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..

Woman wedged between walls rescued by firefighters

PORTLAND, Ore. Firefighters in downtown Portland, Ore., used an air bag to spread the walls and extricate a woman who somehow got wedged between two buildings.

The woman was freed at about 7:30 a.m. Wednesday — roughly four hours after she got stuck in a space estimated at 8 inches to 10 inches wide.

Firefighters said they reached the woman by using tools used in earthquake rescues, CBS affiliate KOIN reports.

Firefighters said she fell part of the way down a 20-foot wall and was stuck four feet above ground.

Rescuers broke through concrete blocks, but worked very slowly for safety. By 7 a.m. they had two window-size holes on either side of the woman and were using a heater to keep her warm. She was conscious and talking with rescuers.

Witness told TV stations she had been seen smoking or walking on the roof of a two-story building.

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.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement that the ad was “repugnant and cowardly.”

“Most Americans agree that a president’s children should not be used as pawns in a political fight,” said Carney. “But to go so far as to make the safety of the President’s children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly.”

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..