KIEV: Ukrainian prosecutors on Friday accused jailed former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko of organising the 1996 murder of a lawmaker, saying she could face life imprisonment if found guilty.
Tymoshenko, serving a seven-year jail term for abuse of power, has been informed by prosecutors she is now a formal suspect in the murder of Yevgen Shcherban, Prosecutor General Viktor Pshonka told reporters.
- AFP/de
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
(CNN) -- Serena Williams once again battled through the pain barrier to advance at the Australian Open on Thursday, but this time the American third seed's injury was entirely self-inflicted.
After rolling an ankle during her first round win the 15-time grand slam champion hit herself in the face with her racket as she brushed aside Spanish teenager Garbine Muguruza 6-2 6-0.
It left her anxiously checking her mouth for damage.
"I think it happens to everyone, but I have never busted it wide open like that," the five-time Melbourne winner told reporters after setting up a third-round meeting with Japan's Ayumi Morita.
"So, yeah, I was like, 'Oh, no. I can't have a tooth fall out.' That would be horrible."
Read: How women cracked tennis' glass ceiling
Williams allayed any fears her ankle would hinder her progress at the tournament, saying she felt no discomfort -- although she did take painkillers.
"I didn't feel anything today," the 31-year-old added. "Obviously when you go out to play you're heavy on adrenaline and you're really pumped up.
"Usually I feel injuries after the match, but so far, so good. I felt pretty, much better than I ever dreamed of expecting to feel.
"I feel everybody in the tournament probably is on some sort of pain relief ... I don't do injections. Just tablets."
Williams remains on course for a semifinal showdown with world No. 1 Victoria Azarenka after the Belorussian took just 55 minutes to beat Greece's Eleni Daniilidou 6-1 6-0.
Read: Luckless Baker suffers fresh injury setback
If the top seed seemed like she was a woman in a hurry, it was because she was trying to avoid getting sunburned in the scorching Australian heat.
"I was trying to play fast," said the 23-year-old, who will play American Jamie Hampton in the third round. "The first match I got a little bit sunburned. You don't want to make that mistake again.
"I was prepared for it, you know. I think everybody knew few days before that that it's going to be really hot. Even at 11 a.m. you could really feel it. I wasn't sure if we were playing with closed roof or open roof.
"Right before the match I saw it was closed. I thought, 'Wow, good.' It wouldn't be so hot. It wasn't a problem."
Eighth seed Petra Kvitova was stunned by world No. 53 Laura Robson, going down 2-6 6-3 11-9 in a match which lasted three hours at finished at 00:30 local time.
Britain's Robson recovered from 0-3 down in the final set to reach the third round of the event for the first time, and she will next meet American 29th seed Sloane Stephens.
Former world No. 1 Caroline Wozniacki continued her bid for a maiden grand slam title with a 6-1 6-4 defeat of Croatia's Donna Vekic. The Danish 10th seed's next opponent will be unseeded Ukrainian Lesia Tsurenko.
Roberta Vinci has never been beyond the third round in Melbourne but the No. 16 from Italy will have a chance to address that against Russia's Elena Vesnina after recording a 6-3 6-2 victory over Akgul Amanmuradova of Uzbekistan.
In the men's draw, second seed Roger Federer and world No. 3 Andy Murray both continued their strong starts to the tournament with emphatic victories.
Switzerland's Federer, looking for an Open era-record fifth Melbourne triumph, was rarely troubled as he beat experienced Russian Nikolay Davydenko 6-3 6-4 6-4.
Next up for the 17-time grand slam winner is Australian rising star Bernard Tomic, who Federer beat in the fourth round of last year's tournament.
"I think there's always excitement about Aussies playing here," Federer, 31, told reporters. "I played him here last year. The crowd was great. I played him in Davis Cup. Crowds were fair there, too. I expect something similar.
"Hopefully we're going to live up to the expectations and live up to the match. Hopefully it's not going to be a bad match. I don't want that to happen."
Murray was beaten by Federer in the 2010 final, but having clinched his first grand slam title at last year's U.S. Open the Briton will be hoping to win in Melbourne having twice been a runner-up.
