Give Lance another chance?

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Mike Downey: I haven't a smidgen of sympathy for the dope "pedaler"


• Randy Cohen: If many cycling fans are right, most of the top riders engaged in doping


• Jeff Pearlman: Lance racing again is not truly an option anyway -- he's almost 42


• John Hoberman: Any lifting of his lifetime ban should be based on his total cooperation

(CNN) -- CNN asked for views on whether disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong deserves another chance in light of his apologies to his charity, Livestrong, and his soon-to-be-aired interview with Oprah Winfrey, in which it's widely reported he admitted he used performance-enhancing drugs. Armstrong is banned from professional cycling for life and was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles.

Mike Downey: No sympathy for the dope "pedaler"

I was at the Champs-Elysees finish line on July 27, 1986, when the bike of Greg LeMond whizzed by, making him the first American to win the Tour de France. It was a monumental achievement: 210 cyclists, 23 grueling days, long and winding roads, treacherously steep hills.

Mike Downey

Equally hard had to be the abuse LeMond endured in retirement after publicly decrying the sport's hypocrisies and daring to suggest that seven-time winner Lance Armstrong, the All-American boy himself, had not been on the up-and-up. Vilified and disdained, LeMond was treated like a tobacco company's insider who blew the whistle on the industry's methods or like Carl Lewis speculating that his rival Ben Johnson had not won foot races fairly and squarely. As if he had an ax to grind.

I haven't a smidgen of sympathy for Armstrong now that he is exposed for the dope-pedaler -- that's pedal, not peddle -- he truly was. He played the Jean Valjean part of the persecuted man for every franc that it was worth. Let us resist the magnanimous gesture to forgive, forget and give Lance a second (eighth?) chance. He was caught, unlike certain baseball players who have been merely suspected or accused, and has, evidently, confessed. Seven strikes and you're out.

Professional athletes do exist who 'fess up, serve a suspension, then are welcomed back. They, as with the ballplayers, did disgrace their life's work, yet none single-handedly won their sport's championship with their chicanery. None stood apart as Armstrong did and hogged credit for being a champion, a hero. None won a championship by compelling teammates to also cheat, at risk of being shunned, smeared or dropped from the team.

I say we say goodbye for good to Monsieur Armstrong, farewell, adieu. Off to Elba and exile with you, you rogue. Vive LeMond.

Mike Downey is a former columnist for The Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune.

To Armstrong's critics, doping admission would be sweet

Randy Cohen: All big-time cyclists who doped should confess

The important ethical question isn't whether Lance deserves a second chance. Chance to do what? Cheat in seven more Tours? Lie about it seven more times? Bully seven more teammates into doping? He behaved badly and is rightly censured.

Randy Cohen

But that should be the beginning, not the end, of this disheartening story. There's a lot more blame to go around. Cycling's governing bodies also have an ethical duty, and that's to provide a setting in which honest athletes can participate.

If many cycling fans are right, most of the top riders engaged in doping. You simply can't compete against them without doing the same. What was Lance to do? Quit the sport? And who inherits his Tour titles? Some other cheat?

It would be thrilling if one by one, they declined in a Spartacus moment -- an honest, I-am-drugged-Spartacus moment. This is a community problem; it demands community solutions. Unless those who run big-time cycling institute real reforms, Lance's fall will be merely a celebrity scandal, and there's little good in that.

Randy Cohen wrote The Ethicist column in The New York Times Magazine till 2011, and he is a former writer for "Late Night With David Letterman." His latest book is "Be Good: How to Navigate the Ethics of Everything."

Jeff Pearlman: He's almost 42, forget about it

Back when I was 8 or 9, my parents took me to my first trip to Disney World. I remember Space Mountain, and I remember Mickey Mouse's enormous head. For some reason, though, what I remember most is a sign posted within the borders of Epcot. It read: If you can dream it, you can do it.

"Dad," I said, "I dream of being 8-feet tall. But that'll never happen ..."

"Well, son ..."

Jeff Pearlman

"And, Dad, I dream of being able to fly just like Superman. But that'll never happen ..."

"Son, the thing is ..."

"And Dad, I'd really like to win an Olympic gold medal for my Joanie Cunningham impersonation, but ..."

"Son," my father said, "It's a sign. It's just a damn sign."

Sigh.

Throughout Lance Armstrong's recent fight to prove he hadn't cheated, and throughout the plights of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens and Mark McGwire and the alleged PED abuses of dozens upon dozens of others, I've often thought about that day at Disney and, specifically, of that sign.

As a boy, it spoke to me as a kid longing for greatness. Maybe, just maybe, I can accomplish anything. Maybe ...

As a sportswriter who has chronicled much of the past two decades, however, it strikes me as foolish nonsense. As Armstrong's recent admission shows, the words must be altered to -- if you can dream it, you can do it -- as long as you leave your ethics at the door and cheat your ass off and don't mind throwing your supporters under a bus.

