Republicans Criticize Obama's Gun Proposals

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Less than an hour after President Obama finished outlining his plan to address gun violence in America, Republicans in Congress fired back, criticizing the president for attacking the Second Amendment.

Sen. Marco Rubio, who many conservatives look to as a viable presidential candidate in 2016, said he would “oppose the president’s attempts to undermine Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms.” Instead, he believes Congress should focus its efforts on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

“Nothing the president is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook. President Obama is targeting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence,” Rubio, R-Fla., wrote. “Rolling back responsible citizens’ rights is not the proper response to tragedies committed by criminals and the mentally ill.”

PHOTOS: Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting

Michael Steel, spokesman to Speaker John Boehner, reacted to the president’s proposals in a brief statement, putting the onus on the Democratic Senate to lead the legislative path to tougher gun laws.

“House committees of jurisdiction will review these recommendations,” Steel wrote in an email after the announcement. “And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that.”

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said House Republicans “welcome the recommendations of this task force and will consider them” but his committee will plot its own course in addressing gun violence.

Transcript: Obama’s Remarks On Gun Violence

“Good intentions do not necessarily make good laws,” Goodlatte, who received an A rating from the NRA, stated. “As we investigate the causes and search for solutions, we must ensure that any proposed solutions will actually be meaningful in preventing the taking of innocent life and that they do not trample on the rights of law-abiding citizens to exercise their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.”

House Education and the Workforce Chairman John Kline, R-Minn., also said his committee would convene a hearing “to examine school safety and ways to protect our children.” Rep. Fred Upton, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce committee is also planning to review mental health laws.

Other House Republicans were skeptical of the effectiveness of the president’s ideas, such as enacting another ban on assault weapons.

“The fact is these firearms are no different than other legal firearms except for their exterior design,” Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas, wrote. “Claiming to address gun violence by offering a failed, illogical action is nothing more than a red herring to target the constitutionally protected liberties of law abiding gun owners.”

“More gun restrictions may allow Washington to congratulate itself, but will never change the sickness and depravity that drive someone to murder indiscriminately,” Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., wrote in a statement.

“The president’s plan approaches the problem of gun violence from the wrong direction,” Louisiana Republican Rep. Rodney Alexander, who also received an A rating from the NRA, wrote in a statement. “This proposal will not stop criminals from getting their hands on weapons and using them for harm.”

“Guns are not the problem, evil people are,” Rep. Dan Beneshik, R-Mich., wrote in a statement. “The only thing these proposed restrictions would do is prevent law-abiding individuals from protecting their homes, children, and businesses.”

“The Second Amendment is non-negotiable,” Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kansas, wrote in a statement. “The right to bear arms is a right, despite President Obama’s disdain for the Second Amendment and the Constitution’s limits on his power.”

INFOGRAPHIC: Guns in America: By The Numbers

Huelskamp said the debate should instead focus on “what fuels a very small segment of the population to inflict harm and instill fear” and the Obama administration should enforce gun laws already on the books.

“This means holding Hollywood accountable for its culture of violence and death, and talking about mental health issues and the responsibilities of families and communities,” Huelskamp, who received an A+ rating from the NRA, stated. “The Obama Administration is neglecting its obligation to enforce current law. Apparently public safety matters only when there’s political gain to be had.”

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..

Tennis: Nadal said to be targeting Brazil Open

SAO PAULO: Spanish tennis star Rafael Nadal, out of action since the middle of last season because of injury, could return to the court at next month's ATP Brazil Open in Sao Paulo, organisers said Tuesday.

A statement from tournament sponsors DGW Comunicacion, which recently was involved with a Roger Federer exhibition appearance in Brazil, said the event will "mark the return to the circuit of one of world tennis' top stars".

And Luis Felipe Tavares, chairman of sports company Koch Tavares, told Estado de Sao Paulo daily that "a name such as Nadal will definitely whip up a lot of interest".