He set up a third round encounter with Lithuania's Ricardas Berankis after a comfortable 6-2 6-2 6-4 win against Portugal's Joao Sousa.
Sixth seed Juan Martin del Potro eased past German Benjamin Becker 6-2 6-4 6-2, while French seventh seed Jo-Wilfried Tsonga battled to a straight-sets win over Japan's Go Soeda.
Meanwhile, former world No. 1 Rafael Nadal will make his long-awaited return to action at the Chile Open in Vina del Mar early next month.
Spain's 11-time grand slam winner has not played since injuring his knee at Wimbledon last June, and had to delay his planned comeback in Melbourne after suffering an illness in December.
Nadal will also play in another South American clay-court tournament, the Brazil Open starting on February 11, as he seeks to regain fitness ahead of his French Open title defense.
Last updated at 10:46 a.m. ET
ALGIERS, Algeria About 30 foreign hostages are still unaccounted for three days into a bloody siege with Islamic militants at a gas plant deep in the Sahara, Algeria's state news service said Friday.
The militants, meanwhile, reportedly offered to trade two American hostages for terror figures jailed in the United States, according to a statement received by a Mauritanian news site that often reports news from North African extremists.
It was the latest development in a hostage drama that began Wednesday when militants seized hundreds of workers from 10 nations at Algeria's remote Ain Amenas natural gas plant. Algerian forces retaliated Thursday by storming the plant in an attempted rescue operation that killed at least four hostages and left leaders around the world expressing strong concerns about the hostages' safety.
Algerian special forces resumed negotiating Friday with the militants holed up in the refinery, according to the Algerian news service, which cited a security source.
The report said nearly 100 of the remaining 132 had been freed by Friday, but it could not account for the remainder.
Militants on Friday offered to trade two American hostages for two prominent terror figures jailed in the United States: Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as "the Blind Sheikh," who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani scientist convicted of shooting at two U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.
The offer, according to a Mauritanian news site that frequently broadcasts dispatches from groups linked to al Qaeda, came from Moktar Belmoktar, an extremist commander based in Mali who apparently masterminded the operation.
It could not be independently confirmed.
Algeria's government has kept a tight grip on information, but it was clear that the militant assault that began Wednesday with an attempted bus hijacking has killed at least six people from the plant — and perhaps many more.
Workers kidnapped by the militants came from around the world — Americans, Britons, French, Norwegians, Romanians, Malaysians, Japanese, Algerians. Leaders on Friday expressed strong concerns about how Algeria was handing the situation and its apparent reluctance to communicate.
British Prime Minister David Cameron went before the House of Commons on Friday to provide an update, seeming frustrated that Britain was not told about the military operation despite having "urged we be consulted."
At least one American, Mark Cobb, who had hidden in a meeting room, is known to have gotten out of the gas plant, CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips reports.
One high-ranking source in the U.S. government told CBS News that four Americans had been freed, one of them injured, after the raid.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Friday the U.S. is working with the British and Algerian governments to assess what's happening on the ground. Speaking Friday at Kings College in London, Panetta said the U.S. is "working around the clock to ensure the safe return of our citizens."
Panetta said the terrorists should be on notice that they'll find no sanctuary in Algeria or North Africa.
He said anyone who looks to attack the U.S. will have "no place to hide."
National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said President Obama was receiving regular updates from his national security team and was in constant contact with the Algerian government, stressing that "our first priority is the safety and security of the hostages. "
Terrorized hostages from Ireland and Norway trickled out of the Ain Amenas plant, 800 miles south of Algiers, the capital. BP, which jointly operates the plant, said it had begun to evacuate employees from Algeria.
On Friday, up to around 20 people, including some Americans, were being evacuated from the country, a spokesperson for the U.S. African Command said. AFRICOM said those with injuries would recieve medical treatment en route to Europe, but would not specify the extent of the injuries or the final destination within Europe for the evacuees.
"This is a large and complex site and they are still pursuing terrorists and possibly some of the hostages," Cameron said. He told lawmakers the situation remained fluid and dangerous, saying "part of the threat has been eliminated in one part of the site, a threat still remains in another part."