Lance Armstrong over the years

HIDE CAPTION

<<

<

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

>

>>

That, now, is the sad, pathetic legacy of men such as Armstrong and Bonds. Once upon a time, they dreamed of doing wonderful things: Of hitting baseballs 500 miles; of speeding down the largest mountains; of being special. Then, however, they learned (as we all do) that we are bound by the confines of humanity. Within the rules and regulations, there is only so strong. There is only so fast. There is only so big. Hence, one can either accept his lot in life and put out the best possible effort, or he can cheat and lie and enjoy the temporary fruits while trying to avoid the inevitable plummet.

Do I think he should be allowed to race again? No. Lance Armstrong racing again is not truly an option anyway -- he's almost 42.

Just the same, I am thrilled that he has -- at long last -- begun to come clean. There are lessons to be learned here, beyond those pertaining to cycling. And day's end, when the cheering has stopped, there is something to be said for trying your best, even if your best doesn't result in triumph.

There is empowerment in knowing you gave your all. There is satisfaction in achieving your own PR. There is the sense of community and camaraderie that comes in the aftermath of a sporting event. Cold beers, casual conversation, sore muscles -- bliss.

Armstrong and Bonds forgot that long ago. For them, it was all -- and only --about winning. They got lost in a corrupt world of enhancers and boosters and had their heads turned by the fame and accolades and money.

Now, though, they are outcasts. They are the tombstones of long-ago dreams.

Jeff Pearlman is the author of "Sweetness: The Enigmatic Life of Walter Payton." He blogs at jeffpearlman.com. Follow him on Twitter.

Oprah interview won't reduce sanctions against Armstrong, officials say

Wayne Norman: Like a convenience store robbery that goes wrong

Lance knows that a quick mea culpa is not enough -- otherwise, he would have admitted to doping long ago. Instead, he made a calculated gamble that he could preserve his reputation and brand by lying, defrauding corporate sponsors, impugning the authorities pursuing him and actively slandering and suing honest whistle-blowers who stood in his way.

Wayne Norman

That bet has not paid off.

Like a convenience store robbery that goes wrong and leads to a hostage-taking and a high-speed chase, Lance's doping is by far the least of his transgressions. A highly calculated confession about the doping still looks like Lance gambling to advance his interests. Former fans will need contrition and a sense that he genuinely regrets the gamble. Those he slandered and defrauded should demand even more.

Lance cannot get another chance as an athlete at this point. That would make a mockery of all sporting rules and their enforcement. When you've been that blatantly dishonest, it won't be easy to convince people to trust you again.

Wayne Norman is the Mike & Ruth Mackowski professor of ethics at Duke University.

John Eustice: Armstrong can make a deal and get leeway

What Lance has, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency wants, and Lance is not going to give it to them unless he gets his (athletic) life back. USADA knows that Lance stands at the nexus of two distinct cultures, two completely different mindsets: The ideals and dreams of Olympic sport and the harsh, ratings-driven business of the professional game.

John Eustice

They view this conquest of Lance as their great chance to have the Olympic vision triumph over the cynicism of the pros. But they need his cooperation to win.

Despite the admitting of pros into the Olympic Games, in truth, the two cultures do not mesh. Pro sports are businesses where talent, ratings and the subsequent cash flows from them, must be protected just as in any other entertainment business.

USADA needs to understand how the professional mentality has "infected" the Olympic movement, and Lance is the key. Was he protected by the International Cycling Union? Was the Tour de France involved? Did it go even higher that that?

USADA makes deals. If Lance can provide them with information on the underground system that fuels athletes worldwide, and explain, for example, how of the 6,000 drugs tests given at the London Games, only one came back positive, allowing him to participate in some triathlons seems a very small price to pay.

Cycling analyst John Eustice was one of the pioneer Americans to break into the world of European pro cycling. He co-founded and captained the first American team to race in the Tour of Italy, and is a two-time United States Professional Champion.

John Hoberman: Is it possible to acquire a conscience overnight?

The report that Lance Armstrong choked up during his apology to Livestrong Foundation employees earlier this week would seem to mark an abrupt departure from the cold, calculating and manipulative personality he has displayed throughout his celebrated athletic career.

Having closely followed the Armstrong saga as a doping researcher, I have come to doubt whether this is man is capable of genuine contrition. One can only imagine the apologetic telephone calls he has been making to the former teammates and other victims he persecuted, threatened, bullied and slandered over so many years.

John Hoberman

Is it really possible to acquire a conscience overnight? Can a person who has long-demonstrated reckless self-assertion, a lack of empathy, coldheartedness, egocentricity, superficial charm and irresponsibility suddenly repent after months of hostile intransigence?

One is tempted to say no, since this ensemble of traits bears a disturbing similarity to the psychopathic personality. Let us hope that Armstrong is capable of leaving his old self behind and building a healthier personal identity.

