Editor's note: Peter Bregman is chief executive of Bregman Partners, Inc., a global management consulting firm, and the author of "Point B: A Short Guide to Leading a Big Change". He writes a weekly column, How We Work, for HarvardBusiness.org.

Peter Bregman says recession is an opportunity to reorient the focus of your working life to what you love to do.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A friend of mine, a senior leader in a pharmaceutical company, spends all her spare time doing yoga, taking classes in comparative religions, reading about spirituality, speaking with others about their beliefs. Just talking about it energizes her.

Which is not how she feels about her day job.

"Why don't you leave your job and do something with this full time?" I asked her.

"I've thought about it. But I could never make the kind of money I make now."

She might be right. But the question isn't whether she could make as much money. Even if she stays in her job she's unlikely to do that in this economy.

The question is far broader and more interesting. What would her life look like -- in every dimension she values -- if she decided to pursue her passion full time?

She needs to consider the contribution she'd make. The relationships she'd foster. The fun she'd have. The feelings she'd carry with her throughout the day. Her engagement in her work. In short, what her life would mean.

And, of course, also the money. Which, as it turns out, might actually be greater if she were more engaged in her work. Gallup has collected data on 5.4 million employees in over 137 countries and concluded that engaged employees are more productive and customer-focused. And more profitable. Which could mean more money for her.

But why are we even having this conversation during the worst downturn this country has seen in the last 70 years? Isn't she lucky simply to have a job?

Yes. And, because of that, she's also stuck. For better and worse, she probably won't leave.

But maybe you're not so lucky -- you've been laid off or might be soon; you're a student coming into the job market; or like several people I know, you've been thinking about a change.

Well, this is your opportunity. You didn't want to risk a change when things were going well. There was too much to lose.

But this downturn, this economic mess we're in, could be your chance. When everything was going well, we spent money we didn't have thinking we would make more tomorrow. Well, tomorrow came. It's easy to point a finger at Bernie Madoff (and he deserves the finger), but the truth is, it's not just him. We're all victims of our own little Ponzi Schemes. But now we know.

The life we've been living, the debt we've been incurring, is unsustainable. Maybe the layoff is a favor. You were treated as expendable. But were you, working those long hours to keep a job you didn't love, treating your self as expendable too?

Depressing? Sure. But now that we know, we can do something about it.

I don't want to be cavalier; I know food on the table is a necessity. We still need work and money. Here are our new rules for finding it:

Rule #1: Don't spend too much time looking for your next job. As I discuss in my article for Harvard Business, "Need to Find a Job? Stop Looking So Hard," searching for a job more than 1-2 hours a day will actually make it less likely you'll find one.

Rule #2: Focus your time on what you're truly passionate about. Get more training. Expand your comfort zone with new activities, new people. Studies show that 80 percent of jobs are found through networking.

What provides an opportunity and a challenge?

What gives you time to rethink what you do?

Answer: reorient the focus of your working life

Answer: recession

Answer: recession

Answer: you're truly passionate about. Get more training. Expand your comfort zone with new activities, new people.

Summary:
Peter Bregman: The recession provides an opportunity as well as a challenge .
He says people who were working just for money now can rethink what they do .
He says, if you were laid off, focus your time on what you love doing .
Bregman: Spending time with people is best route to fulfilling new job .


Editor's note: President Lyndon B. Johnson secured passage of Medicare, the Voting Rights Act and other milestone legislation. Tom Johnson, who served as one of LBJ's White House press secretaries, is former chief executive of CNN News Group and former publisher of the Los Angeles Times. He is an associate member of the board of visitors of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Tom Johnson says President Lyndon Johnson would have used every tool to get Congress to pass a health care bill. (CNN) -- LBJ would: Have a list of every member of Congress on his desk. He would be on the telephone with members (and their key staffers) constantly: "Your president really needs your vote on this bill." He would have a list of every special request every member wanted -- from White House tours to appointments to federal jobs and commissions. He would make a phone call or have a personal visit with every member -- individually or in a group. Charts, graphs, coffee. They would get the "Johnson Treatment" as nobody else could give it. He would have a willingness to horse-trade with every member. He would keep a list of people who support each member financially. A call to each to tell them to get the vote of that representative. He would have Billy Graham calling Baptists, Cardinal Cushing calling Catholics, Dr. Martin Luther King calling blacks, Henry Gonzales calling Hispanics, Henry Ford and David Rockefeller calling Republicans. He would get Jack Valenti to call the Pope if it would help. He would have speeches written for members for the Congressional Record and hometown newspapers. He would use up White House liquor having nightcaps with the leaders and key members of BOTH parties. Each of them would take home cufflinks, watches, signed photos, and perhaps even a pledge to come raise money for their next election. He would be sending gifts to children and grandchildren of members. He would walk around the South Lawn with reporters telling them why this was important to their own families. He would send every aide in the White House to see every member of the House and Senate. He would send me to see Sen. Richard Russell and Rep. Carl Vinson because I am a Georgian. He would call media executives Kay Graham, Frank Stanton, Robert Kintner, and the heads of every network. He would go to pray at six different churches. He would do newspaper, radio and TV interviews -- especially with Merriman Smith, Hugh Sidey, Sid Davis, Forrest Boyd, Ray Scherer, Helen Thomas, Marianne Means, Walter Cronkite, Phil Potter, Bob Novak. He would threaten, cajole, flirt, flatter, hug -- and get the health care bill passed. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Tom Johnson.

what would Lyndon Johnson have used to pressure legislators?

what would Lyndon Johnson gained by granting lawmakers' special request?

What did Tom Johnson say about Lyndon Johnson?

what does Tom johnson says about Lyndon johnson?

Answer: every tool

Answer: to pass a health care bill.

Answer: would have used every tool to get Congress to pass a health care bill.

Answer: would have used every tool to get Congress to pass a health care bill.

Summary:
Tom Johnson: Lyndon Johnson would use many tools to get action in Congress .
He would have used staff, intermediaries to pressure legislators .
He would have gained support by granting lawmakers' special requests .
He would have used every device to get the health care bill passed .


Editor's note: Rachel Motte blogs at www.evangelicaloutpost.com and writes for Wheatstone Academy, a Christian educational program for high school students. She is a graduate of Biola University and the Torrey Honors Institute. Rachel Motte says Rush Limbaugh still can animate conservative popular opinion. (CNN) -- It's no secret that liberals throughout the nation are rejoicing at Rush Limbaugh's supposed status as leader of the Republican Party. I can see why. He's easy to pick on. His rhetoric is extreme, and his personal life has at times been less than picture-perfect. I've heard some pundits refer to Vice President Joe Biden as "the gift that keeps on giving." I imagine the left feels the same way about Limbaugh. Rush was an integral part of my childhood. I must have been 6 or 7 when I started listening in the late 1980s. I remember that my parents and their friends found him refreshing, and I remember that he made them laugh. I memorized his song parodies and even tried to write a few of my own based on the events I heard him talk about. When I was 11, I once spent several hours trying to call his show, redialing after every busy signal, over and over. I never got through. It's probably just as well; I think I had planned to try to talk him into running for president. I no longer think he'd make a good president -- we're all much better off when he sits behind the EIB microphone. Rush taught me a lot about personal responsibility, the value of freedom of speech and the love of country. At 26, I've outgrown many of my childhood habits, but I never outgrew Rush. Have conservatives outgrown him? Is it time to distance ourselves by dismissing him as just "an entertainer," as Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele initially did before apologizing? My friend John Mark Reynolds wrote recently that Rush is "a shallow thinker" who will alienate today's young adults rather than draw them in. He argued that Rush's "insider lingo" and harsh demeanor are problematic at a time when the Republican Party is losing the young adult vote. Is he right? Has Rush Limbaugh outlived his usefulness to the conservative movement? Should we take a cue from the Democrats' glee and relegate El Rushbo to a back room like an aging and unpopular distant relative? Not by a long shot. Rush doesn't need to be removed as leader of the Republican Party, because he's never held that position, much as Democrats would like you to think he has. He's a vitally necessary part of the conservative movement, but he's no one's leader. Don't give him more credit than he deserves, and don't fall prey to the Democrats' carefully planned attempts to inflate his authority. Steele learned the hard way a few days ago that the opposite extreme is also not true -- Rush is not a mere entertainer. One of his most important contributions to the conservative movement has been his ability to energize the base. This is particularly vital now given the recent election results. Someone has to keep the troops from giving up, and like it or not, for now that someone is Rush. It doesn't really matter whether he's a shallow thinker. What does matter is that he knows how to prod people into action. That's all well and good, but is it sustainable? What works for me and for the many other "Rush babies" out there may not work for our younger siblings. Thanks to the Obama campaign, new activists aren't going to be as easily attracted by witty aphorisms and wordplays as previous demographics were. President Obama's impressive rhetorical skills appeared to raise the level of public discourse during the campaign. As far as I can tell he didn't actually say anything new, but so many things sounded new when he said them. I don't think he changed the content of the age-old feud between right and left, but he did change the style, providing a stark contrast to the

Who did Rachel Motte grow up listening to?

Who's style has a great appeal to conservatives?

Motte said who set a new bar for public discourse?

Answer: Rush

Answer: the conservative movement

Answer: Rush Limbaugh

Answer: the conservative movement

Answer: President Obama's

Answer: campaign, new activists aren't going to be as easily attracted by witty aphorisms and wordplays

Answer: Rush Limbaugh

Summary:
Rachel Motte says she grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh and became a big fan .
She says Limbaugh's style still has great appeal to conservatives .
Motte: Obama has set a new bar for public discourse, winning over young voters .
Limbaugh may not appeal to the young as much, but he's still relevant, Motte says .