Algeria's army-dominated government, hardened by decades of fighting Islamist militants, shrugged aside foreign offers of help and drove ahead alone.
The U.S. government sent an unarmed surveillance drone to the BP-operated site, near the border with Libya, but it could do little more than watch Thursday's military intervention. British intelligence and security officials were on the ground in Algeria's capital but were not at the installation, said a British official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters.
A U.S. official said while some Americans escaped, other Americans were either still held or unaccounted for.
El Mokhtar Ould Sidi, editor of the Mauritanian news site ANI, said several calls on Thursday came from the kidnappers themselves giving their demands and describing the situation.
"They were clearly in a situation of war, the spokesman who contacted us was giving orders to his colleagues and you could hear the sounds of war in the background.... He threatened to kill all the hostages if the Algerian forces tried to liberate them," he said.
With the hostage drama entering its second day Thursday, Algerian security forces moved in, first with helicopter fire and then special forces, according to diplomats, a website close to the militants, and an Algerian security official. The government said it was forced to intervene because the militants were being stubborn and wanted to flee with the hostages.
Militants claimed 35 hostages died when the military helicopters opened fire as they were transporting hostages from the living quarters to the main factory area where other workers were being held.
The group — led by a Mali-based al Qaeda offshoot known as the Masked Brigade — suffered losses in Thursday's military assault — but garnered a global audience.
The militants made it clear that their attack was in revenge for the French intervention against Islamists who have taken over large parts of neighboring Mali. France has encountered fierce resistance from the extremist groups in Mali and failed to persuade many Western allies to join in the actual combat.
Even violence-scarred Algerians were stunned by the brazen hostage-taking Wednesday, the biggest in northern Africa in years and the first to include Americans as targets. Mass fighting in the 1990s had largely spared the lucrative oil and gas industry that gives Algeria its economic independence and regional weight.
The official Algerian news agency said four hostages were killed in Thursday's operation, two Britons and two Filipinos. Two others, a Briton and an Algerian, died Wednesday in the initial militant ambush on a bus ferrying foreign workers to an airport. Citing hospital officials, it said six Algerians and seven foreigners were injured.
APS said some 600 local workers were safely freed in the raid — but many of those were reportedly released the day before by the militants themselves.
One Irish hostage managed to escape: electrician Stephen McFaul, who'd worked in North Africa's oil and natural gas fields off and on for 15 years. His family said the militants let hostages call their families to press the kidnappers' demands.
"He phoned me at 9 o'clock to say al Qaeda were holding him, kidnapped, and to contact the Irish government, for they wanted publicity. Nightmare, so it was. Never want to do it again. He'll not be back! He'll take a job here in Belfast like the rest of us," said his mother, Marie.
Dylan, McFaul's 13-year-old son, started crying as he talked to Ulster Television. "I feel over the moon, just really excited. I just can't wait for him to get home," he said.
The al Qaeda-linked terrorists holding Americans and other Westerners hostage at a gas plant in Algeria have now demanded the release of two convicted terrorists held in U.S. prisons, including the "blind sheikh" who helped plan the first attack on New York's World Trade Center, in exchange for the freedom of two American hostages, according to an African news service.
The terror group calling itself the Masked Brigade, which raided the BP joint venture plant in In Amenas early Wednesday, reportedly contacted a Mauritanian news service with the offer. In addition to the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman, who planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, they demanded the release of Aifia Siddiqui, a Pakistani scientist who shot at two U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan in 2008.
At least three Americans were being held hostage by the militants when the Algerian military mounted a rescue operation at the facility Thursday that reportedly resulted in casualties.
Five other Americans who were at the facility when it was attacked by the terrorists are now safe and believed to have left the country, according to U.S. officials.
Reports that dozens of hostages were killed during the Algerian military's attempt to retake the compound have not been confirmed, though Algeria's information minister has confirmed that there were casualties. It's known by U.S. and foreign officials that multiple British, Japanese and Norwegian hostages were killed.