Any lifting of his lifetime ban from officially recognized competitions should be made contingent on his absolute and total cooperation with the United States Anti-Doping Agency and the World Anti-Doping Agency. Armstrong must demonstrate some good faith by revealing everything he knows about the illicit trade in doping drugs as well as the cynical and opportunistic doctors who have profited from these corrupt arrangements.

John Hoberman teaches at the University of Texas at Austin and is the author of "Mortal Engines: The Science of Performance and the Dehumanization of Sport." He was a consultant in 2005 for the SCA Promotions of Dallas, the insurance company demanding that Lance Armstrong repay a total of $7.5 million it paid to him in Tour de France bonuses.

Shawn Klein: If he cooperates, maybe the lifetime ban could be reduced

After years of adamant denials and protestations of his innocence, Lance Armstrong has reportedly come forward to admit his use of prohibited performance enhancing drugs. If Armstrong is sincerely contrite and forthright in his apology, most people, including myself, will forgive him for his use of prohibited drugs.

Shawn Klein

He cheated in a sport known for its widespread cheating; that doesn't justify his use but it does put his actions into an understandable context that makes it easier to excuse the use. Further, if Armstrong cooperates with the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, his lifetime ban from cycling ought to be reduced to something more reasonable.

The more troubling aspects of the Armstrong case are the allegations that he harassed and intimidated team members and potential whistle-blowers. Violating the arbitrary rules of a sport shows a character flaw and poor judgment, but it is hard to see who else is truly harmed by such actions. But to threaten, intimidate and coerce others (either to use performance enhancing drugs themselves or to cover up his team's use) causes real harm.

Even if only some of these reports are accurate, Armstrong will have to do more than sit on Oprah's couch to earn forgiveness. 

Shawn Klein teaches at the Department of Philosophy and Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship at Rockford College in Illinois and writes the Sportsethicist blog.

What do you think? Comment below and join us on Friday for a live chat on Twitter @CNNOpinion about Lance Armstrong.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors.

Read More..

Elton John has second baby via surrogate

LONDON: British pop star Elton John and his partner David Furnish have become parents for a second time, they confirmed on Wednesday.

The couple told Hello! magazine that they were "overwhelmed with happiness" at the birth of their son Elijah Joseph Daniel Furnish-John, who was born in Los Angeles on Friday to a surrogate mother.

"Both of us have longed to have children, but the reality that we now have two sons is almost unbelievable," they said.

The couple's first son Zachary was also born via a surrogacy arrangement in California in 2010.

"The birth of our second son completes our family in a most precious and perfect way," John and Furnish told the magazine.

"It is difficult to fully express how we are feeling at this time; we are just overwhelmed with happiness and excitement."

The "Candle in the Wind" singer, 65, has been in a relationship with 50-year-old film producer Furnish for almost 20 years and they have been in a civil partnership since 2005.

Last week, the couple's spokesman denied reports they had become parents again, but they have often spoken of their desire for Zachary to have a sibling.

The baby shares his middle name, Daniel, with one of John's 1970s hits.

- AFP/fa

Read More..

Online courses need human element

Online courses are proliferating, says Douglas Rushkoff, but will really succeed when they bring humanity to learning process

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Douglas Rushkoff: Education is under threat, but online computer courses are not to blame


• He says education's value hard to measure; is it for making money or being engaged?


• He says Massive Open Online Courses lack human exchange with teachers


• Rushkoff: MOOCs should bring together people to share studies, maintain education's humanity

Editor's note: Douglas Rushkoff writes a regular column for CNN.com. He is a media theorist and the author of "Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age" and "Life Inc.: How Corporatism Conquered the World, and How We Can Take It Back." He is also a digital literacy advocate for Codecademy.com. His forthcoming book is "Present Shock: When Everything Happens Now."

(CNN) -- Education is under threat, but the Internet and the growth of Massive Open Online Courses are not to blame.

Like the arts and journalism, whose value may be difficult to measure in dollars, higher education has long been understood as a rather "soft" pursuit. And this has led people to ask fundamental questions it:

What is learning, really? And why does it matter unless, of course, it provides a workplace skill or a license to practice? Is the whole notion of a liberal arts education obsolete or perhaps an overpriced invitation to unemployment?

Douglas Rushkoff

The inability to answer these questions lies at the heart of universities' failure to compete with new online educational offerings -- the rapidly proliferating MOOCs -- as well as the failure of most Web-based schools to provide a valid alternative to the traditional four-year college.

Education is about more than acquiring skills.

When America and other industrialized nations created public schools, it was not to make better workers but happier ones. The ability to read, write and think was seen as a human right and a perquisite to good citizenship, or at least the surest way to guarantee compliant servitude from the workers of industrial society. If even the coal miner could spend some of his time off reading, he stood a chance of living a meaningful life. Moreover, his ability to read the newspaper allowed him to understand the issues the day and to vote intelligently.

