in all 30 states where it has been on the ballot by an average vote of more than 65 percent.

The collective experience and wisdom of every major civilization from the dawn of time agrees that societies function best and children are best protected when marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. Warren and those who agree with him want all nations to experience these benefits of marriage when it is rightly defined and consistently practiced.

Ironically, Obama has repeatedly stated that he agrees "that marriage is the union between a man and a woman." Does Kolbert question his fitness to serve as president in light of his allegedly "bigoted" views on marriage?

Kolbert brazenly denies that she and other activists desire to silence pastors like Warren because of their marriage views. She is indignant that Warren and others spread the "big lie" that redefining marriage would threaten the freedom of speech and religious liberties of those who hold the view shared by the vast majority of Americans.

Her argument is disarming in its pure duplicity. Part of Kolbert's case against Warren, who she thinks should not be speaking at such an important public ceremony, is that he believes that folks like her are working to ban people like him from speaking at public ceremonies. Thus, the "big lie" becomes an obvious truth.

This is really all about ideological purity -- and purging. Are the activists proposing that no one should be permitted to speak at the inauguration if they hold beliefs on marriage contrary to hers and her ideological bedfellows? How can publicly snubbing the influential and respected Warren advance what Kolbert calls "the values of unity and respect ... on which President-elect Obama campaigned?"

It won't. But it will surely send a message to those who believe in marriage, that they will be viciously attacked for expressing, or merely believing

What does Warren believe about marriage?

Answer: senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund,

Answer: as between one man and one woman.

Answer: between one man and one woman.

Answer: at his inauguration.

Answer: as between one man and one woman.

Answer: to give the invocation

Summary:
Jordan Lorence: Barack Obama has asked Rick Warren to give the invocation .
He says activists are seeking to ban Warren from speaking because of his views .
Lorence says Warren's view on marriage is the majority position in the U.S.
He says Obama also believes marriage is between a man and a woman .


Editor's note: Joseph Cirincione is president of Ploughshares Fund, a nonprofit organization that makes grants to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and the author of "Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons." He formerly was a senior vice president at the Center for American Progress, a think tank that describes itself as "progressive," and was on the staff of the House Armed Services Committee. Joseph Cirincione says Clinton's trip was the culmination of diplomacy his adminstration began 15 years ago. (CNN) -- President Clinton did more than free two unjustly jailed journalists. He jump-started the successful diplomacy he had begun 15 years earlier. In October 2000, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visited Pyongyang. During Bill Clinton's presidency, the administration had locked down North Korea's plutonium production program, which had created enough deadly material for two bombs during the Reagan years. They had stopped all missile tests. They were a few details away from concluding a deal to end these programs completely. But Clinton ran out of time. Enmeshed in Middle East peace talks, Clinton could not get assurances that a presidential visit to North Korea would seal the deal. He passed off the almost completed process to the incoming George W. Bush administration. On March 6, 2001, new Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "We do plan to engage with North Korea to pick up where President Clinton and his administration left off." But Bush had different ideas. On March 7, Bush kneecapped Powell. With South Korean President Kim Dae-jung sitting next to him in embarrassed silence, Bush said, "We look forward to, at some point in the future, having a dialogue with the North Koreans, but any negotiation would require complete verification of the terms of a potential agreement." The conservative ideologues in the administration froze all discussions with North Korea for an 18-month review. Clinton's hard-earned diplomatic wins were replaced by the Bush Doctrine, summed up by Vice President Dick Cheney: "We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it." The United States would instead overthrow difficult regimes. Serious options for diplomacy with North Korea were set aside. Negotiations were appeasement, the new administration believed, not a tool to advance American security. Then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in 2002 and repeats to this day, "We're not going to reward their bad behavior." The strategy backfired. North Korea expanded plutonium production, exploded nuclear bombs, tested new missiles and traded nuclear technology to Syria and possibly Burma. North Korea's nuclear and missile programs advanced more in the George W. Bush administration then they had in the Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations combined. Whether by accident or design, the Obama administration reset the diplomatic stage. Administration officials largely ignored North Korea for their first eight months in office. Kim Jong Il responded with provocative statements and actions. It almost spiraled out of control. But the Obama administration's patience -- or just policy drift, we may never know -- paid off. Kim Jong Il's regime got weaker and more isolated. North Korea's main partners, China and Russia, turned against it, the U.N. Security Council imposed tough new sanctions, and Kim's own health deteriorated. Now in a weaker position than at any time in his regime, Kim Jong Il has been on his best behavior for the past few months. This was the time for a power play, and Obama executed perfectly. He chose as his special envoy the most prestigious political figure in America outside the administration. It is a move that was sure to please the North Koreans, showing them the respect they crave, without costing America anything. To capitalize on this breakthrough, the Obama administration must now continue to play large. It should show North Korea what good relations with the United States can lead to. Clinton's 20 hours in Pyongyang could pave the way for renewed diplomatic efforts, including direct dialogue between the United States and North Korea, the re-freezing of North Korea's nuclear program and even North Korea's return to