Mike Nelson/AFP/Getty Images
According to an unconfirmed report by an African news outlet, the militants said seven hostages survived the attack, including two Americans, one Briton, three Belgians and a Japanese national. U.S. officials monitoring the case had no information indicating any Americans have been injured or killed, but said the situation is fluid and casualties cannot be ruled out.
On Friday morning, a U.S. military plane evacuated between 10 and 20 people of unknown nationalities from In Amenas.
British Prime Minister David Cameron told parliament today that the terror attack "appears to have been a large, well coordinated and heavily armed assault and it is probable that it had been pre-planned."
"The terrorist group is believed to have been operating under Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a criminal terrorist and smuggler who has been operating in Mali and in the region for a number of years," said Cameron.
Cameron said Algerian security forces are still in action at the facility. On Thursday, he said that the situation was "very bad … A number of British citizens have been taken hostage. Already, we know of one who has died. ... I think we should be prepared for the possibility for further bad news, very difficult news in this extremely difficult situation."
The kidnappers had earlier released a statement saying there are "more than 40 crusaders" held "including 7 Americans."
U.S. officials had previously confirmed to ABC News that there were at least three Americans held hostage at the natural gas facility jointly owned by BP, the Algerian national oil company and a Norwegian firm at In Amenas, Algeria.
"I want to assure the American people that the United States will take all necessary and proper steps that are required to deal with this situation," said Panetta. "I don't think there's any question that [this was] a terrorist act and that the terrorists have affiliation with al Qaeda."
He said the precise motivation of the kidnappers was unknown.
"They are terrorists, and they will do terrorist acts," he said.
The Church of Scientology is also at fault for thinking the advertorial would survive The Atlantic readers' scrutiny, Ian Schafer says.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Editor's note: Ian Schafer is the founder and CEO of a digital advertising agency, Deep Focus, and the alter ego of @invisibleobama. You can read his rants on his blog at ianschafer.com.
(CNN) -- "The Atlantic is America's leading destination for brave thinking and bold ideas that matter. The Atlantic engages its print, online, and live audiences with breakthrough insights into the worlds of politics, business, the arts, and culture. With exceptional talent deployed against the world's most important and intriguing topics, The Atlantic is the source of opinion, commentary, and analysis for America's most influential individuals who wish to be challenged, informed, and entertained." -- The Atlantic 2013 media kit for advertisers
On Monday, The Atlantic published -- and then pulled -- a story titled "David Miscavige Leads Scientology to Milestone Year." This "story" went on to feature the growth of Scientology in 2012.
Ian Schafer
Any regular reader of The Atlantic's content would immediately do a double-take upon seeing that kind of headline, much less the heavy-handed text below it, shamelessly plugging how well Scientology's "ecclesiastical leader" Miscavige has done in "leading a renaissance for the religion."
This "story" is one of several "advertorials" (a portmanteau of "advertising" and "editorials") that The Atlantic has published online, clearly designated as "Sponsor Content." In other words, "stories" like these aren't real stories. They are ads with a lot of words, which advertisers have paid publications to run on their behalf for decades. You may have seen them in magazines and newspapers as "special advertising sections."
The hope is that because you are already reading the publication, hey, maybe you'll read what the advertiser has to say, too -- instead of the "traditional" ad that they may have otherwise placed on the page that you probably won't remember, or worse, will ignore.
There's nothing wrong with this tactic, ethically, when clearly labeled as "sponsored" or "advertising." But many took umbrage with The Atlantic in this particular case; so many, that The Atlantic responded by pulling the story from its site -- which was the right thing to do -- and by apologizing.
At face value, The Atlantic did the right thing for its business model, which depends upon advertising sales. It sold what they call a "native" ad to a paying advertiser, clearly labeled it as such, without the intention of misleading readers into thinking this was a piece of journalism.
But it still failed on several levels.
The Atlantic defines its readers as "America's most influential individuals who wish to be challenged, informed, and entertained." By that very definition, it is selling "advertorials" to people who are the least likely to take them seriously, especially when heavy-handed. There is a fine line between advertorial and outright advertising copywriting, and this piece crossed it. The Church of Scientology is just as much at fault for thinking this piece would survive The Atlantic readers' intellectual scrutiny. But this isn't even the real issue.