What we consider basic knowledge has grown to include science, history, the humanities and economics. So, too, has grown the time required to learn it all. While the modern college might have begun as a kind of finishing school, a way for the sons of the elite to become cultured and find one another before beginning their own careers, it eventually became an extension of public school's mandate. We go to college to become smarter and more critical thinkers while also gaining skills we might need for the work force.

Accordingly, we all wanted our sons and daughters to go to college until recently. The more of us who could afford it, the better we felt we were doing as a society. But the price of education has skyrocketed, especially in the tiny segment of elite schools. This has led to the widespread misperception that a good college education is available only to those willing to take on six-figure debt.

Worse, in making the calculation about whether college is "worth it," we tend to measure the cost of a Harvard education against the market value of the skills acquired. Did my kid learn how to use Excel? If not, what was the point?

To the rescue come the MOOCs, which offer specific courses, a la carte, to anyone with a credit card; some even offer courses for free.

Following the model of University of Phoenix, which began offering a variety of "distance learning" in 1989, these newer Web sites offer video lectures and forums to learn just about anything, in most cases for a few hundred dollars a class. MOOCs have exploded in the past few years, enrolling millions of students and sometimes partnering with major universities.

For pure knowledge acquisition, it's hard to argue against such developments, especially in an era that doesn't prioritize enrichment for its own sake. But it would be a mistake to conclude that online courses fulfill the same role in a person's life as a college education, just as it would be an error to equate four years of high school with some online study and a GED exam.

Don't get me wrong: I have always been a fan of online education -- but with a few important caveats.

First off, subjects tend to be conveyed best in what might be considered their native environments. Computers might not be the best place to simulate a live philosophy seminar, but they are terrific places to teach people how to use and program computers.

Second, and just as important, computers should not require the humans using them to become more robotic. I recently read an account from an online lecturer about how -- unlike in a real classroom -- he had to deliver his online video lectures according to a rigid script, where every action was choreographed. To communicate effectively online, he needed to stop thinking and living in the moment. That's not teaching; it's animatronics.

Online learning needs to cater to human users. A real instructor should not simply dump data on a person, as in a scripted video, but engage with students, consider their responses and offer individualized challenges.

The good, living teacher probes the way students think and offers counterexamples that open pathways. With the benefit of a perfect memory of student's past responses, a computer lesson should also be able to identify some of these patterns and offer up novel challenges at the right time. "How might Marx have responded to that suggestion, Joe?"

Finally, education does not happen in isolation.

Whether it's philosophy students arguing in a dorm about what Hegel meant, or fledgling Java programmers inspecting one another's code, people learn best as part of a cohort. The course material is almost secondary to the engagement. We go to college for the people.

Likewise, the best of MOOCs should be able bring together ideal, heterogeneous groupings of students based on their profiles and past performance, and also create ample opportunities for them to engage with one another in the spirit of learning.

Perhaps this spirit of mutual aid is what built the Internet in the first place. Now that this massive collaborative learning project has succeeded, it would be a shame if we used it to take the humanity out of learning altogether.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Douglas Rushkoff.

Read More..

Marine faces court martial over Taliban urinations

CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. A U.S. Marine was set to face court martial Wednesday for urinating on the bodies of dead Taliban fighters in Afghanistan and then posing for photos with the corpses.

Staff Sgt. Edward W. Deptola is accused of the desecration of remains and posing for unofficial photographs with human casualties. He also is accused of failing to properly supervise junior Marines and not reporting the misconduct.

Deptola and another Marine based at Camp LeJeune, N.C., were charged last year after video surfaced showing four Marines in full combat gear urinating on the bodies of three dead Afghans in July 2011. In the video, one of the Marines looked down at the bodies and quipped, "Have a good day, buddy."

Play Video

Political fallout over Marines video

As CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reported after the video's disclosure last January, the Marines in the video were members of a 1,000-man battalion that had completed a combat tour in Afghanistan and returned to Camp Lejuene, where they apparently started showing the video around as a war trophy.

Staff Sgt. Joseph W. Chamblin pleaded guilty to similar charges last month. Chamblin was sentenced to 30 days confinement, reduced in rank, fined and ordered to forfeit part of his pay for six months. Three other Marines were given administrative punishments for their roles in the matter.

Marine's punishment scaled back in urination case

The urination video surfaced amid a string of embarrassing episodes for U.S. forces in Afghanistan. American troops were caught up in controversies over burning Muslim holy books, posing for photos with insurgents' bloodied remains and an alleged massacre of 16 Afghan villagers by a soldier.

The Marine Corps said the urination took place during a counterinsurgency operation in the Musa Qala district of Helmand province, located in the south of the country.

After the video garnered international attention on YouTube, senior military officials sternly condemned the behavior of the Marines involved.

