Editor's note: Daria Roithmayr is a law professor at the University of Southern California, Gould School of Law, where she teaches on race and law. She worked for Sen. Edward Kennedy as special counsel on the Clarence Thomas and David Souter confirmation hearings. Guy-Uriel Charles is a law professor at Duke Law School where he is the founding director of the Center on Law, Race, and Politics. Daria Roithmayr says Sotomayor would add broader life experiences to the background of Supreme Court justices. No one was surprised when the subject of race dominated the public conversation during Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. What was surprising was how unwilling both sides of the aisle were to talk about race openly. Republicans tried to argue that race should be completely separated from judicial decision-making. For their part, Democrats tried to minimize the importance of her race to her decision-making by focusing on her record, to show that her race had played no role in her decisions. Judge Sotomayor herself suggested that life experiences are an important part of the process of judging, but then sought to minimize the difference that those experiences might have made to a particular result. Most people understand that life experiences and racial identity do affect the decision-making process. But is this something to be lamented or celebrated? We think the latter. In this, the not quite post-racial era of Obama, scholars are developing new understandings of the connection between race, life experience and decisions. Researchers such as Scott Page and James Surowiecki are telling us that varied life experiences and ethnicity can improve the result when a group makes decisions together. At the University of Michigan, Page uses mathematical models to show not only that people's backgrounds make a difference in how they think, but far more importantly, that these differences are essential for good collective decision-making. As Page acknowledges, the relationship between life experience and decision-making is an empirical question -- a question of fact to be determined based on research. In some domains -- making decisions about the scope of anti-discrimination law or deciding on a health care policy -- we likely will see that broader life experience makes for better decisions. Surowiecki, who wrote "The Wisdom of Crowds," points out that a group will more often than not come to a better decision than the average individual, so long as the group includes a  range of people with different life experiences and ways of looking at and solving problems. As Surowiecki notes, if the group has enough variation in the information that they bring to the table, their thought processes and their approach to solving problems, the group is more likely to come up with the right answer before an individual, even in some instances when the individual is an expert. The Constitution itself recognizes the importance of life experiences to legal decision-making. Defendants in the criminal process are entitled to a jury of their peers precisely because jurors bring to the process a collection of life experiences that will shape their understanding of the facts and the law. All-white juries are problematic in large part because we believe that the life experiences of jurors are an integral part of their collective judgment of innocence or guilt. We also are coming to understand that race is just one of several structural factors that affect a person's life experiences and life chances, together with economic security, gender, class and geography. These days, the best thinking on race focuses less on racial symbolism and more on understanding how race affects a person's life experiences and life chances -- her access to education, health care, economic and physical security, her experience with the criminal justice system, whether she grew up wealthy or in a public housing project. Thus, we understand that the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. for disorderly conduct after he opened his jammed front door might be a signal of existing racism in law enforcement. But the better way to understand his arrest might be to acknowledge that whether one thinks this is the symbol of continued racism in law enforcement or an officer trying to do his job, in general,

What subject dominated the Senate hearing?

What benefit will Sotomayor provide the court?

What does research show about diverse groups of people and decisions?

Answer: Judge

Answer: of race

Answer: Sotomayor would add broader life experiences to the

Answer: Sotomayor would add broader life experiences to the background of Supreme Court justices.

Answer: backgrounds make a difference in how they think, but far more importantly, that these differences are essential for good collective decision-making.

Answer: subject of race

Summary:
Roithmayr, Charles: Race dominated the Senate hearing on Sotomayor .
They say research shows groups of diverse people make better decisions .
Having Sotomayor on court will widen life experiences of the justices, they say .
Roithmayr, Charles: We should strive for diversity of class, gender, geography .