Bad advertising is all around us. And readers' intellectual scrutiny would surely have let the advertorial piece slide without complaints (though snark would be inevitable), as they have in the past, or yes, even possibly ignored it. But here's where The Atlantic crossed another line -- it seemed clear it was moderating the comments beneath the advertorial.
As The Washington Post reported, The Atlantic marketing team was carefully pruning the comments, ensuring that they were predominantly positive, even though many readers were leaving negative comments. So while The Atlantic was publishing clearly labeled advertiser-written content, it was also un-publishing content created by its readers -- the very folks it exists to serve.
It's understandable that The Atlantic would inevitably touch a third rail with any "new" ad format. But what it calls "native advertising" is actually "advertorial." It's not new at all. Touching the third rail in this case is unacceptable.
So what should The Atlantic have done in this situation before it became a situation? For starters, it should have worked more closely with the Church of Scientology to help create a piece of content that wasn't so clearly written as an ad. If the Church of Scientology was not willing to compromise its advertising to be better content, then The Atlantic should not have accepted the advertising. But this is a quality-control issue.
The real failure here was that comments should never have been enabled beneath this sponsored content unless the advertiser was prepared to let them be there, regardless of sentiment.
It's not like Scientology has avoided controversy in the past. The sheer, obvious reason for this advertorial in the first place was to dispel beliefs that Scientology wasn't a recognized religion (hence "ecclesiastical").
Whether The Atlantic felt it was acting in its advertiser's best interest, or the advertiser specifically asked for this to happen, letting it happen at all was a huge mistake, and a betrayal of an implicit contract that should exist between a publication of The Atlantic's stature and its readership.
No matter how laughably "sales-y" a piece of sponsored content might be, the censoring of readership should be the true "third rail," never to be touched.
Going forward, The Atlantic (and any other publication that chooses to run sponsored content) should adopt and clearly communicate an explicit ethics statement regarding advertorials and their corresponding comments. This statement should guide the decisions it makes when working with advertisers, and serve as a filter for the sponsored content it chooses to publish, and what it recommends advertisers submit. It should also prevent readers from being silenced if given a platform at all.
As an advertising professional, I sincerely hope this doesn't spook The Atlantic or any other publication from experimenting with ways to make money. But as a reader, I hope it leads to better ads that reward me for paying attention, rather than muzzle my voice should I choose to interact with the content.
After all, what more could a publication or advertiser ask for than for content to be so interesting that someone actually would want to comment on (or better, share) it?
(Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly said native advertising accounts for 59% of the Atlantic's ad revenue. Digital advertising, of which native advertising is a part, accounts for 59% of The Atlantic's overall revenue, according to the company.)
Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.
Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ian Schafer.
LONDON: Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers on Thursday said that his controversial striker Luis Suarez could face punishment from the club after admitting that he dived to try to win a penalty in a league game with Stoke City.
In an interview with Fox Sports Argentina, Suarez admitted "falling" during October's 0-0 draw between the clubs at Anfield, prompting Rodgers, who had defended him from criticism at the time, to hit out.
"I think it is wrong. It is unacceptable. I have spoken to Luis and it will be dealt with internally," said Rodgers. "(Diving) is not something we advocate. Our ethics are correct."
Rodgers spoke to Suarez on Thursday and said he had been "totally understanding on where I am coming from as manager of the club.
"What was said was wrong. He takes that and we move on," he added.
Suarez hit the headlines for a theatrical fall in the Stoke game after he went to ground under a challenge from Marc Wilson in an unsuccessful attempt to win a second-half penalty.
FIFA vice-president Jim Boyce was moved to describe Suarez's tumble as "cheating", adding that the tendency for players to easily fall to the ground was a "cancer" in the game.
Suarez has been accused of diving at regular intervals during his time in England and he admitted in the interview that he had gone down on purpose.
"I was criticised for trying to win a penalty by falling in a match against Stoke," said the Uruguay international. "It's true I fell because we were drawing against Stoke at home and we needed to do something.