What did the Bush administration say the U.S. does not negotiate with?

Answer: evil;

Answer: evil;

Answer: then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

Summary:
Joseph Cirincione: Clinton administration started outreach to North Korea .
He says Bush administration cut it off, saying U.S. doesn't negotiate with 'evil'
He says Clinton's successful trip shows effectiveness of diplomacy .
Cirincione: Obama administration must seize moment for further progress .


Editor's note: Joseph E. Stiglitz, professor at Columbia University, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 for his work on the economics of information and was on the climate change panel that shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2008. Stiglitz, a supporter of Barack Obama, was a member and later chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton administration before joining the World Bank as chief economist and senior vice president. He is the co-author with Linda Bilmes of the "Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Costs of the Iraq Conflict." Economist Joseph Stiglitz says federal regulators and executives helped create the Wall Street crisis. NEW YORK (CNN) -- Many seem taken aback by the depth and severity of the current financial turmoil. I was among several economists who saw it coming and warned about the risks. There is ample blame to be shared; but the purpose of parsing out blame is to figure out how to make a recurrence less likely. President Bush famously said, a little while ago, that the problem is simple: Too many houses were built. Yes, but the answer is too simplistic: Why did that happen? One can say the Fed failed twice, both as a regulator and in the conduct of monetary policy. Its flood of liquidity (money made available to borrow at low interest rates) and lax regulations led to a housing bubble. When the bubble broke, the excessively leveraged loans made on the basis of overvalued assets went sour. For all the new-fangled financial instruments, this was just another one of those financial crises based on excess leverage, or borrowing, and a pyramid scheme. The new "innovations" simply hid the extent of systemic leverage and made the risks less transparent; it is these innovations that have made this collapse so much more dramatic than earlier financial crises. But one needs to push further: Why did the Fed fail? First, key regulators like Alan Greenspan didn't really believe in regulation; when the excesses of the financial system were noted, they called for self-regulation -- an oxymoron. Second, the macro-economy was in bad shape with the collapse of the tech bubble. The tax cut of 2001 was not designed to stimulate the economy but to give a largesse to the wealthy -- the group that had been doing so well over the last quarter-century. The coup d'grace was the Iraq War, which contributed to soaring oil prices. Money that used to be spent on American goods now got diverted abroad. The Fed took seriously its responsibility to keep the economy going. It did this by replacing the tech bubble with a new bubble, a housing bubble. Household savings plummeted to zero, to the lowest level since the Great Depression. It managed to sustain the economy, but the way it did it was shortsighted: America was living on borrowed money and borrowed time. Finally, at the center of blame must be the financial institutions themselves. They -- and even more their executives -- had incentives that were not well aligned with the needs of our economy and our society. They were amply rewarded, presumably for managing risk and allocating capital, which was supposed to improve the efficiency of the economy so much that it justified their generous compensation. But they misallocated capital; they mismanaged risk -- they created risk. They did what their incentive structures were designed to do: focusing on short-term profits and encouraging excessive risk-taking. This is not the first crisis in our financial system, not the first time that those who believe in free and unregulated markets have come running to the government for bail-outs. There is a pattern here, one that suggests deep systemic problems -- and a variety of solutions: 1. We need first to correct incentives for executives, reducing the scope for conflicts of interest and improving shareholder information about dilution in share value as a result of stock options. We should mitigate the incentives for excessive risk-taking and the short-term focus that has so long prevailed, for instance, by requiring bonuses to be paid on the basis

who is joseph stiglitz
what does he say
What did Joseph Stiglitz say?
where did the money go
What did new-fangled instruments do?
what did he do

Answer: professor at Columbia University,

Answer: federal regulators and executives helped create the Wall Street crisis.