Contacted by AFP, the company had not made any further comment by Tuesday afternoon.

Nadal, currently ranked fourth in the world, has won 11 Grand Slams but injuries have dogged him and the 26-year-old Spaniard has not played since June.

He had to miss the Australian Open because of a stomach virus while a succession of knee injuries have plagued his career.

Nadal, who had been widely expected to return to action at the end of February, won the Brazil Open in 2005.

- AFP/jc

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..

NY passes 1st U.S. gun control bill since Newtown

ALBANY, N.Y. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday signed the toughest gun control law in the nation and the first since the Newtown, Conn., school shooting, calling for a tougher assault weapons ban and provisions to try to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill who make threats.

Cuomo pushed hard for the bill, which passed the Senate on Monday night and easily passed the Assembly earlier Tuesday.

"This is a scourge on society," Cuomo said Monday night, six days after making gun control a centerpiece of his State of the State address. The bipartisan effort was fueled by the Newtown tragedy that took the lives of 20 first graders and six educators. "At what point do you say, `No more innocent loss of life'?"

The measure, which passed the Assembly 104-43, also calls for restrictions on ammunition and the sale of guns.

"This is not about taking anyone's rights away," said Sen. Jeffrey Klein, a Bronx Democrat, when the bill passed the Senate late Monday night. "It's about a safe society ... today we are setting the mark for the rest of the county to do what's right."

Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two "military rifle" features such as folding stock, muzzle flash suppressor or bayonet mount. The proposal reduces that to one feature and includes the popular pistol grip.

Play Video

Obama speaks out on gun control, debt ceiling

Meanwhile President Barack Obama will formally announce a "package of concrete proposals" for reducing gun violence on Wednesday, the White House announced.

In a White House press briefing Tuesday, spokesman Jay Carney declined to outline exactly what Mr. Obama's plan would entail, but noted that it would reflect the president's desire for a "comprehensive approach," as well as specific legislative actions he has called on before -- including reinstating the assault weapons ban, a ban on high-capacity magazine clips, and expanded background checks for gun owners.

Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family will be subject to a background check through a dealer. New Yorkers also would be barred from buying assault weapons over the Internet, and failing to safely store a weapon could lead to a misdemeanor charge.

Ammunition magazines will be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines will have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine will face a misdemeanor charge.

Another provision places requirements on therapists, psychologists, registered nurses and licensed social workers who believe a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally. They would be required to report such a threat to a mental health director, who would have to notify the state. Any registered handguns — or registered assault weapons purchased before the ban — could be taken from the patient.

The legislation also increases sentences for gun crimes including the shooting of a first responder that Cuomo called the "Webster provision." Last month in the western New York town of Webster, two firefighters were killed after responding to a fire set by the shooter, who eventually killed himself.

The measure passed the Senate 43-18 on the strength of support from Democrats, many of whom previously sponsored bills that were once blocked by Republicans.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the nation's leading gun control advocates, said the bill will not satisfy everyone but said it is a move in the right direction.

"New York has been a leader. We have some of the toughest gun laws in the country and this just strengthens them, it fills in loopholes and it expands it as the society's needs have changed and the dangers have changed to all of us," Bloomberg told reporters including WCBS 880's Marla Diamond. "It makes all New Yorkers safer and they all - from the governor down - deserve real credit for doing it."

The governor confirmed the proposal, previously worked out in closed session, also mandate a police registry of assault weapons, grandfathering in the estimated 1 million assault weapons already in private hands.

It was agreed upon exactly a month since the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy.

"It is well-balanced, it protects the Second Amendment," said Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos of Long Island.

Cuomo said he wanted quick action to avoid a run on assault weapons and ammunition.

Assemblyman Steve Katz said legislators were being "bullied." He said the bill is "solely for the governor's egotistical, misguided notion."

Republicans argued the bill wouldn't stop mass shootings or other gun crimes but instead turns law-abiding into potential criminals.