"But afterwards, the coaches of Stoke, Everton, all of them, came forward. I came to realise that the name of Suarez was a (newspaper) seller."
Suarez sparked controversy again earlier this month when he handled the ball prior to scoring Liverpool's winning goal in their 2-1 victory at non-league Mansfield Town in the FA Cup.
"The other day, a ball hit my hand without me meaning it to," he said. "I kissed my wrist (in celebration) and everyone started rounding on me."
Suarez also claimed that foreign players are treated differently to home-grown players in the Premier League.
"It's difficult," he said. "It's what Carlitos (Tevez) said, it's what Kun (Sergio Aguero) said: foreigners, and especially the South Americans, are treated differently to local players."
Suarez added that his run-in with Manchester United defender Patrice Evra, which saw him hit with a 40,000 fine pounds and an eight-match ban for racial abuse, was long forgotten.
"When people come and insult me, saying I'm South American, I don't start crying. It's something that stays on the pitch, part of football. My conscience is clear," he said, before claiming that Manchester United control the British press.
"They've got a lot of power and they'll always help them."
- AFP/fa
Part of complete coverage from
By Dean Obeidallah, Special to CNN
updated 10:35 AM EST, Thu January 17, 2013
Barack Obama's hand lies on a Bible held by Michelle Obama as he is sworn in as the 44th U.S. president on January 20, 2009.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Editor's note: Dean Obeidallah, a former attorney, is a political comedian and frequent commentator on various TV networks including CNN. He is the editor of the politics blog "The Dean's Report" and co-director of the upcoming documentary, "The Muslims Are Coming!" Follow him on Twitter: @deanofcomedy. Join Dean for a live discussion from 1:30 to 2:30 p.m. ET Thursday about using Bibles in presidential swearing-in ceremonies. He will respond to your thoughts in the comments section below. Have questions for him? Ask in advance with a post.
(CNN) -- U.S. presidents should not be sworn into office with their hand on a Bible.
At Monday's inauguration of his second term, President Barack Obama will raise his right hand and place his left on not one, but two Bibles: One owned by Abraham Lincoln and the other by Martin Luther King Jr.
Dean Obeidallah
The Constitution requires he give this oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
You might recall that at his 2009 inauguration, President-elect Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts played some kind of "mad libs" with this oath during the swearing-in ceremony, muddling it so badly that they had to redo it a few days later. But why does the president swear on a Bible? Why doesn't he place his hand on the U.S. Constitution -- the very document he's promising to "preserve, protect and defend"?
The Constitution does not require that the president take the oath of office by swearing on a Bible. That would have been a very simple requirement for the constitutional drafters to include. To the contrary, the Founders wanted to ensure that Americans of any faith -- or no faith -- could hold federal office.
They set it forth plainly in Article VI: "... No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Placing a hand on a Bible while reciting the presidential oath is simply a tradition started by George Washington. Indeed, two presidents, Teddy Roosevelt and John Quincy Adams, did not use a Bible at their swearing-in ceremonies.
Although Roosevelt's reasons are unclear, John Quincy Adams' reasons could not be more plain.
Adams, the son of President John Adams, was a religious man. But he chose to be sworn in with his hand on a book of U.S. laws. He wanted to demonstrate that he recognized a barrier between church and state and that his loyalty was to our nation's laws above all else.
Adams also refused to campaign for the presidency because he believed it was beneath the dignity of the office to make promises that might not be kept. Clearly, Adams was not a man who acted because of tradition alone. He had to truly believe in what he did.
Some will argue that swearing on the Bible ensures the president adheres to his oath. But let's be honest: We have seen presidents and other elected officials swear to uphold the laws of our country with their hands on a Bible and go on to break many laws and ethical rules. It comes down to the person's moral code, not a 30-second oath.
And just so it's clear, my objection is not only to the Bible. I would hold the identical view if it were the Quran, the Book of Mormon or any other religious scripture.
The Founding Fathers made it clear that the U.S. Constitution, "...shall be the supreme law of the land." It is the living legacy they bestowed upon us. It is the framework for our government. And as such, that's the document our president should place his hand on.