Answer: federal regulators and executives helped create the Wall Street crisis.

Answer: diverted abroad.

Answer: hid the extent of systemic leverage and made the risks less transparent;

Answer: work on the economics of information

Summary:
Joseph Stiglitz: Fed pumped too much money, aiding housing bubble .
New-fangled instruments hid overuse of borrowing, Stiglitz says .
Executives followed short-term interests and magnified risks, he says .
Stiglitz: Widespread changes needed to prevent future crises .


Editor's note: José Miguel Vivanco is executive director of the Americas Division of Human Rights Watch, a nonprofit organization that seeks to protect people's rights. A lawyer from Chile, he was educated there, in Spain and at Harvard Law School.

José Miguel Vivanco says conviction of Peru's ex-president is a warning to those who deny human rights.

(CNN) -- Peruvians are celebrating an extraordinary victory this week: the conviction of their former president, Alberto Fujimori, for death squad killings carried out during his rule in the 1990s.

The Peruvian Supreme Court found him guilty of egregious human rights abuses, including the massacre of innocent civilians, and sentenced him to 25 years in prison -- a stiff message to other leaders that justice can eventually catch up to even the most powerful.

It is one of the first times a nation's own independent courts have convicted a former leader for such serious human rights crimes and it sets an important precedent for a region that suffered so much from political violence and rights violations. Equally significant, the ruling came after a lengthy televised trial, which was clearly fair to the defendant -- despite Peru's previous history of authoritarianism and weak rule of law.

Fujimori came to office in 1990 on the promise of crushing a vicious Maoist insurgency but, in the process of restoring order, he corrupted and weakened Peru's most vital government institutions -- including parliament, the courts and law enforcement. Just a few years ago, Fujimori had near-total control of Peru's judiciary.

For a decade, his government used bribery, extortion, and intimidation to concentrate power in the presidency, subverting the democratic process and eliminating normal checks by the judiciary, legislature, and media on government abuses.

He led Peru from 1990 to 2000, presiding over the war with the Shining Path guerrillas and the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement. He was convicted of authorizing killings and kidnappings by paramilitary death squads. Fujimori is to be tried separately on multiple corruption charges.

The landmark decision fits within a global trend of increasing accountability for former heads of state. Just 20 years ago, it was exceedingly rare for even the most brutal leaders to be brought to book. In the late 20th century, Mao Zedong, Idi Amin, Milton Obote, Ferdinand Marcos, Anastasio Somoza, Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier and Mobutu Sese Seko, to name just a few, were never brought to trial.

Since then, however, the tide has turned. In October 1998, London police arrested General Augusto Pinochet on a warrant from a Spanish judge for human rights crimes. The arrest and the subsequent decisions by the British House of Lords to reject Pinochet's claim of immunity were a wake-up call to tyrants everywhere, but more important, they gave hope to victims elsewhere that they too could bring their tormentors to justice.

In country after country, particularly in Latin America, victims were inspired to challenge the amnesty laws of the 1980s and 1990s that had allowed the perpetrators of atrocities to go unpunished and, often, to remain in power. Thanks to these efforts, former leaders in Argentina, and Uruguay have also faced human rights trials.

Pinochet's arrest also strengthened a nascent international movement -- spurred by the killings in Bosnia and Rwanda, and facilitated by the end of the Cold War -- to make certain the worst abuses are punished.

After the creation of UN tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the world established the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and serious war crimes when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so.

The ICC is now investigating crimes in the Central African Republic, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and in March the court indicted President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan on charges of crimes against humanity in Darfur.