Republican Assemblyman James Tedisco said the bill was dangerous because it would give people a "false sense of well-being."

"You are using innocent children killed by a mad man for own political agenda," he said. "You are actually making people less safe."

Read More..

Arias Called Ex-Boyfriend 4 Times After Killing Him

Jodi Arias tried to cover her tracks after killing her ex-boyfriend, Travis Alexander, by making a flurry of phone calls to his cell phone and hacking into his voice mailbox, prosecutors alleged today.

Phone records presented in court today showed Arias persistently calling Alexander in the days before the killing. Ten calls were made from Arias' cell phone to Alexander's cell phone in the days leading up to his death, Verizon Wireless records expert Jody Citizen testified. Many of the calls were forwarded by Alexander straight to voice mail, Citizen said.

After Arias killed Alexander around 5:30 p.m. on June 4, 2008. , Arias called his phone four more times. The first call was made just hours after the killing at 11:37 p.m., the records showed. At least one of the calls was made as late as June 15, nearly a week after Alexander's body was found by friends.

At one point, Arias dialed into his voice mail system for 16 minutes, which indicated she was accessing his voice mail messages, Citizen said.

"If a person is in his phone for 16 minutes and they're not leaving a message what is going on?" prosecutor Juan Martinez asked.

Jodi Arias Murder Trial: Interrogation Tapes Played in Court Watch Video

"Somebody is listening to messages," Citizen answered.

See Full Coverage of Jodi Arias Trial

Watch the Jodi Arias Trial Live

See Jodi Arias Trial Videos

Arias' attorneys, who argue that she killed her ex-boyfriend out of self-defense, said that she could have been recording a message, and then listening to it and deleting it before recording again, accounting for the 16 minutes spent on the voice mail system.

"On Verizon, is it possible to change your voice mail, to erase it and do it over again?" defense attorney Kirk Nurmi asked Citizen. "Could someone have been doing that for a 16 minute phone call?"

"Yes," Citizen said.

Nurmi pointed out that phone records showed that two days before his death Alexander also called Arias, initiating two phone calls that lasted nearly 20 minutes and more than 40 minutes in the middle of the night.

The defense has said that Alexander was controlling and abusive toward Arias and was a "sexual deviant" whom she had to kill in self defense.

The prosecution, however, alleges that Arias was obsessed with Alexander, stalked him, and killed him out of jealousy after spending the afternoon having sex with him and taking naked photos of one another. She is accused of stabbing Alexander 27 times, slashing his throat, and shooting him in the head.

Arias could face the death penalty if convicted.

The jury returned to court today for the seventh day of testimony in the murder trial, after watching a series of graphic sexual photos of Arias and Alexander displayed on Monday, including the last photos of Alexander alive. The photos show both individuals lying naked on Alexander's bed, separately, and then Alexander naked in the shower.

The final photo shows a body part covered in blood around 5:30 p.m., which the prosecution alleges is when the attack on Alexander began and the camera fell to the floor.

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."

On the eve of the Biden-led gun control task force recommendations to President Barack Obama, political experts say it is important that his administration sends a clear signal that it has things in hand.

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."

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.

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."

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

Read More..

Bernanke urges Congress to lift debt ceiling

WASHINGTON: US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Monday urged Congress to raise the nation's borrowing limit as Democrats and Republicans battle over the federal budget.

"It's very, very important that Congress take the necessary action to raise the debt ceiling to avoid the situation where the government doesn't pay its bills," Bernanke said at a University of Michigan forum.

The United States ran up against its current borrowing limit of US$16.4 trillion at the end of 2012, but the Treasury says it is using "extraordinary measures" to extend the limit until late February.

"The right way to deal with this problem... is for Congress to do what it needs to do," Bernanke said.

"The way to address it is to have a sensible plan for spending and a sensible plan for revenue."

