Pistorius back in court; bail ruling expected

Olympian Oscar Pistorius returned to court on Wednesday to find out if he can be freed on bail after being charged with premeditated murder in the shooting death of his girlfriend.

This is the second day of the bail hearing that is expected to last several more days.

The charge of premeditation makes it more difficult for Pistorius' attorneys to argue he should be released pending trial. To win bail, the defense must argue that "exceptional circumstances" exist that would justify Pistorius' release.

Prosecutors have said they would ask for bail to be denied in the Valentine's Day death of Reeva Steenkamp.

Tuesday's court session ended with no decision on bail for Pistorius, 26. Prosecutors said they needed time to study the affidavits read in court before deciding how to proceed.

In a statement read by his lawyer, Pistorius said he would not try to flee or influence any witnesses if he is allowed out on bail, and he argued his release wouldn't be a danger to public order.

During Tuesday's hearing, Magistrate Desmond Nair upgraded the charge against Pistorius to premeditated murder, saying he could not rule out the possibility that the track star planned Steenkamp's death. But Nair said he will consider downgrading the charge later.

Pistorius' affidavit in alleged murder of girlfriend

A tragic mistake?

While prosecutors and defense lawyers agree Pistorius shot Steenkamp, the track star denied intentionally killing her.

"I fail to understand how I could be charged with murder, let alone premeditated murder because I had no intention to kill my girlfriend," Pistorius said in his statement.

"We were deeply in love and couldn't be happier," he said. "I loved her and I know she felt the same way."In his statement, Pistorius said Steenkamp came to his home February 13 for a quiet dinner. They wrapped up the night with a bit of television in bed for him, some yoga for her. She had brought him a Valentine's Day present to open the next day.

After the couple had gone to bed, he said he got up in the early hours of February 14 to close the balcony door in his bedroom when he heard a sound in the bathroom.

Pistorius said he'd been a victim of violence and burglary in the past, and realized with terror that contractors who worked at the house had left ladders outside.

Fearing someone had entered the home through the open bathroom window, Pistorius grabbed his 9mm pistol from under the bed, moved in the dark on the stumps of his amputated legs and yelled at what he thought was the intruder to get out.

"I fired shots at the toilet door and shouted to Reeva to phone the police. She did not respond and I moved backwards out of the bathroom, keeping my eye on the bathroom entrance," Pistorius said in his statement.

"Everything was pitch-dark in the bedroom and I was still too scared to switch on a light."

"When I reached the bed, I realized that Reeva was not in bed. That is when it dawned on me that it could have been Reeva who was in the toilet. I returned to the bathroom calling her name," he said.

He said he threw open the balcony door and screamed for help, put on his prosthetic legs and tried to kick in the door to the separate room inside the bathroom containing the toilet. Then, he said, he picked up a cricket bat, smashing panels out of the door before finding a key and unlocking it.

"Reeva was slumped over but alive," he said.

Pistorius said he called for help and was told to take her to the hospital himself.

He carried her downstairs and tried to help her, but she died.

A premeditated murder?

Prosecutors, however, painted a different picture.

They rejected Pistorius' claim that he mistook her for a burglar, saying it would make no sense for an intruder to hide behind a locked bathroom door.

Instead, they say Pistorius armed himself, attached his prosthetic legs and walked 7 meters (23 feet) to shoot Steenkamp through a bathroom door after a heated argument.

Defense attorney Barry Roux questioned the state's argument, asking how prosecutors would know Pistorius had put on his prosthetic legs and walked to the bathroom before shooting his girlfriend.

Police were alerted to the shooting by neighbors, and residents had "heard things earlier," police spokeswoman Denise Beukes said.

Authorities said there had been "previous incidents" at the home, including "allegations of a domestic nature," but did not provide details.

Detectives are investigating the blood-stained cricket bat found in the home, Johannesburg's City Press newspaper reported. They are trying to determine whether it was used to attack Steenkamp, if she used the bat in self-defense, or if Pistorius used it to try to break down the bathroom door, the newspaper said.

The case of the global sports hero known as the "Blade Runner" has riveted stunned fans around the world.

As he walked into court in a blue shirt, gray suit and tie, frenzied photographers snapped away, prompting the judge to demand they stop.

The scene was a far cry from the packed stadiums that erupted in applause whenever the double-amputee competed against men with legs.

Social media reaction to the case came down against the sports star, but was still noticeably mixed on CNN's Facebook page.

"There's no amount of tears that will save you," said Anthonia Nneka Nwabueze. "Pistorius must face the Law for brutally killing an innocent girl - Reeva."

"My favorite athlete but what he did is grave and must be punished," Carlos Alvarez Ochoa said.

But another person who posted called for patience.

"(N)one of us were in the house when his girlfriend was murdered, let's hold off on casting stones at Oscar Pistorius," said Adrian van Liere Since. "Just like anyone else, he deserves a just trial, and in my eyes remains innocent until proven guilty."

Jesse Jackson Jr charged with misusing campaign funds

A former congressman and son of a prominent civil rights leader has been charged with spending campaign funds on personal expenses.

Jesse Jackson Jr of Illinois is accused of misusing $750,000 (£483,000).

He and his wife Sandi Jackson, who is charged with tax fraud in the matter, intend to plead guilty, media report.

Mr Jackson, a 47-year-old Democrat, resigned in November after acknowledging he was being treated for bipolar disorder.

"I offer no excuses for my conduct and I fully accept my responsibility for the improper decisions and mistakes I have made," Mr Jackson said in a statement.

Mr Jackson is charged in federal court in Washington DC with conspiracy, fraud, and making false statements. Prosecutors say Mrs Jackson filed false tax forms that underreported how much tax the couple owed.