The Fujimori case stands out, though, because it was Peru's national court system which demonstrated the will, capacity, and independence to try its former president.

A second panel of the Supreme Court will now review an appeal by Fujimori. One can hope the second panel will be as

what did vivanco say
did vivanco say anything
what was fujimori convicted for
What was Fuijimori conviced of ?
What was Fujimori convicted of?
Who is José Miguel Vivanco?
Where was this case tried?

Answer: conviction of Peru's ex-president is a warning to those who deny human rights.

Answer: conviction of Peru's ex-president is a warning to those who deny human rights.

Answer: death squad killings

Answer: authorizing killings and kidnappings by paramilitary death squads.

Answer: for death squad killings carried out during his rule in the 1990s.

Answer: executive director of the Americas Division of Human Rights Watch,

Answer: The Peruvian Supreme Court

Summary:
José Miguel Vivanco: Peruvian court verdict in Fujimori case sends strong message .
Fujimori was convicted for allowing death squads to murder innocents .
Since Pinochet case, Vivanco says, courts have been holding leaders accountable .
Vivanco: Leaders who deny human rights may suffer for it years later .


Editor's note: Journalist Karl Penhaul spent several weeks tracking the gangs of the Mexican underworld, the corrupt officials who support them and the cops trying to halt the violence. This is the last of three exclusive reports. The first focused on the violent rules gangs live by and the second looked at  how gangsters are honored in death.

Forensic investigators and federal police dig bodies out of mass graves in the desert near Juarez.

JUAREZ, Mexico (CNN) -- Heat waves shimmer over the desert. A team of forensic experts clad in white overalls excavate three shallow graves.

The sand gives up nine bodies -- seven men and two women. At least one of the victims' hands were cuffed behind their back. Others had been trussed up with duct tape.

The stale stench reveals that the corpses had been dumped there several days earlier and were decomposing fast.

That grisly find in mid-March came a week after thousands more soldiers had been deployed to Juarez, across the border from El Paso, Texas. The arrival of the soldiers and more federal police agents had coincided with a short lull in the killings.

Snapping photos of the scene from behind the police line was Lucio Soria, photographer for Juarez's main newspaper, El Diario de Juarez, and its sister paper, PM.

PM is a perfect example of Mexico's so-called "red press," newspapers that specialize in covering violence. Soria seems like a perfect ambassador.

"I've gone for a week and a half without taking pictures of dead people. I was thinking 'Hell, what am I going to do?' At this rate I'll end up taking pictures for the social pages," he said.

Soria realizes snapping pictures of blood and gore may seem heartless. But he stays cheerful, cracking dark jokes with colleagues, all while listening to police communications on a radio scanner and searching for clues about where to find the next drug war victim.

"It might seem ugly, but that's our job," Soria said.

He and fellow photographers have been busy in recent months.

Last year, Juarez became the poster city for Mexico's narco-violence, with more than 1,600 gang killings.  Watch musicians play "narco-ballads" honoring hitmen »

This year, Mayor Jose Reyes is trying to turn a page on the killings and make Juarez a showcase for solutions.

Military and federal police convoys patrol the streets around the clock. Cops armed with AR-15 assault rifles, identities obscured by ski masks, hang off pickup trucks that speed around in twos and threes.  Watch cops round up gang suspects »

Soldiers strike a warlike pose behind heavy machine guns mounted on American-made Humvees.

Whether it's working depends on whom you ask and how hard you read between the lines.

"I think this is very effective because it closes transport routes for the movement of [cartel] personnel and weapons," said a state officer, assigned to guide us, at a federal police checkpoint.

The officer, known only by his call sign Trojan One, seemed confident.

The agent in command of the checkpoint was less convinced.

"Of course organized crime is trying to avoid us. I'm not sure what methods they use to operate. We don't know how they work," said the officer, identifying himself only as Aztec One.

On another day we ran into a three-truck federal police operation staking out a house in a middle-class Juarez neighborhood.  See photos of police, gang life in Mexico »

The commander said his men believed they had made what he termed a "major" cocaine bust. When I met him they had already been waiting almost 24 hours for a judge to issue a search warrant.