Earlier on Monday US President Barack Obama delivered a stern warning to rival Republicans against using the debt ceiling as leverage to get more spending cuts, saying the failure to raise it would sew financial chaos.

Congress's refusal to raise the debt limit beyond its current level of US$16.4 trillion could delay key government payments.

Obama warned that this could include Social Security checks and veterans benefits, paychecks to troops, air traffic controllers, and the honouring of contracts with small businesses.

- AFP/jc

Read More..

Armstrong apologizes to staff, doesn't mention steroids

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

<<

<

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

>

>>

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Armstrong didn't address steroids during tearful apology, spokeswoman says


• Disgraced cyclist is sorry work is stressful for those at Livestrong, she says


• Armstrong has agreed to 90-minute interview with Oprah Winfrey


• Armstrong is expected to talk about doping allegations, her network says

(CNN) -- Just hours before he was to tape an interview expected to address allegations of performance-enhancing drug use, disgraced cycling legend Lance Armstrong apologized to the staff of the cancer charity he started, a publicist for the charity -- Livestrong -- said.

Armstrong was tearful during the 15-minute meeting and didn't address the issue of steroid use in cycling, Rae Bazzarre, director of communications for the Livestrong Foundation, said.

Bazzarre added that Armstrong offered a "sincere and heartfelt apology for the stress they've endured because of him."

He urged them to keep working hard to help cancer survivors and their families.

Armstrong is scheduled to sit down in his hometown of Austin, Texas, with talk show queen Oprah Winfrey on Monday for his first interview since he was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles in a blood-doping scandal.

Read more: Oprah interview with Lance Armstrong airs January 17

For decades Armstrong has denied he used performance-enhancing drugs or doped, but he was linked to a doping scandal by nearly a dozen other former cyclists who have admitted to doping.

What Armstrong says or does not say to Winfrey can have ramifications.

Some media outlets have reported that Armstrong has been strongly considering the possibility of a confession, possibly as a way to stem the tide of fleeing sponsors and as part of a long-term redemptive comeback plan.

But such a confession might lend weight to the lawsuits that could await him.

The interview will not air until 9 p.m. ET Thursday on the Oprah Winfrey Network. But the speculations swirled Monday.

"I don't think we're going to get an out-and-out confession," says CNN sports anchor Patrick Snell. "I think we're going to get something like, 'This is what went on during this era of trying to compete at the highest level.'"

Snell cautions, though, that a confession may not come at all.

Armstrong, 41, has repeatedly and vehemently denied that he used banned performance-enhancing drugs as well as illegal blood transfusions during his cycling career.

Winfrey will ask Armstrong to address the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's October report, which said there was overwhelming evidence he was directly involved in a sophisticated doping program, a statement from her network said last week.

The International Cycling Union, which chose not to appeal the USADA's lifetime ban, stripped Armstrong of his record seven Tour victories.

The World Anti-Doping Agency also agreed with the sanctions, which means Armstrong may not compete in sports governed by that agency's code.

Before the ban, he was competing in Ironman triathlons and had won two of the five events he had entered.

Since the ban he has entered two non-sanctioned events.

Report: Armstrong offered to donate $250,000 to anti-doping agency

Why now?

So, why might Armstrong choose to make a confession now?

"I would suspect that he sees this as certainly his best way forward," Snell says. "He would have taken strong legal advice, of course. When you look at the kind of stuff that Oprah's done over the years, it's a chance to get ... heartfelt emotions across."

The New York Times has reported that Armstrong was contemplating publicly admitting he used illegal performance-enhancing drugs. Such an admission might lead toward Armstrong regaining his eligibility.

One of his attorneys denied Armstrong was in discussion with the two anti-doping agencies.

Attorney Tim Herman, in a recent e-mail to CNN Sports, did not address whether Armstrong told associates -- as reported by the newspaper -- that he was considering an admission.

But such an admission could open him up to lawsuits, something Armstrong is likely well aware of.