Watches and fur capes Prosecutors say that between 2007 and 2009 Mr Jackson used funds donated to his re-election campaign to buy a gold-plated Rolex watch worth $43,350, fur capes and parkas worth $5,150, and about $9,588 in children's furniture.

He is also accused of failing to report $28,500 in gifts and loans to the House of Representatives, where he has served since 1995.

Mr Jackson, son of Chicago civil rights leader the Rev Jesse Jackson, faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison; his wife faces up to three years, according to federal sentencing guidelines.

But Mrs Jackson's lawyer said her plea deal "does not contemplate a sentence of that length".

Other penalties against Mr Jackson could include a fine of up to $250,000, US media report. In addition, authorities may try to seize more than $60,000 in memorabilia and furs linked to the alleged fraud.

Mr Jackson has also been under investigation by the House ethics committee over his dealings with imprisoned ex-Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who was convicted of trying to sell an appointment to President Barack Obama's former US Senate seat and other corruption charges.

Mr Jackson resigned from office on 21 November, just weeks after winning re-election.

Amanda Bynes: 25 Things You Don't Know About Me

Amanda Bynes, 26 -- an aspiring fashion designer known for headlining hit TV shows like All That and What I Like About You -- shares the 25 things you don't know about her with Us Weekly.

1. My first concert was the Spice Girls. I always wanted to be Posh.

2. I've always loved drawing and my dream is to start a fashion line.

3. I went on Accutane and it really helped my skin clear up.

4. My favorite store is American Apparel.

5. Rag and Bone makes the best jeans.

6. I'm addicted to online shopping.

7. My nickname is Chick.

8. I know how to play the piano and the violin.

9. My grandma and grandpa are from Toronto.

10. My favorite perfume is Stella by Stella McCartney.

11. I gain weight quickly so I need to work out constantly.

12. I would love to start recording an album.

13. I started acting when I was 7. My first commercial was Nestle Buncha Crunch.

14. My favorite dark lipstick is Diva by Mac.

15. I moved to New York City and I love it! I lost 4 lbs. since I moved. I'm 121 lbs -- my goal is 100 lbs.

16. I survived Hurricane Sandy.

17. I bought a Rolex. It's my most prized possession.

18. Diet Coke is my favorite soda.

19. I'm Polish, Irish and Lithuanian on my dad's side; Romanian, Polish and Russian on my mom's side.

20. Macaroons are my favorite cookie.

21. Alexander Wang makes the best T-shirts.

22. Paper Boy and Ms. Pac Man are my favorite childhood video games.

23. I always fall asleep during massages. I love them.

24. I love eggplant Parmesan.

25. I love going to the Bahamas.

Fate of $1M reward in Christopher Dorner case unclear

The presumed death of former LA police officer and suspected quadruple killer Christopher Dorner has left questions over the $1 million reward in his case.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's spokesman, Peter Sanders, said Wednesday it's too early in the investigation to determine whether anyone would deserve the award.

LAPD Officer Alex Martinez says it's unlikely anyone can claim it because the reward referred to Dorner's capture and conviction.

Complete coverage of the manhunt for Dorner from CBS Los Angeles station KCBS-TV

"There was no capture and no conviction. It's kind of a no-brainer," Martinez said.LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said it was the biggest such reward ever offered in Southern California.

Candidates would likely include a couple who says they came upon Dorner at their condo, where he'd been hiding, and Rick Heltebrake, whose says Dorner stole his truck as he fled before the final firefight and cabin blaze that led to Dorner's presumed death.

Boehner accuses Obama of not having 'the guts' to cut spending

House Speaker John Boehner Tuesday repeatedly challenged the president's willingness to go against his own party on issues that include reforms to social programs and spending.

"I think he'd like to deal with it [fiscal problems], but to do the kind of heavy lifting that needs to be done, I don't think he's got the guts to do it,” the Ohio Republican said in a meeting with a small group of reporters for nearly an hour Tuesday morning. “He understands there is a spending problem. He understands that we need changes and reforms, and we need to solve these problems."

When pressed about the severity of that statement, he modified, saying the president does not have the "courage."Washington is in the midst of yet another fiscal crisis, facing a political showdown over so-called "sequestration," the self-imposed round of across-the-board spending cuts to domestic programs and the Pentagon. The sequester was supported by both the White House and Congress as a way to encourage lawmakers to find common ground. Instead, they have been mired in a stalemate, unable to find an equitable solution for both sides. 

"I am not suggesting that this is easy,” Boehner said, “but what I am suggesting is that he is the President of the United States. This is the biggest threat to our society."

President Obama campaigned on raising taxes on the wealthy and got that in the showdown over the fiscal cliff. He wants more revenue -- from what he says are "loopholes and deductions" for the wealthy. Republicans have balked at that notion, saying he already got all the revenue he was going to get.

The White House has accused Boehner of walking away from "grand bargains," deals to reduce the country's deficits, in both 2011 and 2012 because he could not sell it to his base. Boehner's office vehemently disagrees with that notion, instead pointing the finger back at the president.

Republicans also feel as if they have already given in and do not want to give more, particularly after passing the tax increase and punting on the debt ceiling, voting to suspend it temporarily until the Democratic-controlled Senate passes a budget, something it has not done in years.

But those maneuvers have not been without staunch GOP opposition and misfires. President Obama and Boehner were thought to be, once again, close to a deal when Boehner abruptly announced "Plan B," an initiative pushed by House leadership, including Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), that would have let tax cuts expire for millionaires. But Boehner pulled the measure after he realized it did not have majority support within his conference.

Instead, Boehner issued a statement urging President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Senate to pass something to avert the fiscal cliff. Boehner eventually brought the Senate-passed measure to the House floor. It passed without majority GOP support.