When they gained access they discovered some 500 half-gram bags of cocaine. In Juarez those bags sell for around $8. Now do the math, 500 half-gram bags at possibly 60 percent purity means around 150 grams of pure cocaine -- hardly a major strike in the drug war.

How many gang killings happened last year in Juarez?

how many gang killings occurred last year?

Answer: more than 1,600

Answer: more than 1,600

Summary:
Graveyards in Mexican town show tributes to gang leaders and hitmen .
"Lupito," who a relative said loved hitman life, was killed when he was 21 .
Cartel bosses are buried in mausoleums surrounded by bullet-proof glass .
Followers pay bands, leave tributes including cocaine at shrines to cult heroes .


Editor's note: Journalist Karl Penhaul spent several weeks tracking the gangs of the Mexican underworld, the corrupt officials who support them and the cops trying to halt the violence. This is the last of three exclusive reports. The first focused on the violent rules gangs live by and the second looked at  how gangsters are honored in death. Forensic investigators and federal police dig bodies out of mass graves in the desert near Juarez. JUAREZ, Mexico (CNN) -- Heat waves shimmer over the desert. A team of forensic experts clad in white overalls excavate three shallow graves. The sand gives up nine bodies -- seven men and two women. At least one of the victims' hands were cuffed behind their back. Others had been trussed up with duct tape. The stale stench reveals that the corpses had been dumped there several days earlier and were decomposing fast. That grisly find in mid-March came a week after thousands more soldiers had been deployed to Juarez, across the border from El Paso, Texas. The arrival of the soldiers and more federal police agents had coincided with a short lull in the killings. Snapping photos of the scene from behind the police line was Lucio Soria, photographer for Juarez's main newspaper, El Diario de Juarez, and its sister paper, PM. PM is a perfect example of Mexico's so-called "red press," newspapers that specialize in covering violence. Soria seems like a perfect ambassador. "I've gone for a week and a half without taking pictures of dead people. I was thinking 'Hell, what am I going to do?' At this rate I'll end up taking pictures for the social pages," he said. Soria realizes snapping pictures of blood and gore may seem heartless. But he stays cheerful, cracking dark jokes with colleagues, all while listening to police communications on a radio scanner and searching for clues about where to find the next drug war victim. "It might seem ugly, but that's our job," Soria said. He and fellow photographers have been busy in recent months. Last year, Juarez became the poster city for Mexico's narco-violence, with more than 1,600 gang killings.  Watch musicians play "narco-ballads" honoring hitmen » This year, Mayor Jose Reyes is trying to turn a page on the killings and make Juarez a showcase for solutions. Military and federal police convoys patrol the streets around the clock. Cops armed with AR-15 assault rifles, identities obscured by ski masks, hang off pickup trucks that speed around in twos and threes.  Watch cops round up gang suspects » Soldiers strike a warlike pose behind heavy machine guns mounted on American-made Humvees. Whether it's working depends on whom you ask and how hard you read between the lines. "I think this is very effective because it closes transport routes for the movement of [cartel] personnel and weapons," said a state officer, assigned to guide us, at a federal police checkpoint. The officer, known only by his call sign Trojan One, seemed confident. The agent in command of the checkpoint was less convinced. "Of course organized crime is trying to avoid us. I'm not sure what methods they use to operate. We don't know how they work," said the officer, identifying himself only as Aztec One. On another day we ran into a three-truck federal police operation staking out a house in a middle-class Juarez neighborhood.  See photos of police, gang life in Mexico » The commander said his men believed they had made what he termed a "major" cocaine bust. When I met him they had already been waiting almost 24 hours for a judge to issue a search warrant. When they gained access they discovered some 500 half-gram bags of cocaine. In Juarez those bags sell for around $8. Now do the math, 500 half-gram bags at possibly 60 percent purity means around 150 grams of pure cocaine -- hardly a major strike in the drug war.

To whom does the mayor turn to control violence?