The United States now has 66,000 troops in Afghanistan. The U.S. and its NATO allies agreed in November 2010 that they would withdraw all their combat troops by the end of 2014, but they haven't decided on the scope of future missions in the country and the size of any residual force remaining after that.

Read More..

NRA Ad Calls Obama 'Elitist Hypocrite'

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo

As the White House prepares to unveil a sweeping plan aimed at curbing gun violence, the National Rifle Association has launched a preemptive, personal attack on President Obama, calling him an “elitist hypocrite” who, the group claims, is putting American children at risk.

In 35-second video posted online Tuesday night, the NRA criticizes Obama for accepting armed Secret Service protection for his daughters, Sasha and Malia, at their private Washington, D.C., school while questioning the placement of similar security at other schools.

“Are the president’s kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools, when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?” the narrator says.

“Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security,” it continues. “Protection for their kids and gun-free zones for ours.”

The immediate family members of U.S. presidents – generally considered potential targets – have long received Secret Service protection.

The ad appeared on a new website for a NRA advocacy campaign – “NRA Stand and Fight” — that the gun-rights group appears poised to launch in response to Obama’s package of gun control proposals that will be announced today.

An NRA spokesman said the video is airing on the Sportsman Channel and on the web for now but may appear in other broadcast markets at a later date.

The White House had no comment on the NRA ad.

In the wake of last month’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the Obama administration has met with a cross-section of advocacy groups on all sides of the gun debate to formulate new policy proposals.

The NRA, which met with Vice President Joe Biden last week, has opposed any new legislative gun restrictions, including expanded background checks and limits on the sale of assault-style weapons, instead calling for armed guards at all American schools.

Obama publicly questioned that approach in an interview with “Meet the Press” earlier this month, saying, “I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools. And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.”

Still, the White House has been considering a call for increased funding for police officers at public schools and the proposal could be part of a broader Obama gun policy package.

Fifty-five percent of Americans in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say they support adding armed guards at schools across the country.

“The issue is, are there some sensible steps that we can take to make sure that somebody like the individual in Newtown can’t walk into a school and gun down a bunch of children in a shockingly rapid fashion.  And surely, we can do something about that,” Obama said at a news conference on Monday.

“Responsible gun owners, people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship, they don’t have anything to worry about,” he said.

ABC News’ Arlette Saenz, Mary Bruce and Jay Shaylor contributed reporting. 

This post was updated at 9:32 am on Jan. 16 to reflect include comment from an NRA spokesman.

Read More..

Are gun curbs just symbolism?

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Gun violence recommendations are expected from Vice President Biden on Tuesday


• The proposals are expected to contain substantive and symbolic ideas to curb gun violence


• Presidents use symbolism to shift public opinion or affect larger political or social change

Washington (CNN) -- The pictures told the story: Vice President Joe Biden looked solemn, patrician and in control as he sat at a long table in the White House, flanked by people on both sides of the gun control issue.

The images conveyed a sense that the White House was in command on this issue.

And that's the point. Historically, presidential administrations have used symbolic imagery—at times coupled with marginal actions—to shift public opinion or affect larger political or social change.

"Politics is a risk taking project," said Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University historian and CNN contributor. "They put together these commissions in response to some crisis. You try a hundred things and hope something works."

As Biden's gun control task force recommendations land on the desk of President Barack Obama, political experts say it is important that his administration sends a clear signal that it has things in hand.

Obama says gun lobby stokes fear of federal action

That is especially critical in what will likely be an uphill battle to push specific changes, like an assault weapons ban, as part of a broader effort on gun control.

The first move in the image battle will be to appear to move quickly and decisively.

"You have to give the Obama administration credit for one thing: They've learned from history to do things quickly," Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, said of previous task force initiatives that fizzled.

In 2010, Obama appointed a bipartisan commission headed by former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming and Erskine Bowles, a former Democratic White House chief of staff, to come up with a proposal to balance the budget and cut the debt.

Like the gun task force, Simpson-Bowles reviewed current regulations, gathered input from the public and engaged in tense internal conversations. But after months of working on a proposal—a blend of steep revenue increases and spending cuts—the group struggled to agree to a solution. The president did not take up the recommendations.

Obama largely avoided the issue of gun control during his first term.

He wrote an opinion piece two months after the 2011 assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, acknowledging the importance of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. In the piece he also called for a focus on "effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place."

Newtown searches for answers a month later

But in the aftermath of that shooting and as the election season loomed, the Justice Department backed off from a list of recommendations that included a measure designed to help keep mentally ill people from getting guns.

For now, at least, there is a sense in Washington that the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting where 26 people -- 20 of them young children -- were slaughtered could lead to meaningful legislative reform.

Public opinion would seem to suggest that the White House efforts are well timed.

In the month since the massacre, a new poll showed the percentage of Americans who said they were dissatisfied with America's gun laws has spiked.