On immigration, Boehner claimed in the meeting, "The thing I am most concerned about immigration reform is the president getting in the way. Sometimes I think he'd rather have an issue than a solution. Here's the guy who four years ago said he was going to have immigration reform, and he's done absolutely nothing for four years. I hope the president will play a constructive role."

Democrats say that prior to the 2012 presidential election, they have faced a brick wall of opposition on immigration, despite President Obama's promises, especially from House Republicans. But since Obama's re-election, in which he won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote, Republicans have sounded a different tune on immigration.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who will give the GOP response and is leading an immigration-reform effort in the Senate, dropped by the meeting as well.

"I didn't mean to interrupt--,” Rubio said, as he looked for a cup of coffee.

When asked if he is feeling any pressure tonight, big smile and said, "No."

Grammys' top 5 moments

Sunday night's 55th annual Grammy Awards were as much about the performances as it was the actual statues handed out.

The evening saw some powerful collaborations among artists, and all eyes were on one controversial performer. Here are the top 5 moments of the night:

1) Killer performances

Take your pick. From a spirited performance of "The Weight" by an all-star group including Sir Elton John, T Bone Burnett, the Zac Brown Band, Mavis Staples, Mumford & Sons and Brittany Howard of the Alabama Shakes, to the many duets like R&B crooner Miguel with Wiz Khalifa and Miranda Lambert with fellow country artist Dierks Bentley, it was all thrilling.

Fun. reminded us as to why we loved them when they performed "Carry On." But they won a big award of the night, song of the year, for their hit "We Are Young." And the stars in the audience were grooving along during a tribute to Bob Marley led by Bruno Mars, Rihanna, Sting, Ziggy and Damian Marley.Even Taylor Swift won us over when she took to the stage dressed as a ringmaster and surrounded by circus/carnival types to kick off the ceremony with her hit "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together."

Grammy coverage on Marquee

But one of the most eagerly awaited performances was:

2) The return of Justin Timberlake to the stage

The Grammys went sepia-toned for Timberlake's performance of his new single "Suit and Tie," which offered plenty of homage to the Rat Pack era with Timberlake in a tux with a bow tie and a big band with similarly suited backup singers billed as "JT and the Tennessee Kids."

Jay-Z left his seat in the audience to run up on stage for his rap portion of the song. And Timberlake was cooler than cool as he segued into his new single "Pusher Love Girl." The performance marked the return of Timberlake to music since he took a four-year break to focus on acting.

Welcome home JT.

3) LL Cool J pulls triple duty

Sure, he's a big acting star now, but don't forget that LL, aka James Todd Smith, got his start in the hip hop game.

So it felt right when the Grammy host donned a knit cap, a black T-shirt and some subtle bling to perform alongside Chuck D, Travis Barker, Tom Morello and DJ Z-Trip. They closed out the show with "Welcome to the Terrordome" and shouted out the late Beastie Boy, Adam "MCA" Yauch, with a "No Sleep Till Brooklyn" chant.

He also kept the audience informed of what folks were saying on social media, reading tweets and responding to some. The Grammys got its monies worth with him.

4) Adele didn't wear black

You can't not love her as she sings like an angel, is hilarious and just seems so normal.

But just like you can always count on a practically flawless performance when she grabs the mic, we thought she was also a sure bet to show up in a black frock. It's kind of been like her thing.

But no. When Adele took to the stage to claim the first award of the night, best pop solo performance for "Set Fire to the Rain," she was wearing a flowery, red and black Valentino dress.

New life as a mom and clearly new fashion choices: It was almost as surprising as Prince showing up to present Gotye and Kimbra the record of the year award for "Somebody That I Used To Know.

5) The somewhat anticlimactic appearance of Chris Brown with Rihanna

Despite a few cutaways of the pair sitting together in the audience and Brown standing and clapping following her performance, seeing the two together was not as big a deal as the run up felt like it should be.

Friday marked the fourth anniversary of Brown's assault on Rihanna, which occurred before that year's Grammy ceremony.

The pair had been a huge focus of this year's Grammys as fans waited to see if they would arrive at the ceremony together and how much "togetherness" they would exhibit.

But in the end it felt like really no big deal.

More surprising was six-time nominee Frank Ocean not winning any of the big awards he was up for.

Ocean scored best urban contemporary album and shared best rap collaboration with Kanye West and Jay-Z for "No Church in the Wild," but lost best new artist to Fun. and album of the year to Mumford & Sons.

55th Grammy Awards: The winners list

It was also more fun checking to see which artists ignored the reported Grammys memo asking them to cover up (we are looking at you and your rather exposed bosom Katy Perry). Jennifer Lopez even joked about it while presenting.

"As you can see I read the memo," Lopez said, wearing a black dress cut extremely high and fully exposing one leg.

US north-east braces for 'historic' snowstorm

The north-east US coast is braced for a big snowstorm that has already caused hundreds of flight cancellations.

The storm is set to cause power cuts and transport chaos as it arrives from the Great Lakes and brings blizzards to parts of New England on Friday.

It is expected to peak on Saturday morning east of Cape Cod.

Schools have already been closed in Boston, where sustained strong winds are set to exacerbate heavy snowfall - as much as two feet in some areas.

The National Weather Service said the combination of two weather systems from the polar and subtropical jet streams would produce a "potentially historic" storm, with weather warnings extending from New Jersey to Maine.

Winds of up to 35mph (55km/h) with significantly stronger hurricane-strength gusts were expected to create deep drifts.

Airlines have already cancelled hundreds of flights across the region.

In Boston, Mayor Thomas Menino urged businesses to consider allowing staff to stay home to reduce the risk of commuters getting stranded.

"We are hardy New Englanders, let me tell you, and used to these types of storms," said Mr Menino.

"But I also want to remind everyone to use common sense and stay off the streets of our city. Basically, stay home,"

In New York, where memories of October's Hurricane Sandy are still fresh in the mind, the famous Staten Island ferry has had its schedule reduced. While schools remain open for now, residents are being advised to prepare for the worst.