Editor's note: Ralph J. Begleiter teaches communication, journalism and political science at the University of Delaware. During two decades as CNN's "world affairs correspondent," Begleiter was the network's most widely traveled reporter. Ralph J. Begleiter says the Pentagon's new policy on media access to coffins of war dead is a milestone. NEWARK, Delaware (CNN) -- The reversal of two decades of policy on images of returning war casualties is an important and welcome milestone for the American people. The Pentagon's decision announced Thursday allowing media coverage of coffins of war victims returning to Dover Air Force Base -- if families agree -- restores to its rightful, honorable place the immense value of the sacrifice American troops make on behalf of their nation. It allows the American people to honor the dignified and respectful return of war casualties to home soil for the last time. Although no one should have a veto over the nation's ability to pay respects to its fallen troops, I believe most families will decide that their sons and daughters deserve to be recognized publicly for their sacrifice. These men and women enlisted in the military for their nation. They fought for their nation. They died for their nation. Their return should be respectfully and publicly acknowledged by their nation. The ban on images of returning casualties started accidentally, and without any reference to the "privacy" of the families of those who gave their lives in service to the nation. The accident of media history occurred in December 1989 when poor White House scheduling placed President George H.W. Bush before live television cameras just as the first American casualties were arriving at Dover Air Force Base from the U.S. invasion of Panama. CNN and two other major TV networks fired up their split-screen technology, showing on one side the president joking with White House reporters just before the Christmas holiday -- and on the other the sober images of flag-draped military caskets being carried ceremoniously by honor guards across the tarmac at Dover. After the holidays, the president appealed publicly to reporters to "help me" overcome a public impression that he had been insensitive on TV about the returning casualties. News media had been covering the return of war casualties since World War II. Some military personnel believe the showing of those images -- and others from the jungles of Vietnam -- contributed to a gradual growth of anti-war sentiment during the 1960s. Just days before the Gulf War began in January 1991, the new media policy was formalized in a cable sent by the Defense Department to its posts: There would be no media coverage of returning casualties at Dover or other stops along the way home. The directive made no mention of anyone's privacy but portrayed the ban on coverage of returning casualties as an effort to ease pressure on stressed families, who might feel obliged to travel to Dover to witness the return of their loved one with news media watching. Over the next decade, several exceptions were made to the ban on media coverage at Dover, including for the return of Navy personnel killed in the bombing of the USS Cole off Yemen's coast, just weeks before the election that brought the second President Bush into office. Ironically, throughout the ban on media coverage of returning casualties, the Pentagon continued documenting this important part of any war by assigning military and government contract photographers to take pictures of the flag-draped caskets. Those images, among the most poignant, respectful and dignified tributes to troops who died in service of their nation, were carefully maintained by the Defense Department. They were used for training of honor guards and for commemorating the significance of war casualties. Although taken by the government, those images were withheld from public view. From the aftermath of September 11, 2001, through the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the Pentagon kept taking those pictures even as it expanded its ban on media coverage of returning casualties -- now arguing that such war images would somehow invade the privacy of families of the deceased troops. It was those images that a series of Freedom of Information Act requests pried loose in 2005 after months of legal skirmishing. (Those

Who said that U.S. policy on photographing war dead was result of coincidence?

Begleiter urged the government to resume using its photographers to document what?

Answer: Ralph J. Begleiter

Answer: American people to honor the dignified and respectful return of war casualties to home soil for the last time.

Answer: take pictures of the flag-draped caskets.

Summary:
Ralph J. Begleiter: U.S. policy on photographing war dead was result of coincidence .
He says it was due to split-screen image of president joking while coffins returning .
Begleiter: New policy allows the nation to pay proper respect to war dead .
He urges government to resume using its photographers to document the toll .


Editor's note: Randall Balmer, an Episcopal priest, is professor of American religious history at Barnard College, Columbia University, and a visiting professor at Emory University. His most recent book is "God in the White House: How Faith Shaped the Presidency from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush." Randall Balmer supports Obama's unusual broadening of a president's words to include nonbelievers. NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Obama's mention of "nonbelievers" in his inaugural address represents an important broadening of the circle of acceptability in American life, an acknowledgement of our growing diversity and a fuller embrace of the principles articulated in our nation's charter documents. One of the hallmarks of American life, dating to the 17th century, is its religious pluralism. The Atlantic seaboard during the colonial period was home to everyone from Puritans, Roman Catholics and Dutch Reformed to Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, Swedish Lutherans, Anglicans, Huguenots, Mennonites and Schwenckfelders. Jews arrived in New Amsterdam in 1654, refugees from South America after the Portuguese takeover of Recifé. Somehow it all worked, especially in the crucible of religious pluralism in the Middle Colonies: New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, where William Penn launched his "Holy Experiment" of religious toleration. In the context of the New World, these religious groups learned to coexist with remarkably little conflict, and when it came time to configure the new nation, the founders in their wisdom elected not to designate any group as the state religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," the First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads. This provision set up a kind of free market for religion in America, allowing religious groups to compete in a marketplace unfettered by government interference. Indeed, American history is littered with religious entrepreneurs (to extend the economic metaphor) who have peddled their wares in this marketplace and thereby contributed to the vigor and vitality of American religious life. The story of religion in America life has been one of expansion and ever-increasing diversity. Although Roman Catholics were present in the colonial period -- Maryland, named for the wife of Charles I, was founded by Catholics from England -- Catholics arrived in great numbers from Ireland, Germany and Italy over the course of the 19th century. Many Protestants, their hegemony threatened, resisted, sometimes with violence. Jews from Germany and Eastern Europe came as well. Most of the resistance was episodic. With notable -- albeit unfortunate -- exceptions, we Americans eventually rise to our better selves and embrace the principles of equality and toleration enshrined in our charter documents. And we can trace these changes in our rhetoric. The term "Judeo-Christian," although coined late in the 19th century, became popular in the 1930s as the clouds of war were gathering in Europe. In 1955, after World War II, when so many sons of Jewish and Catholic immigrants fought the Axis powers, sociologist Will Herberg published a book entitled "Protestant-Catholic-Jew," arguing that any of these religious expressions was legitimately "American." The following decade saw still more changes. The civil rights struggle brought the vibrancy of African-American religious life to national attention, and Lyndon Johnson's signature on the Hart-Cellar Immigration Act in 1965 removed immigration quotas. In the decades since, the arrival of people from around the world, especially from South Asia and Southeast Asia, has literally recast the religious landscape of the United States. Muslim mosques, Hindu temples, Sikh Gurdwäräs and Buddhist stupas have sprouted across the nation, from cities to the countryside. And our rhetoric has evolved as well. Whereas America might once have been described as a "Protestant" nation and then a "Christian" nation (to reflect the inclusion of Roman Catholics), we moved to "Judeo-Christian" and then "Protestant-Catholic-Jew." More recently, we have talked about the "Abrahamic Traditions," Jews, Christians and Muslims, thereby broadening the circle to include Islam, one of the three major monotheistic religions.

Who said  "It's unusual for a president to include nonbelievers in his words"?

Answer: Randall Balmer

Answer: Puritans, Roman Catholics and Dutch Reformed to Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, Swedish Lutherans, Anglicans, Huguenots,

Summary:
Randall Balmer: It's unusual for a president to include nonbelievers in his words .
He says America has widened its circle of religion for hundreds of years .
Balmer says rhetoric has grown to include Jews, Muslims, Hindus .
The First Amendment makes it appropriate to recognize nonbelievers, he says .


Editor's note: Raquel Cepeda is an award-winning journalist, documentary filmmaker and former editor of Russell Simmons' Oneworld magazine. Cepeda wrote and directed the feature documentary, "Bling: A Planet Rock," about hip-hop's obsession with diamonds and its effect on the decade-long conflict in Sierra Leone. Cepeda is based in New York, where she was born to Dominican parents. Find her at http://djalirancher.com/blog/.

Raquel Cepeda says people don't fit into the neat categories outlined by the U.S. Census.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Let's all pretend to be the astrologer Walter Mercado for a moment. Say we predict that the Obama administration's master plan to engage people of Latino/Hispanic/Spanish origin proves to be effective.

Let's say that along with strategic partners Telemundo and the Census Bureau, they somehow manage to corral the millions of "Latinos" into filling out the 2010 census forms in April. Say the idea of plot-kneading the message into an already half-baked yet inexplicably popular telenovela, "Mas Sabe el Diablo," wins over the hearts and minds of "Latinos" everywhere.

But what's a Latino?

While we all may speak a version of our Spanish colonizer's language, contrary to popular belief, we're not all Mexican. Yes, the majority of Latinos in America are of Mexican descent, but we also hail from other countries around the world.

Take the ethnically ambiguous 15 percent of us who descend from the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico and Cuba. An overwhelming majority of us aren't solely of Spanish, black or native origin: We're all of the above and then some (some of our ancestors migrated from Asian, Middle Eastern and an array of European countries).

With the 2010 census upon us, the time is now for the fastest-growing minority group in the country to define themselves for themselves and at the same time clear up the cultural confusion surrounding our identity. But how can we, given the perplexing racial categories on the census, coupled with our own complex identity issues, paint an accurate picture of who and how complex we are, not just what we are?