The Gallup survey released on Monday showed 38% of Americans were dissatisfied with current gun regulations, and wanted stricter laws. That represented 13-point jump from one year ago, when 25% expressed that view. "You want to strike while the iron is hot," Sabato said. "We Americans have short attention spans and, as horrible as the Newtown shooting was, will anyone be surprised if we moved along by spring?"

The White House has since worked overtime to show it considers gun control an urgent matter.

The vice president has spent the last week meeting with what the White House calls "stakeholders" in the gun control debate.

On Monday, Biden was to meet with members of a House Democratic task force on guns, along with Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of Health and Human Services.

Universal background check: What does it mean?

In a series of face to face discussions on Thursday, Biden sat down with the National Rifle Association and other gun owners groups before conferring with representatives from the film and television industry.

In a sign the White House is prepared to move aggressively on its proposals, Biden made public comments just before meeting with the National Rifle Association, the country's most powerful gun lobby.

"Putting the vice president in charge of (the task force) and having him meeting with these groups is intended to show seriousness and an effort to reach out and respond to concerns and wishes of various groups," said Alan Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory University.

Still, the NRA expressed disappointment in its discussion with Biden and later released a statement that accused the administration of mounting "an agenda to attack the Second Amendment."

Organizations seeking tougher gun control laws insist an assault weapons ban is critical to addressing the nation's recent rash of mass shootings. However, such a ban could be difficult in a Congress mired in gridlock.

"The bully pulpit is limited. It's hard for the president to sustain that momentum," Zelizer said of the White House's gun control efforts after the Newtown shootings. "The thing about symbolism is, like the shock over Newtown, they fade quickly."

Newtown opens eyes to other gun violence against young people

CNN's Jim Acosta and Kevin Liptak contributed to this report

Read More..

Football: LionsXII fall to PKNS

SINGAPORE - After two confidence-boosting wins from their first two Malaysian Super League matches, V. Sundramoorthy's high-flying LionsXII side were brought down to earth on Tuesday night at the Shah Alam Stadium when they fell to their first defeat.

Ironically, PKNS Selangor, the team that defeated them on Tuesday, had entered the match in contrasting fashion - with two losses out of two matches.

But that did not stop PKNS Selangor from stunning the LionsXII and maintaining their 100 per cent home record against the Singapore side.

Last season, PKNS did the double over Sundram's men, beating them in Kuala Lumpur in the MSL as well as in the group stage of the Malaysia Cup.

Tuesday's match seemed headed for a 0-0 draw despite the LionsXII coming close through Fazrul Nawaz, Irwan Shah and Gabriel Quak in the first half which they had also dominated.

Fazrul sent his shot centimetres wide of the post after latching onto a pass by skipper Shahril Ishak. Irwan then missed another scoring opportunity during a goalmouth scramble minutes later, while Quak let himself down by shooting wide with only the keeper to beat after dribbling his way past several PKNS defenders.

In the second half, the two sides switched roles as PKNS attacked more, and had the LionsXII on the backfoot.

In the end, it was Nazrin Syamsul who made the difference when he blasted home the only goal of the game for PKNS.

The LionsXII's misery was further compounded when striker Fazrul was sent off in the dying minutes of the game for a nasty tackle.

The LionsXII's next match is on Saturday against Terengganu at the Jalan Besar Stadium.

- TODAY

Read More..

Gordon Brown: Youth demand rights

Supporters of child activist Malala Yousafzai mark "Malala Day" in Karachi, Pakistan, on November 10, 2012.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Gordon Brown says 2013 already being defined by young people prepared to demonstrate for rights


• Arab Spring was a role model for activism around diverse causes, says U.N. special envoy for global education


• Following attack on Malala Yousafzai, petitions supporting education for girls signed by about three million people


• Many girls saying elders can no longer trample on their rights, says former UK prime minister

Editor's note: Gordon Brown is the former UK prime minister and currently U.N. Special Envoy for Global Education. You can sign the petition against child labor on www.educationenvoy.org

(CNN) -- CNN's Freedom Project has broken new ground by exposing the horrors of child labor, the shame of forced marriages, the brutality of child militias and the injustice of the routine everyday discrimination practised against millions of girls, denied even the most basic of education -- most blatantly revealed in the shooting by the Taliban of Malala Yousafzai.

This year I foresee the Freedom Project gaining new momentum as young people take to the streets and airwaves, grow more vociferous in championing their rights and prove that they are more assertive in seeking change than the adults tasked with their care.

This week a global petition calling for justice for young women in India has attracted more than one million signatures, principally from young people, as a result of the campaigning energies of Avaaz, the global online petitioning movement. Young men and women dominate this month's countrywide anti-rape demonstrations, but all across Asia young people have hit the streets in record numbers at the start of the year.

Gordon Brown

In Bangladesh, young people are leading a movement to demand "child marriage-free zones" to end the practice of girls aged 10, 11 and 12 being forced into loveless marriages against their will. I have met some of these brave girls who are proving more determined in standing up against child marriage than their parents.