"Due to potential power outages and transportation difficulties, New Yorkers are advised to stock up on potential supplies, including medicine," said the city's mayor, Michael Bloomberg.

With up to a foot of snow expected over the next two days, Mr Bloomberg said snow ploughs and 250,000 tonnes of salt were being readied for use.

Amid standoff, Alabama town mourns slain bus driver

Midland City, Alabama (CNN) -- A memorial service was held in southeastern Alabama on Sunday for a school bus driver hailed as a hero.

Charles Albert Poland Jr., 66, was killed last week when he tried to shield children from a gunman, who authorities say boarded a bus, shot Poland and grabbed a 5-year-old boy.

The suspect and the child remained barricaded in an underground bunker in Midland City on Sunday, as the standoff stretched into its sixth day."I'm sad to see you gone. You didn't deserve to die, but you died knowing you kept everyone safe," read a letter from a student.

Donny Bynum, the superintendent of Dale County schools, read the letter and several others at Poland's service, which was held at the Ozark Civic Center."Being on your bus has been some of the best times of my life," said a second letter.

"I will miss your big, smiling face," read a third.

Poland was remembered as a loving husband, father and "paw-paw," who would do anything for his grandchildren. He was the type who brought students ice water on hot days.

According to authorities and witnesses, on Tuesday at about 3:40 p.m., Poland was shuttling children from school to their homes when he dropped students off and the suspect boarded the bus.

The gunman demanded that Poland hand over two children. Poland refused, blocking access to the bus's narrow aisle as at least 21 children escaped out of the back emergency door, authorities said.

The gunman shot Poland four times, killing him, grabbed the kindergartener and then barricaded the himself and the boy inside a nearby bunker.

"Charles Albert Poland was a hero," Bynum said.

The suspect in the case has been identified as 65-year-old Jimmy Lee Dykes, who has been described by neighbors and officials as a survivalist with "anti-government" views.

Authorities have said little about what, if any, demands have been made by Dykes. They said there is no connection between the suspect and the child.

"We continue to maintain an open line of communication with Mr. Dykes. He continues to make the environment as comfortable as possible for the child," according to a statement Sunday from FBI spokesman Paul Bresson.

The statement was released after authorities postponed a news conference.

"Throughout the day, Mr. Dykes has continued to allow us to deliver food, medicine and comfort items to the child. Some of those items we have delivered include a red Hot Wheels car and some Cheezits crackers," Bresson said.

The 5-year-old suffers from Asperger's syndrome and attention deficit disorder, said State. Rep. Steve Clouse.

Dykes has told authorities he has blankets and a heater in the bunker, and authorities have previously said the bunker -- built 4 feet underground -- has electricity.

Negotiations are being carried out between the suspect and authorities through a 60-foot plastic ventilation pipe that leads from the bunker, authorities said.

It's unclear whether Dykes has access to news reports about the standoff.

"Our mission is to resolve this situation peacefully for both the child and Mr. Dykes," Bresson stressed in his statement.

Standoff a focal point

The standoff has become a focal point for the people of Midland City, a town of about 2,300 northwest of Dothan.

Signs posted around the town and at the church urge people to pray for the boy.

During a vigil Saturday outside the town hall, Michelle Riley called on Dykes to release the boy.

"He just needs to know that ... everybody makes mistakes," she said. "Everybody's been through life events that changes them, but (the boy is) innocent. You know, let him go home to his mother. Let him go home to his grandparents. Let him come out to the community. Let him go back to school and be with his friends."

Gay rights: How U.S. leads the way

Philippe Coste is the staff New York correspondent for the weekly L'Express. He also writes a blog on "lexpress.fr." His book, recently published in France, is about populism and the American justice system: "Quand la justice dérape" (When Justice goes off track).

A week before Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to mention gay rights in his inauguration speech, the French had already made history on that matter. Believe it or not, on January 13, there were half a million people on the streets of Paris, demonstrating against gay marriage.

The French Catholic church is supposed to be at its last gasp, but it seemed strong enough to mobilize parishes, religious school parents and the common conservative citizen against a project of "mariage pour tous" (marriage for everybody), that had long been part of the new Socialist President François Hollande's election platform. Now that the law is being debated in parliament, it will likely pass within a month, but the ruckus will have stripped it of provisions deemed essential to the gay community: the equal rights, even if they are married, to start a family and raise their children. It may also trigger off a new culture war.The Church would not have enjoyed that success alone, had it not found the most unexpected and efficient leader, in the person of Virginie Tellenne, alias "Frigide Barjot." The nom-de-scène of this enterprising entertainer, known for her long-time connection to the RPR, the party of Jacques Chirac, means "cookoo," and was a rallying cry for silly demonstrations, in the 80s, against cold weather in Paris, before she met God in 2004, and proclaimed herself "Jesus's PR person."I saw her recently on a French TV channel while, in her trademark miniskirt and fishnets, she was debating a lesbian activist named Caroline Fourest, who asked Barjot how she felt about "gathering hundred of thousand of people in a demonstration against the equal rights of another community." She answered that she "loved gays," reminding the audience she often "partied like crazy" at Bananas, a well known hangout of the hip Parisian LGBT crowd. Translation: gay was okay as long as it stayed in the "cage aux folles," in drag, in an entertaining margin, but certainly not in the mundane realities of everyday life, where it is way more complicated.Indeed. Frigide, just like a majority of the French, supported the civil union enacted in 1999, the so-called Pacs, designed mainly for same sex couples. It gives some rights, but doesn't legitimate partners as parents. Marriage would. And there is the rub: adoption, medically assisted procreation. "What about the bloodline? What about mother nature, and the right of kids raised that way to know their true origin?, shrieked Frigide, oblivious to the fact that children adopted or medically procreated with donated eggs by straight parents have the same problem. It all boiled down, at the minute of truth, to that question: "What about their right to be raised normally? she asked. By a mommy and a daddy?"Having witnessed the debate on same-sex marriage in the United States, that episode confirms one more difference between our cultures. Contrary to the Americans who, in spite of blunt evidence, still worship the act of marriage, with its fairy-tale rituals of proposing and funny kneeling, the French have a much more pessimistic, more realistic even, vision of the knot. But when it comes to families and raising kids, they seem to believe in the enchanted world of yore.In America, the same-sex unions were often seen as the sinful problem, as the Christian banners, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" proclaimed around the country. But children were nobody else's business for those willing to adopt, or procreate with the methods available to anyone able to pay for donated eggs, sperm or a surrogate mother.France is another story. In a country where unrealistic conditions slacken usual adoption, gay prospective parents have had to act as any straight single person would, ask for an adoption authorization, and, to improve the chances ... get the child in another country. The law debated these days may grant their partner equal parental rights for adoption. As for medically assisted procreation, it is another problem: As of today, it is simply forbidden unless the couple is heterosexual and married or able to prove they has lived together for at least two years. Surrogate mothers are prohibited in France, plain and simple.