Editor's note: David B. Givens is Director of the Center for Nonverbal Studies in Spokane, Washington. He is the author of "Love Signals: A Practical Field Guide to the Body Language of Courtship" (St. Martin's, New York, 2005), "Crime Signals: How to Spot a Criminal Before You Become a Victim" (St. Martin's, 2008), and the forthcoming "The Body of Work: Sightreading the Language of Business, Bosses, and Boardrooms." His online Nonverbal Dictionary is used around the world as a reference tool. Barack and Michelle Obama celebrate winning the Democratic nomination with a fist bump in 2008. SPOKANE, Washington (CNN) -- The H1N1 swine flu virus is putting our most familiar gesture of greeting -- handshakes -- at risk. As an anthropologist who watches people for a living, I can tell you that human beings touch their own faces with their own fingertips hundreds, if not thousands of times a day. Repeated face touching -- especially finger contact with eyelids, lips, and nostrils -- is as predictable as blinking. You'll observe hand-to-face gestures in every culture and society, as well as in our closest primate relatives, the monkeys and apes. There's nothing wrong with face touching. Nothing, that is, unless you're afraid of germs. And today, many of us around the world are terrified by these tiny organisms, especially ones that cause swine flu. Merely by shaking the hand of someone infected by the swine-flu virus, we risk infection each time we inadvertently reach up and touch our faces. Physicians urge that we wash right after shaking hands. But since the anthropologist in me knows that, as a primate, you'll touch your face before washing, germs will inevitably visit unsuspecting lids, lip, and noses. The human handshake itself, meanwhile, is a widespread gesture used for meeting, greeting, and sealing a deal. It's a ritualized gripping of another's hand, with one or more up-and-down (or, in Texas, sideways) motions followed by a quick release. Since the fingertips and palm of the hand are exquisitely sensitive, the shake itself can be deeply personal. We instantly feel the warmth or coolness, dryness or moistness, and firmness or weakness of another's grip. Sensory input from a hand's thermal and pressure receptors to the brain's sensory cortex and then to deeper, emotional brain areas can be intense. If you travel to France, be prepared to shake hands dozens of times a day. Office workers in Paris, for example, may shake in the morning to greet, and in the afternoon to say goodbye, to colleagues. Outside vendors and technicians will handshake with everyone present when they enter or leave an office. The risk of hand-carried flu virus is thus greater here than it is in the United States, where handshaking is far less frequent. Contrast this to the Japanese practice of giving fewer handshakes, still, in favor of polite bows of the head. In all three nations, casual face touching is frequent, but germs in Tokyo are less apt to spread through handshakes. In Islamic nations, it is strictly taboo for men to shake hands in public with women. So, Muslim couples are less likely to exchange swine-flu germs through manual contact than are business men and women in, say, Seattle, Washington. Since in much of the world a handshake is both a visual and a tactile index of your concern for other people, it's hard to hold one back. In North America, Latin America, and Europe, when someone holds out a hand, it's difficult not to just take a step forward and shake. You don't want, after all, to seem rude. In Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East, handshaking may be more nuanced than in the West, or even absent. An Asian namasté, with your palms and fingers pressed together in front of your chest, given with a slight bow -- or a Muslim salaam, in which your right

What creates risk of spreading the flu virus?

What did David Givens say about the H1N1 flu?

What is the risk of handshakes during flu season?

What's a less risky way of greeting people?

Answer: handshakes

Answer: at risk.

Answer: Barack and Michelle Obama

Answer: handshakes

Answer: H1N1 swine

Answer: handshakes

Answer: Barack and Michelle Obama

Answer: gesture used for meeting, greeting, and sealing a deal.

Answer: Barack and Michelle Obama

Answer: H1N1 swine

Answer: H1N1 swine flu virus

Answer: polite bows of the head.

Summary:
David Givens: H1N1 flu is prompting focus on how we greet each other .
He says handshakes create risk of spreading the flu virus .
Fist bumps are a less risky way of greeting people .
Givens: Obamas and Dalai Lama have popularized the fist bump .


Editor's note: David Craig is a film, television and Web producer, an adjunct professor at the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Southern California, and a gay rights activist.

David Craig says there's growing support for recognition of gay unions and gay marriage.

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- My battle for marriage equality began in 1990, after my partner, Brian Binder, and I had a commitment ceremony. The ceremony was held at the end of a conference for Parents and Friends of Lesbian and Gays and was attended by more than 300 friends and members of both our families.