Take me, for example; I'm a first-generation American, the product of Dominican parents whose short-lived relationship could have rivaled that of Shakespeare's own telenovela, Romeo and Juliet. My family is made up of a rainbow coalition of racial chameleons.

Recently, I was told that my maternal grandmother's own abuela was Vietnamese; my maternal great-great-grandfather was Haitian; somewhere on my paternal side, we're supposedly Sephardic. As in many Dominican families in my New York neighborhood -- Washington Heights -- with ties to the motherland, blackness is rarely discussed.

When I traveled to Sierra Leone and Ghana, I was asked if I was Moroccan, Lebanese or Eritrean. In Paris, if I was Brazilian or Arabic. In fact, I've been singled out a couple of times when entering and leaving Brazil, and was once accused of having a fake American passport by an agent. Being mistaken for everything but a person of Dominican heritage has certainly piqued my desire to examine how I and other Latinos fit into our national and global communities.

When I learned that nearly eighty percent of Puerto Rico's 4 million colorful residents checked off the "white" racial box on the last census, I wasn't floored -- given the alternatives. Race in the Caribbean lies in the eye of the beholder. And the beholder, from centuries of colonization, has more often than not been socialized to reject their blackness despite our collective and direct relationship to slavery.

An association with a historically discriminated ethnic group like African-Americans somehow drives the idea that the American dream is out of reach. In the American media, people with darker complexions are often grossly stereotyped. And Spanish language television often depicts people with darker skin and so-called African features as shiftless, ignorant and at the bottom of the social barrel.

This sort exposure, along with other factors, will result in a Latino with dark skin to

What does Raquel Cepeda say about the census?

What does Raquel Cepeda say about the Latinos ?

Answer: people don't fit into the neat categories outlined by the U.S.

Answer: people don't fit into the neat categories outlined by the U.S. Census.

Summary:
Raquel Cepeda: The census tries to categorize people by ethnicity, race .
She says reality is Latinos have very varied, complex backgrounds .
She says many people resist being classified by simple labels .


Editor's note: Rep. Charles Boustany is a Republican who represents southwest Louisiana. Before being elected to Congress, Boustany practiced medicine as a cardiothoracic surgeon for 14 years. Rep. Charles Boustany says Democrats' health care plans don't focus on quality. (CNN) -- Americans deserve the best health care system in the world -- one that emphasizes quality, but reduces cost, so all Americans can participate. As a doctor, I saw firsthand the problems many patients face finding a doctor, navigating the system, and paying their health care bills. Unfortunately, Democrats' plans in Congress fail to focus on quality. House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, recently stated that the Democrats were proposing "a government-run nightmare operated by federal bureaucrats." If enacted, their plans would complicate the system and take more money from American pockets -- a nightmare, indeed. One report estimates more than 100 million people could drop their current health care coverage if the plans were open to all employers. One reason cited for the drop in current coverage -- businesses no longer offering private coverage -- would contradict the president's promise to allow Americans to keep their current coverage, if they like it. Imposed employer mandates could cost 4.7 million people their jobs. All of this means that many people who like their current health insurance might not be able to keep it and be forced into a new system, including a government option with lower reimbursement rates that might discourage their current doctor from continuing to treat them. Just as a doctor has the obligation to be honest and straightforward with their patients, Democrats in Washington must inform the public of the impact their plans will have on current insurance and the exact costs. As the economy struggles to recover, Americans are rightfully concerned about the potential cost of health reform, as shown by a recent CNN survey. Before we know how much it will cost and how it will affect those currently with insurance, we cannot have an open and honest debate on the merits of any proposal. While the House bill remains unscored by the Congressional Budget Office, health overhaul plans being crafted by Senate Democrats will likely cost more than $1 trillion over 10 years and could fail to cover millions of Americans. As a doctor, I know there is a better way to help all Americans achieve meaningful health care access. The president's proposed cuts in health care spending will result in limited treatment options for patients, and by shifting the burden of debt to the next generation of Americans, our children will be the ones helping to defer the outrageous costs. With our government's inability to maintain the Medicare and Medicaid programs that we currently fund, how much deeper can the hole get? The Government Accountability Office refers to Congress' failure to face Medicare's monetary difficulties as a "leadership deficit." Even some Blue Dog Democrats are asking if funding a new plan is even possible if the government cannot solve the funding problems of the current plans. Patients in these programs continue to be denied access to a doctor in many communities. A few months ago, I received an e-mail from a Medicaid patient diagnosed with a brain tumor. Doctors told her that she would likely be put on a six-month waiting list for brain surgeons currently serving Medicaid patients. For timely care, she had to borrow a neighbor's car, secure child care for her autistic child and drive four hours to a hospital in Shreveport, Louisiana. Patients in government-run plans obviously deserve better than this, so is this new government-run plan going to be any better? Republicans will give all Americans the liberty to select the plan that works best for them and let those who like their health care coverage keep it. We pledge to make quality health care coverage more available and less expensive, including those with pre-existing health conditions. We want to protect Americans from losing their current health coverage because an employer drops private coverage for a government-run program. This plan should also improve American lives through effective wellness, prevention and disease management programs, while finding innovative treatments for life

What could burden next generation with enormous cost?

What did Boustany say about health plans?

Who would be burdened with the enormous cost?

Answer: cuts in health care spending

Answer: Democrats' health care

Answer: care

Answer: our children will

Answer: their jobs.

Summary:
Rep. Boustany: Many Americans could lose current health plans .
He says they could wind up in government system without current doctors .
Boustany: Plans could burden next generation with enormous cost .


Editor's note: Republican Leslie Sanchez was director of the White House Initiative on Hispanic Education from 2001 to 2003 and author of "Los Republicanos: Why Hispanics and Republicans Need Each Other." She is CEO of the Impacto Group, which specializes in market research about women and Hispanics.

Leslie Sanchez says Republicans should treat Hispanics as part of the mainstream of America.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As the members of the Republican National Committee prepare to choose a party chairman to serve for the next two years, the calls for new "Hispanic outreach" initiatives are flying -- in my view, unnecessarily.

It is probably true that President Obama's election marks the beginning of a post-partisan, post-racial America, or at least a time when these issues are less divisive than in years past.

But will the two political parties be as able to look beyond the stereotypes of Latinos and what the Latino experience is in this country, as they have for other ethnic and racial groups?

As Republicans, we need to win at least 35 percent of the Hispanic vote to win the presidency. In 2008, John McCain got 31 percent, slightly exceeding the average for the past eight presidential elections. We've had our high points (George W. Bush 2004, 44 percent) and low points (Bob Dole 1996, 21 percent).

Ten years ago, as an RNC press aide, I was given the responsibility for developing a team that would design a multimillion-dollar ad strategy to appeal to the nation's emerging Latino electorate.

We conducted seminal research on Hispanic voting patterns that is still of value today. For example, we identified a "GOP Upside" of another 25 percent of Hispanics who were voting Democrat on the generic presidential ballot question but would be interested in voting for a Republican who offered a campaign agenda focused on family, education and job-creation issues.

So it is mystifying to me to hear the ongoing references to the party's need to find "a new way" to speak to the nation's largest minority bloc. It's like being asked to reinvent the wheel.

This isn't just a Republican problem. Democrats do this too, relating to Latinos as if we're primarily poor, immigrant or both. It doesn't work anymore, if it ever did. And although the anti-immigrant rhetoric spouted by Tom Tancredo and others was offensive to Hispanics and projected a "We don't want you here" image for the GOP, the fact is that it was offensive to a lot of other people, too.

In the age of Obama, that kind of exclusive message is just not marketable.

If Republicans truly want to develop a winning strategy for appealing to Hispanics, they need look no further than Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. They appealed to them not as Hispanics or immigrants but as Americans with an equal stake in the future of the country.

What Hispanics want, and what we as Republicans want them to want, is to be included in the American experience.

During the period in which Hispanics constituted a small minority of the overall nation, efforts like Richard Nixon's to ensure that they were counted in the national census were important because it meant inclusion.

When people believe that they are already part of a community, such patently obvious efforts come across as patronizing. Hispanics, especially young professionals like me who were born and raised here in the United States, believe that we deserve more than a couple of high-profile meetings and a few Spanish-language ads.

That was certainly true during the 2008 presidential campaign, which had little to interest Hispanics at all. McCain trumpeted his record as a champion of comprehensive immigration reform to Hispanics, while his campaign tried to make him more palatable to Republican conservatives by de-emphasizing his record as a champion of comprehensive immigration reform.

McCain was hurt among Latinos by the perception that he caved in on immigration enforcement and abandoned his own bill.

Obama's campaign message to Hispanics, though delivered largely in Spanish through his campaign Web site, was patronizing. In the summary of issues

What is part of the American mainstream with broad interests?

Answer: part of the mainstream of America.

Answer: Hispanics

Answer: mainstream of America.

Answer: Republican National Committee

Answer: new "Hispanic outreach" initiatives

Answer: women and Hispanics.

Summary:
Leslie Sanchez: Republicans are talking about a new outreach to Hispanics .
She says Hispanics are part of the American mainstream with broad interests .
Sanchez: Candidates, including Obama, talked about narrow issues .
She says Hispanics want to be seen as Americans, with a stake in the future .