Answer: more than 1,600

Answer: Military

Answer: 1,600

Summary:
Graveyards in Mexican town show tributes to gang leaders and hitmen .
"Lupito," who a relative said loved hitman life, was killed when he was 21 .
Cartel bosses are buried in mausoleums surrounded by bullet-proof glass .
Followers pay bands, leave tributes including cocaine at shrines to cult heroes .


Editor's note: Journalist Karl Penhaul spent several weeks tracking the gangs of the Mexican underworld, the corrupt officials who support them and the cops trying to halt the violence. This is the second of three exclusive reports. Part one looked at the violent rules gangs live by.

The faithful leave this "Holy Death" statue offerings including cigarettes and cocaine, visible in the nose.

CULIACAN, Mexico (CNN) -- A baseball cap dangles from a cement cross. The slogan on the hat reads "power, money, respect." On the brim there's the logo of the classic gangster movie "Scarface."

Etched on the gravestone, the words: "Jesus Guadalupe Parra. 12 December 1986 to 25 August 2008."

"Lupito," as friends and family knew him, went down in a hail of bullets before he reached 22. Authorities said he died alongside three others in a gunfight with a rival drug gang high in the Sierra Madre mountain  range that is the backbone of Mexico's Pacific coast state of Sinaloa.

A printed banner draped over his tomb offers a deeper insight. It shows a photo of him alongside a marijuana plantation and an AK-47 assault rifle fitted with a 100-round ammunition drum.

The drab grave of this cartel triggerman, at the Jardines de Humaya cemetery in state capital Culiacan, stands in stark contrast to the mausoleums of dead capos, or drug bosses. Those are elaborate two- and three-story constructions, some perhaps 25 feet high, made of bullet-proof glass, Italian marble and spiral iron staircases.

A bricklayer at work in the cemetery told me the fanciest cost between $75,000 and $150,000. He said grateful drug barons often pay for loyal hitmen to be buried here, the city's toniest graveyard. Like so many other people we've met over the last few weeks, he declined to give his name or speak on camera.

"I can't. El patron [the boss] would kill me," he said.

Days later I track down Lupito's cousin, Giovanni Garcia, on the phone. He's an undertaker and by coincidence he took the call that Lupito had been shot.

"My cousin loved that way of life," Garcia said briefly before turning down a recorded interview. "We can't talk. You must understand how things are around here these days. It's not a good time."

That Sunday, I linger at Lupito's graveside. Three young men show up. They look about the same age as the dead gunman, the same cropped-hair, one heavily scarred around his eye.

In the breeze they struggle to light a dozen foot-high candles. I introduce myself. A few grunts later and I can see this conversation is going nowhere fast.

"We couldn't make it to the burial. This is the first time we've come to pay our respects," one of them explained. He never offered his name.

Drug rivalries have been known to spill over at funerals so many mourners opt to stay away leaving only the closest relatives to bury their dead quietly and without public complaints.

I stick around hoping to meet more talkative mourners. My wait is cut short. A fourth man appears between the tombstones some 20 yards away, apparently having seen me. As he talks into a phone I hear him say: "Hey, take your chance. Go grab f**king baldy."

I look around. No other bald men in sight -- just me. Time to leave.

At Jardines de Humaya and across town at the 21 de Marzo cemetery, rows of recently dug graves are filled with the young foot soldiers of Mexico's drug war.

A crosscheck of their names in the obituary columns of the local newspaper reveal tales of men in their late teens and early 20s, gunned down in firefights, shot in cold blood on their doorsteps or killed in prison clashes.

Jesus Gaston earns around $40 for every three graves he digs. But he can see the lure of easy money in the drug trade is little more than a

What do the followers do to show tribute?

What tributes are shown in the graveyard?

At what age was "Lupito," when he was killled?

Answer: light a dozen foot-high candles.

Answer: "Holy Death" statue offerings including cigarettes and cocaine,

Answer: before he reached 22.

Answer: 22.

Summary:
Graveyards in Mexican town show tributes to gang leaders and hitmen .
"Lupito," who a relative said loved hitman life, was killed when he was 21 .
Cartel bosses are buried in mausoleums surrounded by bullet-proof glass .
Followers pay bands, leave tributes including cocaine at shrines to cult heroes .