We were featured in a couple of books on gay marriage because the concept was so new at the time. We also registered as domestic partners and entered into every possible form of legal recognition available at the time.

A few years later, Brian was visiting his parents in Nevada to inform them that he was giving up his battle with AIDS. Something went horribly wrong, and he was rushed to the hospital. I flew there immediately.

As his caretaker, I knew his medical condition and had been involved in every medical decision. We had shared the joy of making a commitment to one another and the pain and suffering of a horrible disease.

But when I arrived, I was told I could not see him because I was not "family" and because my legal documents were valid only in California. Even as I heard him calling out my name, they refused to let me see him because we were not married. Brian died in 1992.

In 1995, I helped organize the first Freedom to Marry March in Los Angeles. Ten years later, the idea for A Day Without Gays was conceived. iReport.com: Are you taking part in "A Day Without Gays?"

I was discussing same-sex marriage with Delia Fine, my colleague at the A&E Network. I proposed a gay version of Lysistrata, an ancient Greek satire about Athenian women who withheld sex from their husbands until they agreed to stop going to war.

She replied, "what if gays went on strike instead?" and the idea was born.

We convinced A&E to produce a movie based on the idea, which became a romantic comedy called "Wedding Wars" that aired on the network in 2006. Critics compared the film to "A Day Without a Mexican," which led to the one-day protest by the Latino community called A Day Without Immigrants.

In the wake of the passage of Proposition 8 in California, which banned same-sex marriage, I posted the event on Facebook. My fellow organizer, Steve Holzer, inspired by the Latino protests, suggested we call it A Day Without Gays.

We soon discovered that other organizers had conceived of the same idea simultaneously, and we all agreed to schedule the protest for December 10, which is International Human Rights Day. A week later, Join The Impact, the group that organized City Hall rallies nationwide November 14, joined forces with us.

Our goal is to raise awareness that marriage is a "basic human right" as declared by the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, the case that ended race-based restrictions on marriage.

We believe that to deny gays and lesbians that right, and the 1,400 state and federal legal and economic benefits of marriage, is discrimination and in violation of the 14th Amendment.

We are asking people who support us to "call in gay" to their workplace by taking the day off or to shut down their businesses. Our goal is to raise awareness that we are gay and lesbian Americans who work, own businesses, pay our taxes and support the economy to the tune of $712 billion a year, according to an analysis by Witeck-Combs Communications, a public relations agency that specializes in the gay and lesbian consumer market. This is a declaration that we take our rights seriously and demand full equality.

Our Facebook site has had a million visitors, and more than 225,000 people indicate that they will or might participate. There are also more than 17,000 postings from participants who have taken

What protest is scheduled for December 10th?

How long has Craig been battling for gays?

What kind of marriage rights is David Craig fighting for?

What kind of protest is Craig organizing for December 10?

Answer: A Day Without Gays

Answer: nationwide

Answer: began in 1990,

Answer: recognition of gay unions and gay marriage.

Answer: gay

Answer: A Day Without Gays

Summary:
David Craig: I've been battling for marriage equality for gays since 1990 .
He says civil unions don't provide same level of rights and benefits as marriage .
Craig is part of a group organizing "day without gays" protest for December 10 .
Craig: Poll shows growing support for gay unions and for gay marriage .


Editor's note: Dina Habib Powell, global head of corporate engagement at Goldman Sachs, served as U.S. assistant secretary of state for educational and cultural affairs from 2005 to 2007.

Dina Habib Powell says there are encouraging signs the world is ready to invest in empowering women.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- As we mark International Women's Month in March, it is encouraging to see that the movement to recognize the vital role that women play in families, nations and economies has been building for more than a decade and that developments in the past few years have shown that real progress has begun to take hold.

On the heels of International Women's Day, President Obama said Monday, "we will not sow the seeds for a brighter future or reap the benefits of the change we need without the full and active participation of women around the world."

He also recently announced the creation of a new position, ambassador-at-large for global women's Issues, at the State Department.

To fill this critical role, the president nominated Melanne Verveer, a widely respected women's advocate and former top aide to then first lady Hillary Clinton.