Desmond Tutu: Time for men to challenge treatment of women

In Nepal, days before India's anti-rape protests, young people were already marching, demanding an end to men's violence against women and last week demonstrators voiced their outrage at a tense meeting with the prime minister.

In India, another set of street demonstrations is also gaining ground. Young people who have escaped, often when just eight or nine, from bonded labor, have been leading a march to end this form of child slavery, a march that the chief justice of India joined and endorsed.

And in Burma (also known as Myanmar), where Aung San Suu Kyi led demonstrations for democratic rights 25 years ago, 200,000 young people demonstrated against child trafficking.

Already in response to worldwide revulsion at violence against women, major demonstrations are being organized in Africa and Asia in February.

These demonstrations build on the role played by young people in the Arab Spring, the growth of an "indignant" youth movement in Spain and the student demonstrations about tuition fees and rights to study that have characterized countries as diverse as Canada and China, all of which have focused on the dearth of opportunities for young people.

By the end of January, three million people will have signed the Malala petitions, calling for girls to be given their rightful opportunities to go to school. But what is most noteworthy is that one million of these signatures are being assembled by young Pakistani children who are denied a place in school. When I visited Pakistan recently, I was struck by the determination of schoolgirls Kainat and Shazia, friends of Malala who were also injured in the Taliban attack. Both girls determined, in spite of the dangers, to stand up to the intimidation, return to school and study to be doctors.

Dictating daughters' destinies

The same determination is displayed by Imran, a young Indian from Bihar who wishes to return to school and train to become a teacher. Promised a chance to send home money to his family, he was forced to work unpaid in a sweatshop for 14 hours a day. Thankfully Imran was rescued by the Global March Against Child Labour. Now his cause, and that of thousands of others like him, will lead to the presentation of a petition to the Indian parliament calling for the abolition of child labor. Indeed it is expected that in advance of the Indian parliament's vote on the issues, one million more mainly young people will add their names.

The act of creating "child marriage-free zones" reminds us that even in 2013 patriarchs still attempt to dictate their daughters' destinies. The zones also demonstrate patriarchy will not hold back girls' aspirations forever. Protests against male violence against women remind us that too many men still treat women as their chattels, to be exploited and brutalized, but the scale of protests illustrates that the men who are violating rights are being challenged.

The demand from girls to go to school is also a reminder that for most of history, adult generations have been able to dictate whether the next generation is free to dream of better futures or not. Now, girls are saying that their elders can no longer trample upon their rights.

You don't need to fall for a technological determinism to understand that the Internet is helping to radicalize a new generation of young people thanks to our new-found capacity to communicate instantaneously across continents. Just as opinions during the Arab Spring spread rapidly via new technologies, so young people in Asia are today communicating, exchanging views and learning more about other young people. They are making connections across old borders, breaking down traditional barriers, crossing ancient divides and smashing long-established walls of prejudice.

'Frightened' India child bride annuls marriage

In the 1960s John Kennedy talked of crossing a new frontier. In 2013, because of the advances of technology, young people are finding that there is no frontier.

Indeed the sheer scale of the anti-child slavery demonstration of 200,000 young people in Rangoon shows that regimes can repress for a time but they cannot maintain their repression indefinitely. The marches against child trafficking show that the truth will eventually come out and the victims' cries for help will not be silenced forever.

It is not technology however that is driving young people's concerns, it is the yawning gap between the promise of globalization and its reality that brings young people out on to the streets. The promise is that every young person has the chance to rise as far as their talents can take them. Young people are, however, coming to understand the reality of globalization -- that their opportunities and rights depend more on where they were born and who they were born to than on their merit, their effort or their talent.

It is this growing awareness of the gap between what you have in yourself to become -- and yet what you are -- that is fueling the demand for change. Our task is to offer a pathway out of exploitation and into freedom, out of exclusion and into education. When as much as 80% of global inequality is explained by birth and background, education should be the counterweight, the driver of equal opportunity.

The case for global investment in basic education (we need at least two million more teachers and four million classrooms) is not just that individuals will benefit from educational opportunity but that countries will too. Indeed, mobilizing the talent of young people is the only sure way of unlocking the potential of the poorest countries in the world.

We spend 250 times more in the West schooling a child up to the age of 16 than we do on the average African child. Our pattern of educational spending compounds rather than corrects or compensates for these glaring inequalities. Annual educational aid is only $14 per African child.

An April summit, led by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and World Bank President Jim Kim, will demand concrete action from off-track countries to move children from the violation of their basic rights to the guarantee of their right to education. In the coming year I hope the U.N. will hold a debate in its General Assembly on systematic violations of children's rights, demanding that, instead of the exploitation these young people suffer today, we open the doors to opportunity in education.