Hollande himself, though he promotes gay marriage as a progressive symbol, admitted he doesn't personally favor allowing medically assisted reproduction to homosexuals, and with the assent of many socialist party officials, had these corresponding measures postponed -- for parliament to decide -- as another law to a future debate, in March.

One reason, besides the obvious fear of a culture war with the conservatives about sacred family values, maybe the fact that the government already pays four attempts of medically assisted procreation to heterosexual couples and doesn't wish to have to extend this costly favor to gays, nor, more importantly, does it want to change at any price the national moral doctrine.

Assisted reproduction is considered in France only as a way to treat the medical condition of infertility. Being gay is not an illness, neither is, for a woman, the fact that she has no man. As a consequence, French babies are born en masse from single and not-so-single mothers in nearby Belgium or Spain, where specialized services are legally available for a price. "These children already exist in France," concluded Caroline Fourest on the show."They were born from gay parents and they simply deserve to have it recognized."

US Cyber Command in 'fivefold' staff expansion

The Pentagon will dramatically increase its cyber-security staff to counter threats against US government computer networks, according to media reports.

US Cyber Command, established three years ago, could grow as much as fivefold over the next few years.

The planned expansion comes amid a series of successful attacks, including a virus that wiped data from 30,000 computers at a Saudi oil firm.

Cyber Command currently has 900 staff members, both military and civilian.

Defence officials told the Washington Post, which first reported the staff increase, that the Pentagon had approved an expansion to 4,900 troops and civilians.

Another official told Reuters news agency that the force would be expanded significantly, though details were still being worked out.

The expansion comes at a time when the US military is balancing decreased budgets and a shift towards Asia and the Pacific.

According to reports, the plan calls for creating three types of forces under the Cyber Command: protecting computer systems that involve electrical grids and other kinds of infrastructure, offensive operations overseas as well as protection of the defence department's internal systems.

Outgoing Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has previously stressed the importance of the Pentagon's cyber-security efforts.

"We've got good people that are involved in it, but, very frankly," he said in November speech at a defence think tank, "if we're going to stay on the cutting edge of what's happening with regards to the changes that are occurring, we have got to invest more in that area."

Storm Sandy: A tour of destruction, three months on

Three months ago, Storm Sandy swept through the Caribbean and up the east coast of the USA, leaving a trail of destruction in its wake.

It is believed that over 100 people were killed in the US alone, as buildings were reduced to rubble leaving thousands of people without a home.

Jon Sopel reports from Ortley Beach, New Jersey, and takes a tour of the devastation left behind.

Two months ago the BBC visited Ortley Beach as the resort began the long road to recovery. You can explore the town in our special interactive feature.

Wach wideo: 

US Mumbai attacks plotter given 35 years in prison

A US man has been sentenced to 35 years in prison for his key role in plotting the deadly Mumbai attacks in 2008.

David Coleman Headley, 52, was sentenced on 12 counts, including conspiracy to aid militants from the Pakistani group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) who carried out the attacks.

Headley pleaded guilty and co-operated to avoid the death penalty and extradition to India.

More than 160 people were killed by gunmen during the assault.

After initially denying the charges, Hadley eventually pleaded guilty and admitted to scouting potential target locations in Mumbai.

He also confessed to helping plan an aborted plot to behead staff at a Danish newspaper that had published a cartoon many Muslims deemed offensive.

'Unfathomable damage'

Headley had faced life imprisonment but US District Judge Harry Leinenweber said he had taken into account the American's co-operation in the case, even if "the damage that was done was unfathomable".

"I don't have any faith in Mr Headley when he says he's a changed person and believes in the American way of life," Judge Leinenweber said during Thursday's verdict.

Headley was born Daood Gilani to a Pakistani father and American mother but changed his name to David Coleman Headley in 2006 "to present himself in India as an American who was neither Muslim nor Pakistani", prosecutors said.

Headley is alleged to have told prosecutors that he had been working with LeT since 2002.

He was arrested by FBI agents in Chicago in October 2009 while trying to board a plane for Philadelphia.

Earlier this month, Canadian-Pakistani businessman Tahawwur Rana was jailed in Chicago for 14 years for his role in the 2008 attacks.

Headley had been the government's star witness against Rana, an old friend from their days in a Pakistani military school.

On 17 January, Rana was found guilty of providing material support to LeT and helping to plan an aborted attack on Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. He was, however, cleared of playing a role in the Mumbai attacks.

The 60-hour assault on Mumbai began on 26 November 2008. Attacks on the railway station, luxury hotels and a Jewish cultural centre claimed 166 lives. Nine gunmen were also killed.