Verveer was a founder of Vital Voices Global Partnership, an organization committed to empowering women and recently co-chaired by Secretary Clinton and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

There has also been very recent progress on Capitol Hill. Last month, the U.S. Senate created a Foreign Relations subcommittee that will focus on the global status of women, led by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California.

The efforts have been a bipartisan priority for our leaders. In 2008, then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice successfully led the effort in the U.N. Security Council to officially recognize rape as a weapon of war. And in 2001, Laura Bush used the first presidential radio address ever given by a first lady to focus international attention on the plight of women in Afghanistan and used her influence to protect and empower women around the world.

Critical strides are also being made globally. In Rwanda, a country devastated by genocide, women have become a key part of the nation's rebirth. Under the leadership of President Paul Kagame, more than half of the parliament is made up of women. In Liberia, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf made history when she became the first female president on the African continent.

In the Middle East, Kuwait has emerged as a leader in women's suffrage and political participation. And in the United Arab Emirates, women such as Sheikha Lubna Al Qasimi, minister of foreign trade, have been trailblazers for progress throughout the region.

This social change is being promoted at the United Nations, where Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recently noted that the protection, education and empowerment of women and girls are among the most important ingredients to achieving all other Millennium Development Goals.

Such consensus should not be surprising as study after study has found that investing in the education of women improves lives.

Every extra year of girls' education can reduce infant mortality by 5 to 10 percent. In Africa, children of mothers who receive five years of primary education are 40 percent more likely to live beyond age 5. And multicountry data show educated mothers are about 50 percent more likely to immunize their children than uneducated mothers are.

But one of the most important developments of recent years has been the increasing amount of research that shows investments in women can offer not only social benefits, but also real economic growth. A growing body of evidence highlights the economic advantage of educating and empowering women.

The private sector has seized on this data. There is now broad consensus that investing in women is not only just good social policy, it is "smart economics," as Bob Zoellick, president of the World Bank, says.

Toward that end, the World Bank has convened a Private Sector Leaders Forum with companies committed to these issues, such as Standard Chartered, Cisco, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young, Carlson and Nike.

My own firm, Goldman Sachs, published two critical pieces of research, "Womenomics" and "Women Hold Up Half

What is so encouraging here?
What does the study show?

Answer: signs the world is ready to invest in empowering women.

Answer: investing in the education of women improves lives.

Summary:
Dina Powell: As we mark Women's Month, there are encouraging signs .
Both parties in the U.S. are taking steps to invest in the role of women, she says .
She says studies show that more education decreases infant mortality .
Investing in women's education leads to increases in economic growth, she says .