It should be clear to all that the president views the Constitution as our nation's genesis.
Editor's note: Join Dean Obeidallah for a live discussion from 1:30 to 2:30 p.m. ET Thursday about taking the oath of office on a Bible. He will respond to your thoughts in the comments section below. Have questions for him? Ask in advance by posting a comment.
Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.
Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.
The opinions in this commentary are solely those of Dean Obeidallah.
Some children diagnosed with autism in early childhood may no longer have the disorder as they grow older, according to research funded by the National Institutes of Health.
"Although the diagnosis of autism is not usually lost over time, the findings suggest that there is a very wide range of possible outcomes," said Dr. Thomas R. Insel, NIMH director, said in a press release. "For an individual child, the outcome may be knowable only with time and after some years of intervention."
Autism spectrum disorders are a group of developmental disorders that cause behavioral, social and communication problems. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate one in 88 children have an ASD.
The new study looked at 34 children between 8 and 21 who had an "optimal outcome," meaning they were diagnosed with autism earlier in life but functioned normally compared to their peers later on. These subjects were matched by age, sex, and nonverbal IQ with 44 children with high-functioning autism and an additional 34 typically developing peers.
The researchers reviewed their initial diagnoses to make sure they were accurate and enlisted a second diagnostic expert, who didn't know the child's status, to review reports where the initial diagnosis had been removed.
What they discovered was the "optimal outcome" children had milder social problems than those in the high-functioning autism group in early childhood. Verbal IQ of "optimal outcome" children were slightly higher than high-functioning autism individuals. However when it came to communication and behavioral problems, there were similarities to the high-functioning subjects.
The researchers then examined all the subjects using standard cognitive tests and parent questionnaires. The "optimal outcome" children were all in regular education classes with no special education aimed at autism. The whole group showed no signs of problems with language, face recognition, communication, and social interaction.
Researchers cannot speculate which percentage of children will outgrow their ASD, but they are hoping that through the research they gathered they can see whether the diagnosis changed because brain function normalized or the brain was able to make up for autism-related deficiencies.
"All children with ASD are capable of making progress with intensive therapy, but with our current state of knowledge most do not achieve the kind of optimal outcome that we are studying," study author Deborah Fein, a professor at the Department of Psychology at University of Connecticut, said in a press release. "Our hope is that further research will help us better understand the mechanisms of change so that each child can have the best possible life."
The study published Jan. 16 in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.
Researchers are also looking at which therapies led to the most success. Fein told HealthDay she believed behavioral treatments were the most likely to result in an "optimal outcome." However, even for children that lose the diagnosis, she said that parents should not stop therapy "prematurely" since these children are still at risk for attention problems and anxiety.
"But I want to point out that this is the result of years of hard work," she added. "This is not anything that happens overnight. I would say that at minimum we're talking about two to three years of intensive therapy to produce this outcome, but it could also be five years. It's variable.
"This is the first solid science to address this question of possible recovery, and I think it has big implications," added Dr. Sally Ozonoff of the MIND Institute at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in the study, to the New York Times. "I know many of us as would rather have had our tooth pulled than use the word 'recover,' it was so unscientific. Now we can use it, though I think we need to stress that it's rare."
But, other experts warned that parents shouldn't get their hopes up that their child will outgrow their diagnosis.
"This study is looking at a small sample of high functioning people with autism and we would urge people not to jump to conclusions about the nature and complexity of autism, as well its longevity," Dr. Judith Gould, director of the National Autistic Society's Lorna Wing Centre for Autism, told the BBC. "With intensive therapy and support, it's possible for a small sub-group of high functioning individuals with autism to learn coping behaviors and strategies which would 'mask' their underlying condition and change their scoring in the diagnostic tests used to determine their condition in this research."
Notre Dame's star linebackerManti Te'o faces a problem bigger than any running back he's had to bring down.
As the elaborate hoax about his dead "girlfriend" unravels, many questions remain to be answered, chief among them whether he was complicit in promoting the dramatic story of his girlfriend's death from leukemia. Te'o may soon be forced to tackle those questions himself.