Editor's note: Reza Sayah is one of the few Western journalists reporting from Tehran after the Iranian government placed restrictions on coverage. A man in the crowd holds up a photo of Ahmadinejad during Khamenei's address at Friday prayers. TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- People in the crowd sang songs of tribute as they waited. When he arrived, they stood and welcomed him in unison: "Praise be to God and to his prophet, Mohammed." Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader for two decades, took the stage during Friday prayers at Tehran University with a few notes on small pieces of paper in his left hand. He leaned on the lectern with his right arm, crippled in an 1981 assassination attempt. He was ready to put an end to a week of unrest. First, a sermon about the dangers of division and disunity, using the language of Islam. Then came secular sentences, decidedly direct. He praised the huge turnout at the polls as a victory for Iran but criticized post-election turmoil as the work of Iran's enemies -- the United States, Israel and Britain. "The enemies want to destroy our confidence. They want to create doubt about the election," Khamenei said. A full hour passed before he delivered a verdict that supporters of opposition presidential candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi did not want to hear. "Eleven million votes difference?" he asked. "Sometimes there's a margin of one hundred thousand or two hundred thousand, or one million, maximum. Then one can doubt, be concerned that there has been some rigging or manipulation. "But there's a difference of 11 million votes. How can vote rigging happen?" To be clear, he reminded the crowd of the victor at the polls. It was the man sitting in the front row: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He was the "the absolute victor," Khamenei said. "If political elites want to ignore or break the law and willy-nilly take wrong measures which are harmful, they will be held accountable for all violence and  blood and rioting." Few in the crowd were disappointed with the cleric's words. "Death to America!" the people chanted repeatedly, interrupting Khamenei's speech. "Death to Israel." Noticeably absent Friday was Moussavi, the man who had sparked Iran's unrest by calling for a recount of the votes. Absent, too, were Moussavi's supporters, who did not take to the streets to protest as they had done in previous days. There were no signs and placards on the streets. Or people clamoring for change. The tens of thousands who showed up for Friday prayer were a stark contrast to the demonstrators. They were mostly religious conservatives, supporters of Ahmadinejad. And they had a message for the president's opponent, though it was not always consistent. Some were conciliatory. "The nation should come together," one said. "We are all one." Others took a hard line: "They must stop with the demonstrations, otherwise there will be consequences." Just what those consequences might be may become apparent Saturday afternoon, when the demonstrators are expected again on the streets of Tehran. But for now, Iran's supreme leader had issued his warning clearly: Enough is enough.

What does supreme leader sermonizes about?

What did the supreme leader sermonize about?

Who did Khamenei blame for the post-election turmoil?

Who interrupts him to chant "Death to Isreal"?

Who sermonized about the dangers of diviosn and disunity?

Answer: the dangers of division and disunity,

Answer: "Praise be to God and to his prophet, Mohammed."

Answer: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,

Answer: the dangers of division and disunity,

Answer: the dangers of division and disunity,

Answer: the United States, Israel and Britain.

Answer: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Answer: "Death to America!"

Answer: the people

Answer: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,

Summary:
Supreme leader sermonizes about dangers of division and disunity .
Khamenei: Post-election turmoil the work of the United States, Israel, Britain .
Ayatollah endorses official results showing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected .
Crowd repeatedly interrupts him to chant "Death to Israel" and "Death to America"


Editor's note: Rich Roll, one of Men's Fitness magazine's "25 Fittest Guys in the World" in 2009, was the first athlete to compete in the Ultraman World Championships on an entirely plant-based diet. He's sharing insights today as part of Dr. Sanjay Gupta's "Four Months to Fitness" effort. Before: At 40 years old, Rich Roll called himself "fat, unhappy and fed up." (CNN) -- I can still remember it, vivid as yesterday. It was the eve of my 40th birthday, and I walked upstairs to take a shower. And I was winded. I mean very winded. As I was trying to catch my breath, I took off my shirt, looked in the mirror and tried to convince myself that I was still that fit guy I had always thought I was. Somehow, I had been able to skate by on this delusion for all too many years. But the denial had finally caught up to me. I saw my true reflection, and I couldn't lie to myself anymore. I was in the worst shape of my life. I was fat, unhappy and fed up. It's the typical story. First it's the career. Then comes marriage, followed by kids. Your time is no longer your own, and you resign yourself to "maturity," "filling out" or whatever euphemism for middle age that soothes that idea that you are simply overweight, unfit and unhealthy. I'm here to say that it doesn't have to be that way. I don't care how busy you are. I don't care how old you are, how many kids you have or how little time you think you have. The power rests within yourself to enact any change in your life you desire. And I can say this because I have seen it happen in myself and countless others. After that fateful day of clarity, I made a decision to change my life. Not a vague, wishy-washy notion that I should "get in shape," maybe "eat better" or possibly "go on a diet," but rather a specific long-term plan to enhance my wellness in a way that would not only stick, but fit within the parameters of my busy life as a full-time lawyer, husband and father of four small children. In my case, it began with a well-researched and supervised seven-day fruit and vegetable juice cleanse (during which time I weaned myself off caffeine), followed by an entirely plant-based nutrition program -- an animal-product-free regimen I have adhered to ever since. The immediate result was a rather surprising and unexpected increase in my energy levels, leading to a very gradual return to exercise, building up slowly over an extended period of time. The results were hardly overnight. But two years later, I had lost well over 30 pounds. And not only did I keep the weight off, I was the most fit I had ever been in my life. At 42 years old, I competed in the Ultraman World Championships, a grueling three-day uber-endurance triathlon circumnavigating the Big Island of Hawaii that involves 6.2 miles of swimming, 260 miles of cycling and culminates with a 52.4-mile double marathon run. I placed 11th overall and was the third-fastest American. To top it off, Men's Fitness magazine recently named me one of the "25 Fittest Guys in the World." (Not that I actually believe I deserve such an honor!) Quite an extreme contrast from that day I looked in the mirror. I'm not advocating that everyone should test himself or herself so severely. But my point is that change starts with a decision followed by baby steps along a new, consistent trajectory that, over time, can lead to dramatic results. I'm nothing special. I'm not a professional athlete. I'm just a normal family guy. But if I could experience such a vast transformation in my own life, I know with certainty that everybody has within himself the

Who named Roll one of the 25 Fittest Guys in the World?

At what age was Roll in the worst shape?

Who was one of the "25 Fittest Guys in the World?

Who was named the "25 Fittest Guys in the World"?

Who was named one of the 25 fittest guys in the world?

Answer: Men's Fitness magazine's

Answer: Rich Roll

Answer: The power rests within yourself to enact any change in your life you desire.

Answer: Men's Fitness

Answer: 40 years old,

Answer: Rich Roll,

Answer: Rich Roll

Answer: called himself "fat, unhappy and fed up."

Answer: Rich Roll,

Answer: lost well over 30 pounds.

Answer: called himself "fat, unhappy and fed up."

Answer: seven-day fruit and vegetable juice cleanse (during which time I weaned myself off caffeine), followed by an entirely plant-based nutrition program

Answer: 2009,

Answer: Rich Roll

Answer: Rich Roll

Answer: Rich Roll,

Summary:
Rich Roll: Approaching 40, "I was in the worst shape of my life"
Two years later, he was the most fit he'd ever been .
This year, Men's Fitness named Roll one of the "25 Fittest Guys in the World"
To become fit, set a specific goal, be consistent and take it one day at a time, he says .


Editor's note: Robert J. Shiller is a professor of economics at Yale University. This op-ed is based on his book with George Akerlof, "Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism." Akerlof is a 2001 Nobel laureate in economics and professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley. Robert Shiller says basic psychogical factors led to excesses which have devastated the economy. (CNN) -- President Obama's National Economic Council head Lawrence Summers noted in his speech March 13 that the economic crisis has led to an "excess of fear" that must be reversed. To understand the role fear plays in the current crisis, we must understand the role of human psychology. John Maynard Keynes thought psychology was the major cause of economic booms as well as busts, though this aspect of his work is now largely forgotten. He said people's economic decisions, in both good times and bad times, are largely, ultimately, if indirectly, driven by animal spirits, primitive psychological tendencies. In a recently published book, George Akerlof and I identified three animal spirits that played critical roles in the current economic meltdown. They are confidence, bad faith and storytelling. Let's first consider confidence and its dictionary meaning. Confidence means complete and secure trust. But trust goes beyond the rational use of information that is usually considered in economic theory. Trust is largely an emotion. Indeed we saw the role of vivid emotions in the stock and housing market booms that brought on our current problems. Trust is a state of mind that is the opposite of vigilance. People were purchasing and selling complex financial instruments without looking carefully at them. This trust is broken. The second animal spirit that came into play was bad faith. With so many trusting people, an uglier side of human nature became prominent. The temptation for smart promoters was overwhelming. Questionable practices boomed, and regulators failed to step in, because of the view, taken from economists, that private markets would be self-policing. Investors would only put their money at increased risk if they were duly compensated by higher expected returns. Thus, there was little worry about laxity of regulation in securities and real estate markets. But, this self-policing view did not consider that these investors might be overconfident. There is a myth that capitalism produces what people really want, as long as firms can make a profit. But, instead, more generally, it produces what people think they want, as long as firms can make a profit. True, unregulated capitalism will produce good medicines that cure our ills. But unregulated capitalism will also produce snake oil that people think they want, but does not cure our ills. (To guard against the production of such things, the federal government established the Food and Drug Administration in 1906.) The problem of snake oil has special relevance for financial assets, which are only pieces of paper. Most investors can surmise their value only from what others, such as accountants and rating agencies, tell them. These accounting and rating agencies also have their own incentives. And those incentives have not been fully aligned with the public's interest. And so when people are overconfident, financial markets produce assets that take advantage of that overconfidence. If unprotected by effective regulation, people will be sold snake oil assets. Just recently an industry arose, in Wall Street and beyond, to produce them. A third animal spirit bolstered the previous two. People act and think and live according to stories, especially human interest stories, not usually abstract calculation. That goes for their personal decisions. But there is also always a story, usually with some grain of truth and human interest, about the economy. These stories are often overly exuberant, on the one side, or overly pessimistic on the other. Ten years ago we had the story of the dot-com millionaires. Most recently we believed alchemists of financial engineering were packaging risky financial assets to make them safe. People were overconfident. And markets took advantage of their beliefs to sell them

Basic psychological factors are key to to what?