Editor's note: Dr. Anthony S. Fauci is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Anthony S. Fauci: Progress has been made in the fight against HIV/AIDS, but "our work is just beginning." (CNN) -- When we commemorated the first World AIDS Day on December 1, 1988, we had little to celebrate. The number of reported AIDS cases in the United States was nearing 80,000 and rising rapidly. Untold thousands more in this country were living with the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV. Globally, AIDS cases already had been reported from more than 135 countries. An AIDS tsunami clearly was looming, but we had few defenses at our disposal. For those of us caring for people with AIDS, it was a dark time. We had just one anti-HIV medicine in our pharmacies, AZT, a drug that the virus rapidly defeated by mutating and developing resistance. Lacking other medicines to slow the relentless replication of HIV and its destruction of a person's immune system, we did our best to help our patients by managing to the extent possible their AIDS-related infections and complications. But the life span of most of the patients was measured in months. Two decades later, much has changed. An unprecedented research effort has led to more than two dozen anti-HIV drugs, more than for all other viral diseases combined. Taken in proper combinations, these medications have dramatically improved the prognosis for people living with HIV by increasing their life span by at least a decade and providing the possibility of a normal life span with continued therapy. Scientifically proven prevention approaches -- education and outreach to at-risk populations, voluntary HIV testing and counseling, condom distribution, prevention of HIV transmission from mother to baby, harm reduction approaches for drug abusers, mass-media campaigns and the screening of donated blood -- have been deployed with great success in the United States and many other countries. Innovative programs such as the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, as well as the efforts of nongovernment organizations, have reached millions of people in low- and mid-income countries worldwide with HIV-related services, at a scale unimaginable a few years ago. And gradually -- but too slowly -- we have begun addressing AIDS-related stigma in this country and abroad. Much has been accomplished in the fight against HIV/AIDS from scientific, medical and public health standpoints. However, now is no time to rest on our accomplishments or our laurels. The statistics of the HIV/AIDS pandemic tell us that much more needs to be done. Around the world, a staggering 2.7 million people were infected in 2007 alone. Globally, 33 million people are living with HIV infection, most of them in the developing world. In the United States, more than 1 million people are living with HIV. And 56,000 more people are infected each year in the U.S., driving HIV prevalence rates in some of our communities to levels that rival those seen in sub-Saharan Africa. Gay and bisexual men, and African-Americans in general, are disproportionately affected. The true ground zero of the HIV epidemic in the United States is in those communities. What is the way forward? First, even in the face of a world economic crisis, the global community must scale up the delivery of proven HIV therapies and prevention services. In low- and middle-income countries, less than one-third of people in need of anti-HIV therapy are receiving it, and only one in five people at risk of HIV infection have access to prevention services. All around the world, access to HIV services -- and medical care in general -- remains a challenge in many poor communities. The global community must sustain our commitment to investing resources for medicines, clinics, as well as training and salaries for doctors, nurses and community health care workers to provide care for HIV/AIDS and other diseases in the settings where they occur. Here in the United States, more than one-fifth of

What did the medications improve prognosis for?

What are the prevention approaches hat are available?

Answer: Progress has been made in the fight against HIV/AIDS, but "our work is just beginning."

Answer: access to HIV services

Answer: increasing their life span by at least a decade and providing the possibility of a normal life span with continued therapy.

Answer: of HIV transmission from mother to baby, harm reduction

Answer: have dramatically improved the prognosis for people living with HIV

Summary:
Dr. Anthony S. Fauci: Access to HIV services, medical care a challenge in poor areas .
Fauci: Preventive HIV vaccine is best hope for halting spread of HIV/AIDS .
Medications improved prognosis for people living with HIV by increasing life spans .
Prevention approaches, education, testing, counseling, condoms deployed .


Editor's note: Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, world-renowned HIV/AIDS researcher who has been on the forefront of battling the disease since it was discovered, previews his speech to this week's International AIDS Conference.

Dr. Anthony Fauci is cautiously optimistic that eventually some AIDS/HIV patients will be cured.

WASHINGTON (CNN) --   This week, more than 25,000 people from the global HIV/AIDS community are in Mexico City, Mexico, attending the XVII International AIDS Conference. I am pleased to be among them.

This is the first International AIDS Conference to be held in Latin America, a region hard-hit by the HIV/AIDS pandemic, but also a place where exceptional scientific and public health advances have been made.

The theme of the conference is Universal Action Now, which stresses the need for scientists, policymakers, activists and other concerned citizens everywhere -- in rich countries and poor ones -- to work even harder to defeat a scourge that already has claimed more than 25 million lives.

We have made considerable progress against HIV/AIDS, not only on the scientific front, but also with regard to the political will, funding and essential public health efforts on the ground that are delivering medicine, care and prevention services. However, much remains to be done, as 2.7 million people worldwide were infected with HIV in 2007.  Watch more on the International AIDS Conference »

In the United States, the rate of new infections continues at an unacceptably high level, especially in the African-American community. In my home city of Washington D.C., a staggering 5 percent of the population is infected with HIV, a rate that rivals those in sub-Saharan Africa. Eighty percent of my infected neighbors in Washington, D.C., are African-American.

Throughout the United States, we are seeing a resurgence in HIV cases among men who have sex with men of all races, with African-Americans again hardest hit. Despite what you might hear, the AIDS pandemic is still raging.

Many hundreds of presentations at the conference are dealing with important research on the basic biology of HIV and its disease-causing mechanisms; the complex immune responses to the virus; and advances in tools to diagnose, treat and prevent HIV.