The only surviving attacker, Pakistani Mohammad Ajmal Amir Qasab, was executed in India last November.

John Kerry eyes revival of Middle East peace talks

US Senator John Kerry has warned that a failure of a two-state solution in the Middle East would be "disastrous", at his confirmation hearing as secretary of state.

But Sen Kerry said he believes there is a "way forward" on peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

US-brokered peace talks in the Middle East broke down in 2010.

Sen Kerry sailed through his hearing to replace Hillary Clinton at the helm of the state department.

A Vietnam veteran and a senator since 1985, he was the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, losing the election to George W Bush.

'Disastrous'

He is chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, which conducted Thursday's hearing. It was led instead by Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey.Sen Kerry warned "the window or door on a two-state solution could shut - and that would be disastrous for all concerned".

"Perhaps this can be a moment where we can renew some kind of effort to get the parties into a discussion to have a different track than we have been on over the last couple of years," he said, adding that it was unclear what government would emerge from Israel's recent election.

The Massachusetts senator did not give details of possible plan, saying he did not want to prejudice any new effort.

During the five-hour hearing, Sen Kerry also said "we will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon".

"I repeat here today: our policy is not containment. It is prevention and the clock is ticking on our efforts to secure responsible compliance," he told the panel.

He said he hoped the US and its allies would maintain diplomatic pressure against Iran, but said Iran had to prove its nuclear programme was solely for peaceful purposes.

Sen Kerry also spoke about American efforts to strengthen its relationship with China, saying it would be "a tough slog". And he described himself as a "passionate advocate" on battling global warming.

'The right choice'

He was introduced by Mrs Clinton, Republican Senator John McCain and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.

"John is the right choice," Mrs Clinton said of her designated successor. "He will bring a record of leadership and service that is exemplary."

Her recommendation was immediately echoed by Sen McCain.

"Witnessing almost daily his exemplary statesmanship is one of the highest privileges I've had here," he said.

Sen Kerry's nomination as secretary of state opens his Massachusetts Senate seat.

The place will temporarily be filled by appointment by Democratic Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. A special election will follow within months.

Sen Kerry was Mr Obama's second choice, after UN Ambassador Susan Rice became embroiled in controversy over last September's raid on a US consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Republican senators accused her of deliberately misleading the American people over the nature of the attack, which left four Americans dead.

The Obama administration angrily rejected the claims, but Ms Rice withdrew her name from consideration for secretary of state.

Clinton takes responsibility in Benghazi attack, clashes with Republicans

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee she took responsibility for not adequately protecting U.S. personnel in the Sept. 11 attack on a diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

 Defending the administration’s immediate handling of the attack, Clinton clashed at times with Republicans over the account the administration gave in the initial days after Sept. 11.  She told Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, a Republican, “we did not have a clear picture” of all that was going on in Benghazi although she did acknowledge that senators had “legitimate questions” about the administration’s account.Sen. John McCain, R- Ariz., -- after telling Clinton “we are proud of you” and that all over the world “you are viewed with admiration and respect” -- delivered a blistering criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of the events in Libya.

“There are many questions that are unanswered and the answers you’ve given this morning are frankly not satisfactory to me,” McCain told Clinton. He added “the American people and the families of these four brave Americans still haven’t gotten the answers they deserve.”

He asked Clinton whether she was aware of numerous warnings from Stevens and other Americans in Libya that the facility in Benghazi was not capable of resisting a sustained assault. He also said there had been other warning signs such as an attack on the British ambassador to Libya.

He angrily asked Clinton why Defense Department forces were not nearby to defend the Benghazi facility.

Last month a report issued by the Accountability Review Board (ARB) appointed by Clinton, blamed State Department officials for “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies” that led to protection for the Benghazi facility that was “grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.”

In her response to McCain, Clinton said, as she did to other senators on the panel, that some additional information on the causes and circumstances of the attack is in the classified portions of the report issued by the ARB. Senators and Senate staff can read the classified portions of the ARB report, but the public cannot.And she blamed members of Congress for holding up additional aid to Libya that might make the country more secure and less chaotic. 

In his questioning of Clinton, Sen. Rand Paul, R- Ky., told her, “I’m glad that you’re accepting responsibility. I think that ultimately with your leaving, you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11, and I really mean that. Had I been president at the time and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post.”

He added, “It’s a failure of leadership” which cost the Americans in Benghazi their lives. “I think it’s good that you’re accepting responsibility-- because no one else is.”Paul also argued that U.S. personnel ought to never have been sent to Benghazi “in a war zone” without a military guard. “You shouldn’t send them in with the same kind of embassy staff that you have in Paris,” he added. 

Clinton replied that all four State Department officials criticized in the ARB report for their roles on the Benghazi events had been removed from their jobs and placed on administrative leave. “The ARB (report) made very clear that the level of responsibility for the failures that they outlined was set at the assistant secretary level and below.”

The furor over the Benghazi attack helped derail one possible nominee to replace Clinton at the State Department, UN ambassador Susan Rice, whom Republicans assailed for using administration talking points that portrayed the incident as a spontaneous response to an inflammatory anti-Islamic video.

But Clinton told the committee that in the hours and days after the attack, “I was not focused on talking points” and “I wasn’t involved in the talking points process.”

Recommended: Biden not shying away from 2016 speculation

But she said Rice and the Obama administration did not try to mislead the American people about the cause of the attacks. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” she said as she sparred with Sen. Ron Johnson, R- Wisc.

She angrily told Johnson that at this stage it did not really matter what the precise origins or motives of the attack were: “What difference at this point does it make?”

In her opening statement, Clinton told the committee, “As I have said many times since September 11, I take responsibility.  Nobody is more committed to getting this right.  I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure.”