My aim for 2013 and beyond is to move millions of children from the abyss of exploitation today into the opportunity of education tomorrow. This is the one way we can not only release children from abuse but break the cycle of poverty which is at risk of being transmitted from generation to generation.

Read More..

Long Island high school on lockdown

Last Updated 10:55 a.m. ET

ELMONT, N.Y. Elmont Memorial High School has been placed on lockdown after a report of a suspicious person, possibly with a weapon, in the area, CBS Station WCBS reports.

The lockdown was put into effect shortly after 8 a.m., in response to a 911 call.

No injuries have been reported.

Nassau County Police are guarding the entrance of school. SWAT teams were also seen in front of the school building.

A search of the school and the area is ongoing.

Radio Station WINS reports students were kept in classrooms with locked doors and the lights turned out. Some students were turned away because they were arriving at school as the lockdown was beginning.

WINS correspondent Glenn Schuck reports police helicopters also searched the surrounding area by air.

Parents received "robo-calls" notifying them of the situation.

One parent who showed up at the school told Schuck she has been in touch with her child, who told her the students are huddled in corners of their rooms with the lights out.

Read More..

Oprah Describes Intense Armstrong Interview

Oprah Winfrey said today that disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong came well prepared for their highly anticipated interview, although he "did not come clean in the manner [she] expected."

Winfrey, who discussed the interview on "CBS This Morning" today, said, "We were mesmerized and riveted by some of his answers. I feel that he answered the questions in a way that he was ready. … He certainly had prepared himself for this moment. … He brought it. He really did."

Armstrong had apologized to staffers at the Livestrong Foundation before the Monday interview with Winfrey at a hotel in Austin, Texas, and reportedly admitted to them that he used performance-enhancing drugs throughout his storied career.

Armstrong also confessed to Winfrey to using the drugs, sources have told ABC News. Winfrey said this morning that the entire interview, for which she had prepared 112 questions, was difficult.

"I would say there were a couple of times where he was emotional," she said. "But that doesn't describe the intensity at times."

As for the cyclist's sense of remorse, Winfrey said that will be for viewers to decide.
"I would rather people make their own decisions about whether he was contrite or not," she said.

The interview will air on the OWN network for two nights, starting at 9 p.m. ET Thursday and continuing Friday.

Meanwhile, the federal government is likely to join a whistle-blower lawsuit against Armstrong, originally filed by his former cycling teammate Floyd Landis, sources told ABC News.

The government is seeking to recoup millions of dollars from Armstrong after years of his denying that he used performance-enhancing drugs, the sources said. The U.S. Postal Service, which is an independent agency of the federal government, was a longtime sponsor of Armstrong's racing career.

Joel Saget/AFP/Getty Images

Lance Armstrong Doping Confession: Why Now? Watch Video

Cyclist Lance Armstrong Apologizes to Livestrong Staff for Doping Scandal Watch Video

Lance Armstrong Stripped of Tour de France Titles Watch Video

The deadline for the government's potentially joining in the matter was a likely motivation for Armstrong's interview with Winfrey, sources told ABC News.

The lawsuit remains sealed in federal court.

Armstrong is now talking with authorities about possibly paying back some of the Postal Service sponsorship money, a government source told ABC News Monday.

The deadline for the department to join the case is Thursday, the same day Armstrong's much-anticipated interview with Winfrey is set to air.

Armstrong is also talking to authorities about confessing and naming names, giving up others involved in illegal doping. This could result in a reduction of his lifetime ban, according to a source, if Armstrong provides substantial and meaningful information.

As for the Winfrey interview, it was Armstrong's first since officials stripped him of his world cycling titles in response to doping allegations.

Word of Armstrong's admission comes after a Livestrong official said that Armstrong apologized Monday to the foundation's staff ahead of his interview.

The disgraced cyclist gathered with about 100 Livestrong Foundation staffers at their Austin headquarters for a meeting that included social workers who deal directly with patients as part of the group's mission to support cancer victims.

Armstrong's "sincere and heartfelt apology" generated lots of tears, spokeswoman Katherine McLane said, adding that he "took responsibility" for the trouble he has caused the foundation.

McLane declined to say whether Armstrong's comments included an admission of doping, just that the cyclist wanted the staff to hear from him in person rather than rely on second-hand accounts.

Armstrong then took questions from the staff.

Armstrong's story has never changed. In front of cameras, microphones, fans, sponsors, cancer survivors -- even under oath -- Lance Armstrong hasn't just denied ever using performance enhancing drugs, he has done so in an indignant, even threatening way.

Armstrong, 41, was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned from the sport for life by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency in October 2012, after allegations that he benefited from years of systematic doping, using banned substances and receiving illicit blood transfusions.

"Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling and he deserves to be forgotten in cycling," Pat McQuaid, the president of the International Cycling Union, said at a news conference in Switzerland announcing the decision. "This is a landmark day for cycling."

Read More..