Who said that the government must aim for full employment and widely available credit?

Who says that the government has a role in preventing fraud from being sold to the public?

Answer: excesses

Answer: Robert Shiller

Answer: Robert Shiller

Answer: professor of economics at Yale University.

Answer: Robert

Summary:
Robert Shiller: Economic boom gave rise to schemes that relied on trust .
He says basic psychological factors are key to restoring confidence .
Government has a role in preventing fraud from being sold to the public, he says .
Shiller: Government must aim for full employment and widely available credit .


Editor's note: Roland S. Martin, a CNN political analyst, is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith," and the forthcoming book, "The First: President Barack Obama's Road to the White House." He is a commentator for TV One Cable Network and host of a one-hour Sunday morning news show.

As a columnist, I'm used to writing things that offend other folks. It comes with the job. And there are times when I have responded to what other folks in the media will say and write. Again, it's just what we do.

There have been a number of things I've read and heard over the past few months, but one that has totally ticked me off is the recent column by ESPN's Rick Reilly in the March 22 issue of ESPN The Magazine.

Reilly uses his column to personally attack Greg Wise, the boys head basketball coach at Jack Yates High School in Houston, Texas. In the despicable piece, Reilly tries to link Wise with a fight in the parking lot after Yates destroyed archrival Booker T. Washington. Apparently shots were fired, and in Reilly's world, it's all tied to Yates beating them 132-68.

So I wonder if Reilly blames Gary Williams for Maryland upsetting No. 4 ranked Duke, this leading to fans going bonkers -- some say riot -- and 28 people getting arrested.

I've seen folks fight after one-point losses; that's just what happens when dumb folks talk trash in the parking lot. They either duke it out with fists, or these days, pull out a gun to make their point.

Reilly then has the gall to say that the school district in Houston needs to intervene to "stop" Wise, even suggesting that Yates Principal Ronald Mumphery should "grow a pair." So what do you propose Rick? Tell him not to blow other teams out? So the next time we see a 59-0 or 77-0 score in football, are we to scold the coach and tell him he will be suspended if his teams keeps scoring points?

Should Bob Stoops have been put on administrative leave when his Sooners destroyed my Aggies 77-0? In fact, last year Oklahoma beat my Aggies 65-10. Hey, Rick, wasn't 45, 50, 60 or even 70 enough for Stoops? Why 77 points?

The Reillys of the world will remark that, "Oh, these are poor high school students. Their self-esteem will be hurt by this." Bullcrap, Rick. Yes, Yates has blown teams out by 50, 60 and even 100 points. When you're good, it happens.

Let me be clear: I'm not objective on this issue. I graduated from Yates in 1987, where I attended the Magnet School of Communications. I watched Yates in 1985 win the football state championship by going undefeated and blowing out teams every week. That team set a state record for most points and set about another 20 records. They were just as dominating in football as this year's basketball team.

What wimps like Reilly object to is Wise teaching his team to press, press and press. Yates used this strategy to win the Class 4A state championship last year, and this weekend will try to win another title. They play all 15 guys and rotate them in and out. They wear the opposing team out, forcing them to commit turnover after turnover. On the side of their championship rings is the slogan, "32 minutes of hell." It's similar to what Nolan Richardson's Arkansas teams were nicknamed, "40 minutes of hell.'

Guys like Reilly love to jump on the poor souls campaign. But I learned a long time ago that when you put on your uniform and lace 'em up, you stand a chance of getting your butt kicked. That's all a part of the game.

What guys like Reilly also don't understand is that their words matter. And by writing such a horrible piece about Wise, he is

What did Rick Reilly blast in the column?

Answer: Martin,

Answer: Rick Reilly

Answer: Greg Wise, the boys head basketball coach at Jack Yates High School in Houston, Texas.

Summary:
Roland Martin's old high school has nation's best basketball team .
Rick Reilly of ESPN wrote a column blasting coach for running up the score .
Roland Martin says there's nothing wrong with the way team plays .


Editor's note: Ronald F. Ferguson is Senior Lecturer in Education and Public Policy at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and the Harvard Kennedy School. His most recent book is "Toward Excellence with Equity: An emerging vision for closing the achievement gap," published by Harvard Education Press. He is the creator of the Tripod Project for School Improvement and also the faculty co-chair and director of the Achievement Gap Initiative at Harvard University.

Ronald Ferguson says parents can play a key role in improving their children's education.

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Raising the quality of teaching and learning in American schools is a priority. It receives a great deal of attention in our national discourse and should receive more.

Test scores and graduation rates are improving faster in other nations than in the United States and this threatens our quality of life in a competitive world.

In addition, achievement gaps between racial groups in the United States remain large. The social and political vitality of the nation may depend on closing these racial gaps. Blacks and Hispanics are doing better than in the past compared to whites, but still not nearly good enough.

Making schools better should be only one part of our national strategy. Life at home has been a relatively neglected topic and needs to come out of the shadows.

Especially in churches, neighborhood organizations, families and informal social networks, helping parents do their best needs to be as big a priority as achieving excellent schools.

This goes beyond public policies. I am talking about changes in mindsets and lifestyles in a national social and cultural movement to close achievement gaps between groups -- a movement to achieve excellence with equity.

More reading at home is a place to start. I present data in my recent book based on a large sample of students in elementary and secondary schools from several states.

Black and Hispanic students reported less leisure reading at home compared to whites, watched television more, were much more likely to have televisions in their bedrooms and (perhaps as a consequence) were more prone to become sleepy at school. Also, blacks and Hispanics, including those with college-educated parents, reported fewer books in their homes than whites whose parents had fewer years of schooling.

However, life at home helps shape academic outcomes long before children begin reading books. Family-level supports in the first two years of life help predict achievement years later, in elementary school.

Beginning soon after birth, the most supportive mothers teach the joy of living and learning, through lots of active, encouraging, verbal and nonverbal communication. They engage actively in helping children learn to walk and talk and to explore their new world and manipulate their toys and other objects.

Such mothers exist in large numbers in every racial group. Nonetheless, in a recent study by Harvard's Richard Murnane and co-authors, differences in mother-child interaction patterns like these were found to account for one-third of the black-white gap in math and English skills at the beginning of kindergarten -- and one-quarter at the end of third grade.

As children get older, highly responsive parents spend time with children, look for ways to be helpful and encourage them to voice their opinions. They are good listeners and they teach their children that they have a right to be heard and that people in positions of authority can sometimes be persuaded. The same parents can also be demanding, providing rules and structure and holding children consistently accountable for their behavior.

Professor Jelani Mandara of Northwestern University found in a nationally representative sample that students who achieved the highest test scores among blacks, Hispanics and whites had parents who were both responsive and demanding.

According to the study, white parents were much more likely to be both responsive and demanding than black and Hispanic parents; whereas black parents, in particular, were often highly demanding, but tended not to be as responsive in the ways the study measured. Among early adolescents, differences along these dimensions helped account for the higher test scores of whites as compared with blacks and Hispanics.

Findings like the above should be part of the conversation among black and Hispanic

What will the vitality of the U.S. depend on?

Answer: Test scores and graduation rates

Answer: Blacks and Hispanics

Answer: closing these racial gaps.

Summary:
Ronald Ferguson: Vitality of U.S. may depend on closing racial achievement gaps .
He says achievement of black and Hispanic students is improving .
He says further progress could come if parents were more responsive to children .
Ferguson: Harvard has started a program to improve quality of parenting .