"He is surrounded by the best legal advice, the best legal team," Snell says. "It's very hard for anyone to imagine him going into this without having been fully briefed, made aware of absolutely every scenario."

Winfrey has promised a "no-holds-barred" interview, with no conditions and no payment made to Armstrong.

Drug tests

In the past, Armstrong has argued that he took more than 500 drug tests and never failed.

In its 202-page report that detailed Armstrong's alleged use of performance-enhancing drugs and blood transfusions, the USADA said it had tested Armstrong less than 60 times and the International Cycling Union conducted about 215 tests.

The agency did not say that Armstrong ever failed a test, but his former teammates testified as to how they beat tests or avoided the tests altogether.

The New York Times, citing unnamed associates and anti-doping officials, said Armstrong has been in discussions with USADA officials and hopes to meet with David Howman, chief of the World Anti-Doping Agency. The newspaper said none of the people with knowledge of Armstrong's situation wanted to be identified because it would jeopardize their access to information on the matter.

Under World Anti-Doping Agency rules, an athlete who confesses to using performance-enhancing drugs may be eligible for a reinstatement.

Awaiting Armstrong's 'last word'

Armstrong: The legend and the fall

Armstrong has been an icon for his cycling feats and celebrity, bringing more status to a sport wildly popular in some nations but lacking big-name recognition, big money and mass appeal in the United States.

He fought back from testicular cancer to win the Tour from 1999 to 2005. He raised millions via his Lance Armstrong Foundation to help cancer victims and survivors, an effort illustrated by trendy yellow "LiveSTRONG" wristbands that helped bring in the money.

But Armstrong has long been dogged by doping allegations, with compatriot Floyd Landis -- who was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title after failing a drug test -- making a series of claims in 2011.

Armstrong sued the USADA last year to stop its investigation of him, arguing it did not have the right to prosecute him. But after a federal judge dismissed the case, Armstrong said he would no longer participate in the investigation.

In October 2012, Armstrong was stripped of his titles and banned from cycling. Weeks later, he stepped down from the board of his foundation, Livestrong.

It is unclear whether Armstrong would face criminal prosecution for perjury should he confess. Armstrong was involved in several cases where he gave sworn testimony that he never used banned drugs.

Kurtz: Can even Oprah save Lance Armstrong?

CNN's Ed Lavandera, Steve Almasy Jillian Martin and Chelsea J. Carter contributed to this report.

Read More..

AP: Armstrong gives tearful apology to Livestrong

AUSTIN, Texas Lance Armstrong apologized to the staff at his Livestrong cancer foundation before heading to an interview with Oprah Winfrey, a person with direct knowledge of the meeting told The Associated Press.

The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussion was private.

Play Video

Lance Armstrong to "speak candidly" to Oprah Winfrey

38 Photos

Lance Armstrong

Stripped last year of his seven Tour de France titles because of doping charges, Armstrong addressed the staff Monday and said, "I'm sorry." The person said the disgraced cyclist choked up and several employees cried during the session.

The person also said Armstrong apologized for letting the staff down and putting Livestrong at risk but he did not make a direct confession to the group about using banned drugs. He said he would try to restore the foundation's reputation, and urged the group to continue fighting for the charity's mission of helping cancer patients and their families.

After the meeting, Armstrong, his legal team and close advisers gathered at a downtown Austin hotel for the interview.

The cyclist will make a limited confession to Winfrey about his role as the head of a long-running scheme to dominate the Tour with the aid of performance-enhancing drugs, a person with knowledge of the situation has told the AP.

Winfrey and her crew had earlier said they would film the interview, to be broadcast Thursday, at his home but the location apparently changed to a hotel. Local and international news crews staked out positions in front of the cyclist's Spanish-style villa before dawn, hoping to catch a glimpse of Winfrey or Armstrong.

Armstrong still managed to slip away for a run Monday morning despite the crowds gathering outside his house. He returned home by cutting through a neighbor's yard and hopping a fence.