My talk on Wednesday, is called "Looking to the Future: New Directions in HIV/AIDS Research" and will look at all these issues, and the many challenges (and opportunities) in AIDS science. But I hope to leave the audience with at least a tentative answer to an important question I get all the time: Will we ever have a cure or a vaccine for HIV?

Despite our considerable success in managing HIV infection and improving the length and quality of life for people living with HIV, there is no well-documented case of anyone being truly cured of HIV disease. This is because HIV is unlike virtually any other virus in its ability to hide from the immune system in protected cellular sanctuaries that we call "latent reservoirs."

We know that these reservoirs are established within days of infection, and even our most potent combinations of anti-HIV drugs are unable to purge the virus from these hiding places, even in people who have been on therapy for a decade or more. If you take a patient off his or her anti-HIV therapy, the virus hiding in these reservoirs springs back, and soon billions of viruses are renewing their assault on immune system cells and other organs. Photos chronicle AIDS treatment worldwide

Our best hope for eradicating HIV from the reservoirs may be to diagnose and treat people aggressively very early in infection, before the reservoirs have become too large. Our laboratory and other groups are testing this approach with intensive regimens of new drugs that prevent the virus from entering cells or from inserting its genes into a cell's DNA.

Even if the virus is not completely eradicated, such early, intense treatment, perhaps with the help of immune-boosting drugs, might keep the reservoir small -- and the immune system strong -- thereby allowing a person to come off therapy. This would be a "functional" cure. Other approaches

How many are expected at the International AIDS Conference?

Where will the International AIDS Conference be held?

How many people are expected at the International AIDS Conerence?

Answer: more than 25,000

Answer: Mexico City, Mexico,

Answer: 25,000

Summary:
More than 25,000 people expected at the International AIDS Conference .
Progress made in science, political will, funding, public health, expert says .
For every person put on therapy, 2 to 3 people are newly infected, he says .
Cure critical to attempts to contain the pandemic, he says .


Editor's note: Dr. John Boyce, chief of the Infectious Diseases Section at the Hospital of Saint Raphael in New Haven, Connecticut, was lead author of the Centers for Disease Control's national hand hygiene guidelines for health-care workers and heads the Hand Hygiene Resource Center. Dr. John Boyce says hands contaminated with virus are often  a pathway for people to develop flu. (CNN) -- The rapid spread of the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus (also known as swine flu) from Mexico to at least 19 other countries in less than 10 days is a cause of major concern. It emphasizes the need for the public to become familiar with how influenza is spread and which preventive measures they can use to reduce their chances of becoming infected. Although little information is available at this time, it appears that this influenza virus spreads from one person to another in the same way as other influenza viruses -- by "droplet spread." Respiratory droplets are generated when an infected person coughs or sneezes and expels droplets of fluid. Those droplets travel short distances (usually less than three feet) through the air and can be deposited on the mouth or in the nose of people or on surfaces. Those who develop influenza often shed large amounts of virus in their respiratory secretions for several days after they become ill. Experience with other viruses suggests that individuals with influenza can contaminate their hands when coughing, sneezing or blowing their noses. The virus can survive on the hands for at least one hour. If a person whose hands are heavily contaminated touches a surface such as a doorknob, table or computer keyboard, they can deposit the virus onto that surface, where it can survive for minutes to several hours. One study conducted with a regular seasonal strain of influenza virus found that the virus could survive on facial tissues for several minutes and for two to eight hours on stainless steel or plastic surfaces. If another person touches a contaminated surface with his hands when the virus is still alive and then touches his own mouth or nose, he may become infected. Infection might also occur when a person with influenza shakes hands with another person who subsequently touches their own mouth or nose with their fingers. Several studies have found that many people touch their noses or mouths several times an hour during the course of daily activities. So there are plenty of opportunities for people to inadvertently introduce a flu virus into their bodies if their hands become contaminated. As a result, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that individuals perform hand hygiene -- also known as hand washing or decontamination -- frequently during influenza outbreaks. In addition to reducing the risk of developing influenza, hand hygiene can help protect people from becoming ill with several other respiratory viruses by eliminating these organisms from the hands. A recent study found that hand washing with soap and water or using an alcohol-based hand sanitizer were both highly effective in reducing a seasonal strain of influenza virus on the hands. This should also be true for the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus. Either plain soap or antimicrobial soap will reduce the amount of virus on the hands. To ensure decontamination, be sure to wash your hands vigorously and keep both soap and water on your hands for at least 15 seconds. When sinks are not readily available, alcohol-based hand sanitizers are a convenient and effective way of eliminate the virus from hands. Use an amount of sanitizer at least the size of quarter or enough to keep your hands wet for at least 15 to 20 seconds while you're rubbing them together. The CDC also recommends that people should avoid touching their mouths, noses and eyes, since surfaces they touch may be contaminated when flu virus is present. People who develop influenza or other respiratory viral infections should also clean their hands after blowing their nose or after covering a cough with their hands. Since droplet spread is the most common way influenza is transmitted from person to person, the CDC also recommends avoiding close contact with individuals who are sick. If you do become ill with influenza, the CDC recommends that you stay home from work or school and limit contact with others.