Editor's note: Roya Hakakian is the author of "Journey from the Land of No: A Girlhood Caught in Revolutionary Iran." Her web site is http://www.royahakakian.com/live/. Roya Hakakian says she lived through an earlier moment when Iranians thought freedom was at hand. (CNN) -- Since last Saturday, the images of Neda Agha Soltan, the young woman who died on the streets of Tehran, keep playing before my eyes. When I don't look at the clip on my computer, it runs on its own in my mind's eye. What has me so riveted is not entirely empathy, the intuitive human response the images are bound to stir in everyone. There is also something less noble at work in me, an obsession with seeing my own face upon hers. Each time I see her die, I die along with her. I, too, was born and raised in Iran. My coming-of-age years coincided with the Iranian revolution of 1979. I, too, was on the streets, watching and rooting for the demonstrators. Nothing seemed more natural, more compelling than being on the streets, calling for freedom, breathing the intoxicating, the dangerously euphoric Tehran air. I was 12 in 1978, yet I was as undaunted as any adult. Nothing, least of all my pleading parents, could keep me away from the rooftops at 9 p.m. Amid the night's dark, where the crowds were as indiscernible as ghosts, the shouts of "Allah-o-akbar" rose from every rooftop like smoke rising from an invisible bonfire. We were all victims of the flames and the very arsonists at once. We were burning in the fire of our own making. Thirty years hence that fire still burns in Iran, because moments before her death, Neda Agha Soltan cried: "I'm on fire!" I am entranced by her because she and I are the only two possibilities of the dictatorial narrative: Death or escape. She died. I escaped. I live. And because I live I cannot escape her death -- the memory of her large eyes languidly drifting to one side, then freezing upon the abyss. Survival of this kind brings its own eternal damnation: A bifurcated existence lived in the here and now, but perpetually haunted by there and then. Making peace with the past would have been easier, if only the essence of that past had not been in doubt, if its dignity were intact. But in my first American ride in my first American taxi cab, I learned the staggering counter-narrative that I would hear again and again, dominating the western perceptions of Iran, when the driver asked: "So, where are you from?" "I come from Iran," I said, in broken English. "Eeran," he asked with uncertainty. "Eeeran?" Then passing his fingertips across his throat like a knife, he said, "Eeran ... Khomeini?" In that, 2,500 years of civilization was reduced to one vile name and the invocation of a throat being slit. It did not take long for me to learn that between the Iran that I knew and the Iran that Americans knew was a discrepancy as vast as the waters that separated us. I soon learned that the images of a fist-throwing mob of angry men and darkly veiled women burning the Uncle Sam effigies were the only images that most Americans had of Iran. Those images had little in common with the Iran I knew -- greater in numbers and in the grip of the same fist-throwing crowds. With Neda's death, the Iran I know finally has a face. The sequence of her death is the sequence of our nation's struggle in the past 30 years: The democratic future that 1979 was to deliver collapsing, then trails of blood -- that of so many executed or assassinated -- streaming across its bright promise. The film of Neda's death is the abbreviated history of contemporary Iran. If history is a contest among competing narratives and icons, let the image of a young woman lying on the ground

what did Roya say
What does Roya say?
When was the revolution in Iran?
What did Roya Hakakian say?
what did Hakakian say

Answer: she lived through an earlier moment when Iranians thought freedom was at hand.

Answer: she lived through an earlier moment when Iranians thought freedom was at hand.

Answer: 1979.

Answer: she lived through an earlier moment when Iranians thought freedom was at hand.

Answer: she lived through an earlier moment when Iranians thought freedom was at hand.

Summary:
Roya Hakakian: I was a girl in Iran during the revolution of 1979 .
She says she saw the hopes of democracy and freedom quashed .
Hakakian: Join me in praying for Neda and other fallen Iranians .


Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board and a nationally syndicated columnist. Read his column here. Ruben Navarrette says hate crimes should be punished severely because they're aimed at society as a whole. SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- To think there are some people who still argue that the law shouldn't categorize some offenses as hate crimes and allow for enhanced criminal penalties. They claim that all sorts of crimes are motivated by hate, and to separate some from others elevates some victims over others and amounts to the state policing thoughts and feelings. They also fear that politicians and institutions are simply yielding to political correctness, liberal pressure groups and identity politics. My view is that hate crimes deserve special punishment because they don't just victimize whoever they're aimed at; they're intended to send a message, and they terrorize the whole society. That debate might have been settled Wednesday at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, where hate was on display. A shooting left one man dead: Stephen Tyrone Johns, a six-year veteran of the museum's security staff who, according to museum director Sara Bloomfield, "died heroically in the line of duty." The alleged assailant is James von Brunn, a Holocaust denier who created an anti-Semitic Web site. The 88-year-old often challenged the authenticity of "The Diary of Anne Frank," the book about a teenage girl living in Amsterdam during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. So it was probably no coincidence that the shooting occurred on the same day the museum had scheduled a play based on a fictional meeting between Anne Frank and Emmett Till, a martyr of the civil rights movement. Von Brunn also had longstanding ties to white supremacist groups, according to authorities. These outfits flourish in bad times because they give underperformers something really valuable: convenient scapegoats for their troubles, failures and shortcomings. Without that, these misfits might actually have to look in the mirror and take responsibility for their own lives. Although these groups are properly categorized as "hate groups" by organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, what also fuels them are things like fear and insecurity. Nowadays, their targets are often Latinos, especially immigrants. But, before that and for much of the history of this country, the targets have been African-Americans. And, for much of the history of the world, they have been Jews. And that prejudice hasn't gone away. Consider what the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former Chicago, Illinois, pastor whose relationship with Barack Obama became an issue in the presidential election, recently told the Virginia newspaper, the Daily Press, when asked if he speaks to Obama. "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me," Wright said in an apparent reference to some of Obama's aides. Wright later said he misspoke and meant to refer to "Zionists." A researcher for the Southern Poverty Law Center has said her group had a thick file on von Brunn going back 20 years and that he had become a "hardcore neo-Nazi." Von Brunn blamed a six-year prison term he once served -- for the attempted kidnapping of Federal Reserve board members in 1981 -- on "a Negro jury," "Jew/Negro attorneys" and "a Jew judge," according to his Web site. In documents read at trial, von Brunn wrote that his goal was to "deport all Jews and blacks from the white nations." Also, on his Web site, there's a message lamenting how "bit by bit government institutions and Congressmen fell into JEW hands -- then U.S. diplomacy, businesses, resources and manpower came under Jew control." You get the picture. It's no mystery what this guy is, to anyone but himself. His court-appointed lawyer from the Federal Reserve case said von Brunn, a veteran, considers himself a patriot. He's no such thing. That concept is best defined as love for one's country, not hatred for everyone else. It's

Who does Navarrette say have been targets of haters?

What does Navarrette say should be punished more severely?

What does Navarrette say hate crimes terrorizes as a whole?

Who says hate crimes should be punished more severely?

Answer: Latinos,

Answer: Latinos, especially immigrants.

Answer: Latinos,

Answer: hate crimes

Answer: hate crimes

Answer: society

Answer: Ruben Navarrette

Answer: hate crimes

Summary:
Ruben Navarrette: Hate crimes should be punished more severely .
He says hate crimes terrorize society as a whole .
Navarrette: Latinos, blacks and Jews have all been targets of haters .
He says Obama is right to urge constant vigilance against hate .


Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board, a nationally syndicated columnist and a regular contributor to CNN.com. Read his column here. Ruben Navarrette Jr. says President Felipe Calderon's war on drugs remains a noble battle for the soul of Mexico. SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- It has nothing to do with Michael Jackson or Sarah Palin, but there's a big story brewing south of the border to which Americans should pay close attention. Like a monster that refuses to die, Mexico's once-disgraced Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, made a convincing comeback in last weekend's midterm elections. The PRI recaptured its majority in the 500-member Chamber of Deputies and won five of six governorships up for grabs. The rival National Action Party, or PAN, which had controlled the legislative branch since 2000, suffered heavy losses. German Martinez, president of the PAN, resigned this week after taking responsibility for the electoral failures. Political observers on both sides of the border are calling the elections results a no-confidence vote in the Mexican economy and a significant rebuke to President Felipe Calderon's admirable but all-consuming war against the drug cartels. Calderon -- who is in the PAN -- is halfway through a six-year term, so he wasn't on the ballot. The presidency is next on the ballot in 2012, and observers think that the fact that the PRI aced its midterms sets the party up nicely to accomplish something that seemed unthinkable just a few years ago: retake the top job that it held for much of the 20th century -- 71 years, to be precise -- through corruption and intimidation. In 2000, the PAN's Vicente Fox broke that streak and reintroduced democracy in Mexico. Calderon squeaked out a narrow victory against a third-party candidate in 2006. The Harvard-educated lawyer and economist immediately and bravely took the fight to drug lords across the country, unleashing the military in a conflict that has so far killed more than 10,000 Mexicans with no end in sight. And there are now serious issues -- as spelled out this week in The Washington Post -- involving allegations of torture, forced disappearances and other abuse by the Mexican military as it seeks to retaliate for the killing of soldiers and other terrorist acts committed by the drug cartels. The Obama administration, which has pledged to support Calderon's drug war, would no doubt like to put an end to this alleged behavior before paying out the remainder of the $1.4 billion in aid to Mexico that Congress approved in the Merida Initiative. The trouble is that President Obama has been reluctant to make human rights demands of an adversary such as Iran, which could make it hard to lean on a friend such as Mexico. And as Mexican human rights activists point out, the U.S. government is in a difficult position to preach against torture given that it is accused of using it in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Still, Calderon's war remains a noble battle for the soul of Mexico. And there's evidence that the drug cartels are feeling the pinch. Unable to move their product to customers in Canada and the United States, the cartels are growing desperate. The Calderon government is seizing so much of the product and arresting or killing so many drug traffickers, that profits are slipping. The drug lords are forced to import more guns from the United States at higher prices and channel more drug shipments to Mexican customers, who pay lower prices than the cartels could charge Americans if the drugs were making their way north. This is bad news for the traffickers. But it's great news for the Mexican people, even if they don't know it. Judging from reports in the Mexican press, many Mexicans -- while supportive of the drug war -- think it ultimately will fail, and they're tired of the violence. Many fault Calderon for, in a popular metaphor, "stirring the hornet's nest." Meanwhile, although the PRI didn't explicitly campaign on a platform of being anti-drug war, the implied message was that

Who faults Calderon for stirring up violence with the war on drugs?

Answer: the pinch.

Answer: President Felipe Calderon's war on drugs remains a noble battle for the soul of Mexico.

Answer: Ruben Navarrette Jr.

Answer: President Felipe Calderon's

Summary:
Mexican leader Felipe Calderon may face defeat in 2012 after PRI makes comeback .
Some Mexicans fault Calderon for stirring up violence with war on drugs .
Calderon should address problems and press ahead, Ruben Navarrette Jr. says .
Evidence points to drug traffickers feeling the pinch, Navarrette says .


Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette is a nationally syndicated columnist and a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune. Read his column here. Ruben Navarrette asks whether Obama's cool, calm demeanor will be a plus in negotiating with world leaders. SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- Make no mistake, Barack Obama is one cool customer. Now, after the last debate, it seems all but certain that the Iceman cometh to the White House. Radio talk show hosts and rank-and-file Republicans spent the last few weeks pleading with John McCain to take the gloves off and take the fight to Obama. How's that working out, folks? In this week's match-up, Obama snatched the gloves out of McCain's hands and slapped him silly with them. I suppose the hope was that Obama would get rattled and make a mistake. But Obama doesn't get rattled or make many mistakes. I still have no idea what type of president Obama would make. But he's an extraordinary politician. In fact, he may even be better than Bill Clinton who, while he had the IQ and EQ, also had the burden of a legendary red-hot temper. Obviously, it takes a lot to get under Obama's skin. McCain sure tried. Maybe this is the guy we want negotiating with world leaders. Maybe after eight years of George W. Bush stubbornness, on the heels of eight years of Clinton emotiveness, we need to send out for ice. In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, 58 percent of those who watched the debate said Obama did the better job and 31 percent said that about McCain. That makes three skins for Obama. In earlier polls, 54 percent of those who watched thought Obama won the second debate, and 51 percent thought he won the first one. This week, McCain turned in his best performance of the debates, and the first 30 minutes -- with McCain bringing up Obama's problematic encounter with the now famous Joe the Plumber; and the quip about how he isn't Bush and how Obama should have run four years ago -- were near flawless for the Republican.  iReport.com: Are you Joe the Plumber? Get out your plunger and share your thoughts McCain put Obama on the defensive, and it showed. If McCain had been that aggressive throughout the first two debates -- firm but not necessary unlikable -- we might be looking at a different race right now. But, over the next hour, Obama regained his stride and eventually dominated the exchange.  And, in the end, with his sarcastic crack about school vouchers -- "Because there's not enough vouchers; therefore, we shouldn't do it, even though it's working. I got it." -- McCain was profoundly unlikable. So said the polls. In the CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, 70 percent of debate watchers found Obama more likable. Only 22 percent said that about McCain. McCain's supporters wanted him to bring up some of the allegedly shady characters from Obama's circle of acquaintances that give some Americans pause and lead them to question the Democrat's values. There are good reasons to have that conversation, and bad ones. A friend and fellow journalist told me Obama's Chicago posse was important because it formed "the political womb where the fetal Obama grew into a politician. ... That tells us who he is and what either he believes himself or is at least willing to tolerate as president." Frankly, that argument makes a lot more sense than what many of the Obama haters are saying about how these "Friends of Barack" prove he is a couple of flag pins short of being a full-blooded American. That's nonsense. For instance, with William Ayers -- the unrepentant domestic terrorist who Obama first claimed was just a guy who lived in his neighborhood but with whom we now know the Illinois senator had a more substantial relationship --  the issue isn't Obama's patriotism but his truthfulness. Still, it was obviously a mistake for McCain to bring up Ayers during

What was Obama's attitude?
Who did McCain attack?
What did McCain try to do?
What does America need?

Answer: cool, calm demeanor

Answer: Obama.

Answer: get under Obama's skin.

Answer: to send out for ice.

Summary:
Ruben Navarrette: McCain tried to get under Obama's skin with attacks .
Obama remained cool and wound up ending strongly in the debate, he says .
Navarrette says Ayers attacks backfired even though issue is legitimate .
America may need the cool-headedness of Barack Obama, he says .


Editor's note: Rudy Ruiz founded RedBrownandBlue.com, a site featuring multicultural political commentary, hosts a nationally syndicated Spanish-language radio show; and wrote a guide to success for immigrants ("¡Adelante!" published by Random House). He is co-founder and president of Interlex, an advocacy marketing agency based in San Antonio, Texas. Rudy Ruiz says people hold on to their views despite the evidence for fear of being labeled a flip-flopper. SAN ANTONIO, Texas (CNN) -- As people shout over each other and tune out diverging views in town hall meetings, the health care debate is proving to be symptomatic of a major ailment threatening our nation: A contagious culture of closed-mindedness threatens to suffocate our progress as a society. Why has it become so difficult to even consider changing our minds about important issues? Here's my diagnosis. Increasingly, the willingness to change one's position on political issues has been misread as a mark of weakness rather than a product of attentive listening and careful deliberation. During the 2004 Presidential campaign, the successful branding of John Kerry as a flip-flopper doomed his bid. Fear of "flip-flopper syndrome" is apparently catching like the flu, because today politicians are not alone in their determination to adhere to partisan positions despite the changing needs of our nation. Nearly everyone's so reluctant to appear wishy-washy that they stand firm even when the evidence is against their views. Three factors exacerbate this paralysis by lack of analysis: labels, lifestyles and listening. First, the labels ascribed to many potential policy tools render sensible options taboo, loading what could be rational, economic or social measures with moral baggage. This narrows our choices, hemming in policy makers. Any proposal including the words "government-run" elicits cries of "socialism" and "communism." Any argument invoking the words "God" or "moral" sparks accusations of "right-wing extremism," "fascism," or "Bible-thumping." Instead of listening to each other's ideas, we spot the warning label and run the other way. Second, our lifestyles favor knee-jerk reactions. The way we think, work and live in the Digital Age demands we quickly categorize information without investing time into rich interaction, research and understanding. We're hesitant to ask questions because we don't have time to listen to the long, complicated answers that might follow. And we lack the time to fact-check competing claims. In our haste, it's easier to echo our party's position than drill down, questioning whether party leaders are motivated by our best interests or the best interests of their biggest contributors. Third, we tend to listen only to like-minded opinions as media fragmentation encourages us to filter out varying perspectives. If you're a liberal, you avoid FOX News. If you're a conservative you revile MSNBC. The dynamic is even more pronounced online, where a niche media source can be found for any outlook. This silences the opportunity for meaningful dialogue and deliberation that might lead to reformulating positions, forging sustainable compromises, and developing consensus crucial to moving our nation forward on complex issues. So how can we overcome this challenge, starting with the health care debate? How do we open our minds to the possibility that we could actually learn from somebody else? Here's my prescription. For starters, we should eschew the notion that changing our minds is a character flaw. To the contrary, experts believe it's a manifestation of higher intelligence. Renowned psychologist Stuart Sutherland wrote in "Irrationality," his seminal 1992 book: "The willingness to change one's mind in the light of new evidence is a sign of rationality not weakness." To further free our minds, we should aggressively treat the three Ls: Let's lose the labels: from "flip-flopper" to "commie," from "fear-monger" to "right-wing nut job." Trash the diatribe; mull the ideas. Let's engage in some

Who said that its become unfashionable to have an open mind about issues?

Labels like what obscure the real choices?

Who said "It's become unfashionable to have an open mind about issues?"

What does he say is a sign of rationality?

Answer: Rudy Ruiz

Answer: flip-flopper.

Answer: willingness to change one's mind in the light of new evidence

Answer: "right-wing extremism," "fascism,"

Answer: ascribed to many potential policy tools render sensible options taboo,

Answer: to appear wishy-washy

Answer: "The willingness to change one's mind in the light of new evidence

Answer: Rudy Ruiz

Answer: willingness to change one's mind in the light of new evidence

Answer: people hold on to their views despite the evidence for fear of being labeled a flip-flopper.

Summary:
Rudy Ruiz: It's become unfashionable to have an open mind about issues .
He says labels like "socialism" and "fascism" obscure the real choices .
He says it's a sign of rationality to be open to the evidence .
Ruiz: Let's listen to each other and take into consideration wider range of viewpoints .


Editor's note: Rudy Ruiz founded RedBrownandBlue.com, a site featuring multicultural political commentary. He is host of a nationally syndicated Spanish-language radio show and wrote a guide to success for immigrants ("¡Adelante!" published by Random House). He is co-founder and president of Interlex, an advocacy marketing agency based in San Antonio, Texas. Rudy Ruiz says the lives of U.S. presidents can make them positive role models for students. SAN ANTONIO, Texas (CNN) -- Perhaps we got too used to living in a nation where the president inevitably becomes persona non grata. Maybe after the Clinton and Bush years, we forgot how to give a president a chance to serve not just as a punching bag but also as a role model. Have we become so disenchanted and polarized we can't give our own president a chance to teach our children something about what it takes to succeed? As a small-town boy, I drew inspiration from presidential biographies. As I got lost in the adventures of Teddy Roosevelt, the spirit of George Washington and the ideals of Thomas Jefferson, I found kernels of America's greatness. In those pages, I unearthed a yearning to dream beyond my surroundings, to strive for more, to seek a way to contribute to our nation. Many of the leaders, including Abraham Lincoln, born in a log cabin in Kentucky, ascended from humble beginnings on the wings of education to guide America forward. Devouring their stories, it ceased to matter where I was from or how far removed I was from the centers of power. With an education and a dream -- in America -- anything was possible. Whenever President Obama addresses our youth, he embodies the power of education. Education is the cornerstone of our democracy, the key to upward mobility, a linchpin to transforming whimsical dreams into actionable goals. Ask Bill Clinton. Raised by his widowed mother in Arkansas, he became a Rhodes Scholar. Look at Barack Obama. Emerging from a broken family, he built on degrees from Columbia and Harvard in his odyssey to the White House. Remember Dwight Eisenhower. Hailing from Kansas, he attended West Point on his way to heroism. From both sides of the aisle, education has propelled the career trajectories of our nation's leaders. Even if we disagree with a president's policies, we should accept he can serve as a role model in a broader way. For example, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Nobody would argue this was admirable. But Jefferson was also a great thinker, diplomat and strategist. He co-authored the Declaration of Independence and helped America become a global power by engaging Europe and transacting the Louisiana Purchase. Was he perfect? Of course not. Would we want our children to emulate his every action. No way. But has he been an inspirational role model over time? As a parent, I understand people's concerns about the concepts to which their children are exposed. But the content of the president's speech to students should assuage any worries regarding his motives. Clearly, his agenda is to inspire kids to make the most of education in building a better life, not to brainwash a generation to do his bidding. Pointing to his own experiences, as well as those of others from diverse and modest origins, his remarks convey the importance of personal responsibility, perseverance and education in fulfilling one's potential while contributing to our nation's future. The only way to argue with that is by confusing the issues, twisting the situation into something it was never intended to be. It's gotten so bad, some folks don't want their kids exposed to the president because they're afraid he'll teach them socialism. My answer is that even if he did plan to discuss socialism, they should let their child listen. Of course, the president wouldn't do that, but why is that my answer? Because, as another role model -- President Reagan -- once said: "All great change in America begins at the dinner table." In that light, the president's speech isn't a threat but an