During a jog on Sunday, Armstrong talked to the AP for a few minutes saying, "I'm calm, I'm at ease and ready to speak candidly." He declined to go into specifics.

Armstrong lost all seven Tour titles following a voluminous U.S. Anti-Doping Agency report that portrayed him as a ruthless competitor, willing to go to any lengths to win the prestigious race. USADA chief executive Travis Tygart labeled the doping regimen allegedly carried out by the U.S. Postal Service team that Armstrong once led, "The most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."

Play Video

Anti-doping chief: Armstrong bullied witnesses

In a recent "60 Minutes Sports" interview, Tygart described Armstrong and his team of doctors, coaches and riders as similar to a "Mafia" that kept their secret for years and intimidated riders into silently following their illegal methods.

Yet Armstrong looked like just another runner getting in his roadwork when he talked to the AP, wearing a red jersey and black shorts, sunglasses and a white baseball cap pulled down to his eyes. Leaning into a reporter's car on the shoulder of a busy Austin road, he seemed unfazed by the attention and the news crews that made stops at his home. He cracked a few jokes about all the reporters vying for his attention, then added, "but now I want to finish my run," and took off down the road.

The interview with Winfrey will be Armstrong's first public response to the USADA report. Armstrong is not expected to provide a detailed account about his involvement, nor address in depth many of the specific allegations in the more than 1,000-page USADA report.

In a text to the AP on Saturday, Armstrong said: "I told her (Winfrey) to go wherever she wants and I'll answer the questions directly, honestly and candidly. That's all I can say."

After a federal investigation of the cyclist was dropped without charges being brought last year, USADA stepped in with an investigation of its own. The agency deposed 11 former teammates and accused Armstrong of masterminding a complex and brazen drug program that included steroids, blood boosters and a range of other performance-enhancers.

Play Video

Lance Armstrong offered donation to USADA during investigation

Once all the information was out and his reputation shattered, Armstrong defiantly tweeted a picture of himself on a couch at home with all seven of the yellow leader's jerseys on display in frames behind him. But the preponderance of evidence in the USADA report and pending legal challenges on several fronts apparently forced him to change tactics after more a decade of denials.

He still faces legal problems.

Former teammate Floyd Landis, who was stripped of the 2006 Tour de France title for doping, has filed a federal whistle-blower lawsuit that accused Armstrong of defrauding the U.S. Postal Service. The Justice Department has yet to decide whether it will join the suit as a plaintiff.

The London-based Sunday Times also is suing Armstrong to recover about $500,000 it paid him to settle a libel lawsuit. On Sunday, the newspaper took out a full-page ad in the Chicago Tribune, offering Winfrey suggestions for what questions to ask Armstrong. Dallas-based SCA Promotions, which tried to deny Armstrong a promised bonus for a Tour de France win, has threatened to bring yet another lawsuit seeking to recover more than $7.5 million an arbitration panel awarded the cyclist in that dispute.

The lawsuit most likely to be influenced by a confession might be the Sunday Times case. Potential perjury charges stemming from Armstrong's sworn testimony in the 2005 arbitration fight would not apply because of the statute of limitations. Armstrong was not deposed during the federal investigation that was closed last year.

Many of his sponsors dropped Armstrong after the damning USADA report — at the cost of tens of millions of dollars — and soon after, he left the board of Livestrong, which he founded in 1997. Armstrong is still said to be worth about $100 million.

Livestrong might be one reason Armstrong has decided to come forward with an apology and limited confession. The charity supports cancer patients and still faces an image problem because of its association with Armstrong. He also may be hoping a confession would allow him to return to competition in the elite triathlon or running events he participated in after his cycling career.

World Anti-Doping Code rules state his lifetime ban cannot be reduced to less than eight years. WADA and U.S. Anti-Doping officials could agree to reduce the ban further depending on what information Armstrong provides and his level of cooperation.

Read More..