Clinton's voice choked with emotion as she recalled the return of “those flag-draped caskets” from the Americans killed in Benghazi and put her arms “around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters” of those killed. 

Clinton also used her testimony to deliver a vigorous call for continued U.S. involvement in the North African nation of Mali where the Obama administration is aiding French efforts to defeat Islamic jihadist forces.Clinton said she had accepted the ARBs recommendations for improvements in security procedures and had asked her subordinates “to ensure that all 29 of them are implemented quickly and completely.” She said these changes are designed to “reduce the chances of another Benghazi happening again.”

Clinton will also testify about the Benghazi episode Wednesday afternoon before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

On Thursday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold its confirmation hearing for Clinton’s successor, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who is the committee’s chairman and is likely to be confirmed without any opposition.

Don't expect an Obama-Netanyahu blowup

Washington-- In the run-up to the Israel elections, two pieces of conventional wisdom were making the rounds among analysts, diplomats and experts: First, Benjamin Netanyahu would win big, and second, the victory would propel him on a collision course with Barack Obama, a second term president seeking to do something serious on the peace issue.

The first proved to be dead wrong. The second will probably follow suit."Bibi" Netanyahu has just been re-elected prime minister, no less for the third time. But don't get out the popcorn and turn out the lights just yet. The sequel to the Obama-Bibi wars isn't about to begin.

Sure, their relationship has been perhaps the most dysfunctional in the history of U.S.-Israeli ties. And there are bound to be plenty of downs in the next several years, particularly if Netanyahu is forced to form a narrow right-wing governing coalition.But the U.S.-Israeli relationship is simply too big and important to fail, particularly now.

Netanyahu's party wins but centrists flex muscle, polls show

Indeed, given the real prospects that the new Israeli coalition will include Yair Lapid's centrist party (whose surprise showing of 19 seats may make him a coalition lynchpin) and maybe another moderate faction if Lapid won't sit with other right-wingers in the coalition, the two leaders may have less reason to fight and more reasons to cooperate. Here's why.

Second term illusion

The notion that a second-term president freed from the constraints of re-election will now hammer an Israeli prime minister with a big peace initiative just doesn't add up.

First, there's no precedent for such a thing in American policy toward the Arab-Israeli negotiations. Bill Clinton's push at Camp David in July 2000 -- the precedent most often cited -- came not from Clinton, but at then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak's urging.Second, it's the presence of opportunity, not the absence of political constraints or the desire to get even and settle scores, that leads a U.S. president to act.

A quick look around and any sentient human being would see that a grand deal between Israelis and Palestinians isn't possible now. Lapid's presence in the coalition may restrain some of the Israeli right's ambitions to expand settlements, but it isn't enough to support a full-scale push toward a comprehensive peace.

Indeed. Lapid's focus was on economic issues and national service, not on negotiations with the Palestinians.

The suspicions between Israelis and Palestinians are too deep, the gaps on the issues too big, and the political houses on each side too divided.

More likely, the new Netanyahu government will focus on some kind of interim accord with the Palestinians. And that leads us to the second reason that a big fight is likely not in the offing.

Why fight about nothing?

Fighting with an Israeli prime minister (and the Arabs, too) is a part of the job description of serious American mediators. But the fight needs to be productive and worth the effort.

Right now, there's nothing to fight about because there's no conceivable Israeli-Palestinian agreement in the offing. You fight when you think there's a way to produce an agreement that would justify the risks of a confrontation, not when you're certain to fail. For Obama, whose domestic agenda will require an enormous expenditure of political capital at home, neither fighting with Republicans and Democrats over pressure on Israel nor launching an initiative that fails is smart politics.

John Kerry needs a friend

We are going to have a new secretary of state who will have responsibility -- assuming he can convince the president to let him handle the issue -- for dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian problem. The last thing Kerry wants is a worsening of ties between Obama and Netanyahu that makes it impossible for him to do his job on such a key issue.

If Kerry wants to have a chance of succeeding -- even to manage the problem -- he'll need a relationship with Netanyahu based on some measure of confidence and trust. This is even more important given the absence of such trust between Obama and the prime minister.

Bush 41 and then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir didn't get along. James Baker managed to hammer out a working relationship with Shamir, tense at times but functional. Without it, there would have been no Madrid peace talks.

If Kerry is smart, he'll keep the door to Netanyahu open and try to see if he can't reach some understanding with the prime minister. If he can't, there will be plenty of time to fight later.

The Iranian Issue

The big reason why Bibi and Obama will likely have a stake this time around in more cooperation and less friction is Iran. The fact is neither Obama, the mullahs, nor Netanyahu wants a war over the nuclear issue. But avoiding one will require the closest of cooperation between Jerusalem and Washington.

There's an expectation that 2013 will be the year of decision on the Iranian nuclear issue. Maybe yes, maybe no. But that expectation alone will require intimate coordination to prevent a unilateral Israeli strike, to see whether diplomacy can produce an Iranian-American deal and to determine whether it can be sold to Israel.

If not, and no diplomatic fix to the nuclear issue is possible, American-Israeli understandings will be required on a military option. Either way, neither the United States nor Israel can avoid a public falling out over Iran or a major split over how to manage the problem.

Simply put, the U.S.-Israeli relationship is too big to fail. That doesn't mean there won't be real differences over settlements, for example, that won't cause friction.

But on the two biggest issues of the day, how to manage Iran and the Palestinians, there can't be solutions without close Israeli-American cooperation.

It's legacy time. This is Obama's last term as president and perhaps Netanyahu's last term as prime minister. Obama doesn't want to be the U.S. president on whose watch Iran crossed the nuclear weapons threshold and certainly neither does Bibi want to be the Israeli prime minister held responsible.