what can give students a positive message

Inspiration was drawn from the lives of who?

Answer: Rudy Ruiz

Answer: lives of U.S. presidents

Answer: lives of U.S. presidents

Answer: U.S. presidents

Answer: Rudy

Summary:
Rudy Ruiz: After Clinton, Bush years, presidents aren't viewed as role models .
He says he drew inspiration from the lives of American presidents .
He says Obama and others show the power of education to improve society .
He says letting students hear Obama's speech can give them a positive message .


Editor's note: Sarah Hughes won the gold medal in figure skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah, and is a graduate of Yale University. Medalist Sarah Hughes says the Games are about excellence and unity. (CNN) -- What are the first thoughts that pop into your mind when you hear the word Olympics? Probably something synonymous with excellence, greatness, excitement, achievement. Maybe it's the striking image of Nadia Comaneci scoring a perfect 10 etched in your mind, or the experience of following Michael Phelps' quest to win a record-breaking eight gold medals last summer in Beijing, China. Or is it the thrill of watching the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team winning the gold medal in Lake Placid, stacked up against unimaginable odds, that occupies that space? I could go on and on, but whatever image the Olympics has for you is probably accompanied by a feeling of pride, happiness, joyfulness, maybe even a childlike glee. Sometimes it's the simple way you can sum up your response to the question -- and perhaps that's the point of asking the question -- but it would be foolish to ignore other aspects of the Games that contribute to making the event happen. Although the presence of public officials at host-city bids shows the International Olympic Committee that they are behind the bid and will be supportive, such appearances are not required. On Friday, President Obama, a Chicago, Illinois, resident for many years, will arrive in Copenhagen, Denmark (his wife is already there), to support and try to persuade the IOC voters in favor of the 2016 Chicago bid. Obama's visit to Copenhagen will make him the first U.S. president to attend an Olympic host-city vote. His visit will not be the first by a president (or prime minister) whose country went on to win a bid for the Games. British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his wife were in Singapore lobbying IOC members for the 2012 Summer Games host-city vote when London was awarded the event. Two years later, Russian President Vladimir Putin went to the host-city vote in Guatemala when Sochi, a relatively unknown city, won the right to host the 2014 Winter Games. The other 2016 contenders vying for votes from the 100-plus eligible members of the IOC are Madrid, Spain; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Tokyo, Japan. Michelle Obama, a lifelong Chicagoan enthusiastically championing the U.S. bid, is displaying her "Olympic spirit." On Monday, the eve of her visit to Copenhagen, she spoke of being ready to woo each voter individually if need be: "Gloves are off. I'm talking to everybody. That's what my schedule looks like." Sounding like an Olympic competitor already herself, she added that she didn't "think there's one person left off." It is easy to come to the conclusion that I might be biased, having won a gold medal in figure skating at the 2002 Salt Lake City Games, but I was an American and a fan long before those Games, and I will be one long after. The memories, unity and patriotism from the Salt Lake Games wasn't about any one particular thing but about all those little "things" coming together: the result of what the participants -- the fans, volunteers, competitors, coaches, moms, dads, sisters, brothers, cities and nations -- created by sharing the best we have to offer with one another. That's what the Olympics are about. They are about greatness, they are about excellence, but above all, the Games are about unity. In a September 10 letter to IOC members, Obama wrote about how he "sees the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games as an extraordinary opportunity for America to renew our bonds of friendship and welcome the world to our shores with open arms." And on Friday, when Obama arrives in Copenhagen, he will be joined by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, newly appointed Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and King Juan Carlos of Spain. Let the

Who is showing she shares the Olympic spirit?

What is about excellence and unity in support of U.S. teams?

Who is showing they share the Olympic spirit?

Answer: excellence and unity.

Answer: Michelle Obama,

Answer: excellence and unity.

Answer: the Games

Answer: Michelle Obama,

Summary:
Sarah Hughes: Obama is among other world leaders who have sought Olympics .
She says Games are about excellence and unity in support of U.S. teams .
She says Michelle Obama is showing she shares the Olympic spirit .


Editor's note: Saturday marks one year since Hamas' defeat of Fatah in the fierce struggle for control of Gaza. CNN correspondent Ben Wedeman has been covering the region for over 15 years. He reports from Gaza on daily life and reality over the past year in this fractious land. CNN's Ben Wedeman reports on the past year in Gaza, where people are safer but out of food, gas, and patience. GAZA CITY, Gaza (CNN)  -- "If you take pictures, I'll kill you! I'll kill you!" screamed a masked Fatah gunman, pointing his AK-47 assault rifle at my cameraman, Joe Duran. "Calm down! Calm down!" I shouted back at him, turning to Joe to tell him to put the camera down. Joe and I had ducked into a fruit and vegetable shop in Gaza City. We had been covering the funeral of a Fatah gunman killed in a clash with Hamas rivals when our third gunbattle of the day had broken out. The gunman left, much to everyone's relief, and I put my small video camera on the floor and pressed the button to record the constant roar of machine gun fire, which went on for more than half an hour. Earlier in the day, Joe and I were on a street corner videotaping Hamas militiamen when a jeep full of Fatah irregulars opened fire, just down the street from an elementary school. As guns blazed, schoolchildren ran for cover. I watched as shopkeeper Khadar Aliyan slammed shut the doors of his grocery store, the expression on his face one of fear and utter exasperation. "I'm going home," he told me. "I'm afraid. We're done for. It's never been this bad." It was violence like this, which we witnessed on December 2006, that reached a climax in the second week of June 2007. When it ended on June 14, 2007, with Hamas roundly defeating Fatah, Gaza went quiet. And quiet -- relative quiet, that is -- has been Hamas' biggest accomplishment since. No longer do you worry about being kidnapped. Gunbattles, though they can happen, are much less common. After last June's takeover (or coup d'etat, as Fatah supporters call it), Hamas quickly imposed law and order, tried to reacquaint Gaza's drivers with long-forgotten traffic regulations, launched a municipal cleanup campaign, and forced the release of kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston, who had been held in captivity for almost six months. Chaos-weary Gazans applauded all of these initiatives. But the honeymoon ended quickly as reality sank in. Since Hamas won parliamentary elections in January 2006, and even more so since last year's takeover, Israel has tightened its siege of Gaza. Israel has restricted supplies of gasoline, diesel and electricity to Gaza, limited the amount of food and other goods entering the strip, and made it virtually impossible for manufacturers and farmers in Gaza to export anything to the outside world. Israeli officials say these measures are intended to pressure Hamas, which is on the U.S. government list of terrorist groups, to stop its members and other factions from firing mortars and rockets into Israel. Israel Defense Forces reports that 1,500 Qassam rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza in 2007, and 2,383 in the past six years. As a result, almost all of Gaza's factories have shut down and thousands of workers have lost their jobs. Between 70 and 80 percent of the population is dependent on food supplied by the United Nations Refugee Works Agency, set up after more than 700,000 Palestinians became refugees after the war that resulted in Israel's creation in 1948. Life in Gaza, never easy, in the last year has become a grinding daily struggle to make ends meet. For the vast majority of Gazans, it means they must spend much of their time trying to secure basic commodities. Such as cooking gas, which comes from Israel. In the past, when supplies were plentiful, it was sold from the back of trucks and donkey carts. Not

Although it is safer for Gazans, what are they in desperate need of?

Are children faced with gunfire violence?

Answer: of food, gas, and patience.

Answer: guns

Answer: After last June's takeover (or coup d'etat, as Fatah supporters call it), Hamas quickly imposed law and order, tried to reacquaint Gaza's drivers with long-forgotten traffic regulations, launched a municipal cleanup campaign, and forced the release of kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston,

Answer: guns

Answer: reports from Gaza on daily life and reality

Answer: As guns blazed, schoolchildren ran for cover.

Answer: CNN's Ben Wedeman

Summary:
Wedeman describes violence, gunbattles, fear before Hamas .
Reports on encounters with assault rifles, children running from gunfire last year .
Now, it's safer but Gazans desperate for gas, cooking fuel, jobs .
One woman: "Hamas hasn't done anything for us, nor has Fatah"