"A lot of people are very suspicious when Te'o says he had no idea and he was just a sucker in this," Deadspin writer Timothy Burke said on "Good Morning America" today. "Why would somebody go to such great lengths to hoax him like that?"
Click here for 'Catfish' stars' advice on online dating.
Burke's Deadspin story broke the scandal, forcing Te'o and Notre Dame to admit the girlfriend, Lennay Kekua, never existed. Notre Dame claims that Te'o is the victim of a "cruel hoax."
"[Notre Dame is] sticking to his story and they're going to, I think, fight and make every sort of attempt they can to prove he had no idea this was going on and that he was the unfortunate victim of a year-long prank," Burke said.
But it won't be easy.
Mike Ehrmann/Getty Images
"I think that there are some questions about when he became aware of it, simply because Notre Dame and Te'o's statement have indicated that he found out about it in late December, but he chose not to correct or identify when he was asked before the BCS Championship game about his girlfriend," he said. The championship game was played on Jan. 7.
Burke said he is particularly eager for answers about the story Te'o told of meeting his girlfriend in 2009 and his father Brian Te'o's statements about how the purported girlfriend used to visit Manti in Hawaii.
The university's athletic director Jack Swarbrick said at a Wednesday night news conference that the school was not speaking for Te'o.
"At the end of the day, this is Manti's story to tell and we believe he should have the right to tell it, which he is going to do," Swarbrick said.
Swarbrick said that Te'o and his family came to the university last month with concerns that Te'o had been the victim of a hoax.
"The university immediately initiated an investigation to assist Manti and his family in discovering the motive for and nature of this hoax," he said. "While the proper authorities will continue to investigate this troubling matter, this appears to be, at a minimum, a sad and very cruel deception to entertain its perpetrators."
The school's investigators monitored online chatter by the alleged perpetrators, Swarbrick said, adding that he was shocked by the "casual cruelty" it revealed.
"They enjoyed the joke," Swarbrick said, comparing the ruse to the popular film "Catfish," in which filmmakers revealed a person at the other end of an online relationship was not who she said she was.
"While we still don't know all of the dimensions of this ... there are certain things that I feel confident we do know," Swarbrick said. "The first is that this was a very elaborate, very sophisticated hoax, perpetrated for reasons we don't understand."
Click here for more scandalous public confessions.
Swarbrick also said that he believed Te'o's representatives were planning to disclose the truth next week until Wednesday's story broke.
Te'o, who led the Fighting Irish to the BCS championship game this year and finished second for the Heisman Trophy, has only issued a written statement so far.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
(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
Roxanne Jones: He's not trustworthy
When my son comes to me with a guilty apology for some horrible-at-the-time wrong he's done, of course, I forgive him - over and over again. That's a mother's love. If my partner asks forgiveness for a wrong turn he's taken, I look a little closer at the root of his sincerity. If it's there he gets a second shot, too, if he's worth my trust again.
But Lance Armstrong, who maliciously lied for more than a decade, who I watched from my sideline seat in sports try to crush the voice of anyone who dared to call him a cheater. No, he gets no second chance from me. There are too many reasons to question his apology. Is he trying to stave off fleeing endorsement dollars? Save his LiveStrong Foundation? Avoid paying back all the sponsors he defrauded? He could at least pay back the U.S. Postal Service, especially if those are taxpayer dollars.
I've had it with these public crying-after-you-caught apologies. Armstrong has had a decade of second chances to come clean but he was too arrogant, too caught up in his God-like stature. And now, he should live strong among us mere mortals and show the world - his supporters and his doubters what kind of man he really is when the camera's are off.
Roxanne Jones is a founding editor of ESPN The Magazine and a former vice president at ESPN. She is a national lecturer on sports, entertainment and women's topics and a recipient of the 2010 Woman of the Year award from Women in Sports and Events. She is the author of "Say It Loud: An Illustrated History of the Black Athlete" (Random House) and is CEO of Push Media Strategies and is working on her second book.
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.
Copyright © News deutoplasm. All rights reserved.
Design 
And Business Directories