How long can the virus survive on various surfaces

What part of the body is said to often spread the flu virus

When you cant use a sink what is the next best method that works

Answer: several hours.

Answer: a pathway for people to develop flu.

Answer: coughs or sneezes and expels droplets of fluid.

Answer: at least one

Answer: hands

Answer: at least 15 seconds.

Answer: alcohol-based hand sanitizers

Summary:
John Boyce: Hands contaminated with virus often spread the flu .
He says viruses can survive for hours on various surfaces .
Boyce: People need to wash hands with soap and water for at least 15 seconds .
He says alcohol-based sanitizers can work in the absence of a sink .


Editor's note: Dr. Thomas H. Murray is chief executive of The Hastings Center, a nonprofit research institute on bioethics in Garrison, New York. Murray was formerly director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at Case Western Reserve University and president of the Society for Health and Human Values.

Thomas Murray says doctors have responsibility for welfare of children conceived through IVF procedure.

GARRISON, New York (CNN) -- The birth of octuplets to a California woman last week raised a boatload of issues that can distract us from the central ethical question posed by the case: How do we take children's well-being into account in reproductive medicine?

Yes, it's puzzling why an unemployed single woman who already had six children wanted a passel more. And it is not crazy to wonder who will pay for these children's needs over the years, beginning with what is sure to be a gobsmacking bill for neonatal intensive care.

For now, we can put aside the lifeboat problem: A human uterus is not built for eight passengers; the odds for each child to be born alive and healthy go down as the number in the lifeboat goes up.

Her physicians offered to reduce the number of fetuses she was carrying; citing her moral convictions, she declined. As of the last reports, all eight survived. Still, knowing what we do about the many risks that come with being born too soon and too small, their medical course is likely to be complex and unsteady.

What this case really does is split wide open a fault line running through infertility treatment in American medicine. People who show up at fertility clinics are adults. In the typical case, they've been trying to get pregnant for a year or more without success.

When all goes well, a cycle of IVF (in-vitro fertilization) results in a pregnancy and the birth of one, perhaps two, healthy babies. As a son, a father, and now a grandfather, I can attest that there is no more important or enduring relationship in our lives than the one between parents and children.

Whether that relationship is forged through infertility medicine, adoption or the old-fashioned way matters not at all: What counts is that adults who want to love and raise a child are matched with a child who needs just that love and care.

The point of infertility treatment, after all, is to create a child. But that child-to-be is not the clinic's patient -- the would-be parents are. I believe that the interests of those children deserve at least as much consideration as the wishes of the prospective parents.

The vast majority of infertility patients are no doubt fierce advocates for the well-being of the child they so earnestly seek to bring into their lives. What happens, though, when the client's request shows little consideration or regard for the welfare of the would-be children? What happens if a woman in her early 30s with six children wants eight embryos implanted all at once?

A responsible physician could turn down such a request, citing professional guidelines that counsel implanting one, at most two, embryos in women younger than 35. How Nadya Suleman ended up with eight is a mystery. That's what Nadya Suleman is claiming.

Perhaps there is a physician somewhere willing to defy the wisdom of his or her peers; perhaps Suleman used fertility drugs rather than IVF as she claimed. Whatever the case, this guideline is based on safety. Carrying more than a couple of fetuses is dangerous to the pregnant woman and to the health and survival of the fetuses in her womb.

Citing safety is a prudent way to turn down requests an infertility physician thinks are ill-considered. But sometimes that gambit isn't available.

A psychiatrist friend who conducted intake interviews for a well-respected clinic described a rough-looking couple who carried for their up-front payment thousands of dollars in cash stuffed in a bag -- drug money, she was certain.

She was able to discourage the couple from following through on their plan. Here's the rub: Her concern was the ultimate

In what cases do doctors have responsibility for children's welfare?

The case of the birth of what in California raises questions?

What did Thomas Murray say about the case of the birth of octuplets?

Answer: California

Answer: conceived through IVF procedure.

Answer: octuplets

Answer: California

Answer: How Nadya Suleman ended up with eight is a mystery.

Answer: chief executive of The Hastings Center,

Summary:
Thomas Murray: The case of the birth of octuplets in California raises questions .
He says doctors typically cater to the wishes of their patients, the parents .
In IVF cases, the doctors also have responsibility for children's welfare, he says .
He says doctors shouldn't use a loophole to evade their responsibility .


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the happening to primary care doctors?

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

Answer: Dr. Vance Harris is a primary care physician

Answer: primary care physician

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

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


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

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

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

Answer: Jack Kemp's

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What political party did Silver belong to?

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

Answer: actor

Answer: social liberal and a Democratic activist,

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What did Rep. Eric Cantor say about Obama?

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

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

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

Answer: The GOP

Answer: the new administration

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

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

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


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

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

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

What does she say they overwhelmingly support?

What year did young people show concern about the issue?

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

Answer: Erica Williams

Answer: the health

Answer: Obama's reform plan,

Answer: Obama's reform plan,

Answer: 2008 election campaign,

Answer: 2008

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


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

What did she say is being used as a weapon?

What governments need to protect Congo's women?

What did Eve Ensler say about the war in Congo?

What did she say was being used as a weapon?

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

Answer: Femicide,

Answer: Western

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

Answer: taking a terrible toll on women and girls.

Answer: Femicide,

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


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

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

Zakaria calls Russia's recognition of what a joke?

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

What did Fareed Zakaria say about Russia's actions?

What country is characterized as "anti-modern"?

What does Zakaria say the US shouldn't do?

How many provinces broke away from Georgia?

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

Answer: Soviet-era tactics.

Answer: of the two provinces

Answer: foreign affairs analyst

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

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

Answer: Russia

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

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

Answer: Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Answer: recognition of the two provinces

Answer: Russia

Answer: United States

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


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

Who must try massive market interventions?

What does America's financial system need?

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

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

Answer: The government

Answer: America's financial system

Answer: new, different and better regulations

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


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

What country is Gerges referring to in his commentary?

Do the ruling mullahs have public support?

What groups are the ruling mullahs out of step with?

Answer: Iran

Answer: Iran

Answer: nearly 2-to-1 landslide for Ahmadinejad

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

Answer: loss of

Answer: women and young voters.

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


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

Whose economy is in trouble due to lower oil prices?

For what reasons is Iran's economy in trouble

Who are considered key factors in the past votes

What is considered the main turning point for the Iranian elections

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

Answer: Iran

Answer: uncertain and declining oil revenues and

Answer: women,

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

Answer: women voters

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


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

Jim Bouton is a former member of what team?

Answer: Jim Bouton

Answer: Yankee Stadium

Answer: Yankee

Answer: April 9, 1962,

Answer: Jim Bouton

Answer: Yankee Stadium

Answer: American League All-Star

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


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

Who has had a fine career in government?

Who said the CIA director is too important for training?

Answer: Leon Panetta

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

Answer: Frances Townsend

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