It would be nice to imagine that the two can sit down and reach a broad strategic understanding -- first we deal with Iran, and if we succeed through diplomacy or even war, then let's find a way to preserve the two-state option for Israel and the Palestinians.

But even if this doesn't happen, these two leaders are inexorably bound together. They're never going to love each other. But I'm betting they'll find a way to get by without a major fight neither wants. The fact is the protection of Israeli and American interests and regional stability in a volatile, turbulent Middle East depends on it.

Why 2013 could be a game-changer on climate

As leaders gather for the World Economic Forum in Davos, signs of economic hope are upon us. The global economy is on the mend. Worldwide, the middle class is expanding by an estimated 100 million per year. And the quality of life for millions in Asia and Africa is growing at an unprecedented pace.

Threats abound, of course. One neglected risk -- climate change -- appears to at last be rising to the top of agendas in business and political circles. When the World Economic Forum recently asked 1,000 leaders from industry, government, academia, and civil society to rank risks over the coming decade for the Global Risks 2013 report, climate change was in the top three. And in his second inaugural address, President Obama identified climate change as a major priority for his Administration.For good reason: last year was the hottest year on record for the continental United States, and records for extreme weather events were broken around the world. We are seeing more droughts, wildfires, and rising seas. The current U.S. drought will wipe out approximately 1% of the U.S. GDP and is on course to be the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history. Damage from Hurricane Sandy will cost another 0.5% of GDP. And a recent study found that the cost of climate change is about $1.2 trillion per year globally, or 1.6% of global GDP.

Shifting to low-carbon energy sources is critical to mitigating climate change's impacts. Today's global energy mix is changing rapidly, but is it heading in the right direction?

Coal is the greatest driver of carbon dioxide emissions from energy, accounting for more than 40% of the total worldwide. Although coal demand is falling in the United States -- with 55 coal-powered plants closed in the past year -- it's growing globally. The World Resources Institute (WRI) recently identified 1,200 proposed new coal plants around the world. And last year, the United States hit a record-high level of coal exports—arguably transferring U.S. emissions abroad.Meanwhile, shale gas is booming. Production in the United States has increased nearly tenfold since 2005, and China, India, Argentina, and many others have huge potential reserves. This development can be an economic blessing in many regions, and, because carbon emissions of shale gas are roughly half those of coal, it can help us get onto a lower carbon growth path.

However, while gas is an important bridge to a low carbon future—and can be a component of such a future—it can't get us fully to where we need to be. Greenhouse gas emissions in industrial countries need to fall by 80-90% by 2050 to prevent climate change's most disastrous impacts. And there is evidence that gas is crowding out renewables.

Renewable energy -- especially solar and wind power -- are clear winners when it comes to reducing emissions. Unfortunately, despite falling prices, the financial markets remain largely risk-averse. Many investors are less willing to finance renewable power. As a result of this mindset, along with policy uncertainty and the proliferation of low-cost gas, renewable energy investment dropped 11%, to $268 billion, last year.

What do we need to get on track?

Incentivizing renewable energy investment

Currently, more than 100 countries have renewable energy targets, more than 40 developing nations have introduced feed-in tariffs, and countries from Saudi Arabia to South Africa are making big bets on renewables as a growth market. Many countries are also exploring carbon-trading markets, including the EU, South Korea, and Australia. This year, China launched pilot trading projects in five cities and two provinces, with a goal of a national program by 2015.

Removing market barriers

Despite growing demand for renewable energy from many companies, this demand often remains unmet due to numerous regulatory, financial, and psychological barriers in the marketplace.

In an effort to address these, WRI just launched the Green Power Market Development Group in India, bringing together industry, government, and NGOs to build critical support for renewable energy markets. A dozen major companies from a variety of sectors—like Infosys, ACC, Cognizant, IBM, WIPRO, and others— have joined the initiative. This type of government-industry-utility partnership, built upon highly successful models elsewhere, can spur expanded clean energy development. It will be highlighted in Davos this week at meetings of the Green Growth Action Alliance (G2A2).

De-risking investments

For technical, policy, and financial reasons, risks are often higher for renewables than fossil-based energy. Addressing these risks is the big remaining task to bring about the needed energy transformation. Some new funding mechanisms are emerging that can help reduce risk and thus leverage large sums of financing. For example, the Green Climate Fund could, if well-designed, be an important venue to raise funds and drive additional investments from capital markets. Likewise, multi-lateral development banks' recent $175 billion commitment to sustainable transport could help leverage more funds from the private and public sectors.

Some forward-looking companies are seeking to create internal incentives for green investments. For example, companies like Unilever, Johnson & Johnson, and UPS have been taking actions to reduce internal hurdle rates and shift strategic thinking to the longer-term horizons that many green strategies need.

Davos is exactly the type of venue for finding solutions to such issues, which requires leadership and coalition-building from the private and public sectors. For example, the the G2A2, an alliance of CEOs committed to addressing climate and environmental risks, will launch the Green Investment Report with precisely the goal of "unlocking finance for green growth".

Depending on what happens at Davos—and other forums and meetings like it throughout the year—2013 could just be a game-changer.

Obama finally meets Machiavelli

U.S. President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama attend the Commander-in-Chief's Ball, honoring U.S. service members and their families, at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center on Monday, January 21, in Washington after Obama's second Inauguration as the 44th U.S. president.

It's a good bet that millions of Americans on Monday greeted President Barack Obama's magnificent second inaugural address not just with applause and cheers of approval but with loud sighs of relief.

Gone were his first inaugural speech's bizarre equal division of blame for the wreckage of real lives between the "greed of some" and the so-called "collective failure" of the rest of us. Instead, Obama rang out his commitment to equality for all, not the "shrinking few and lucky" who call the rest of us simply "takers."

Nor did our president chide us to put away ''childish things" by seeming to describe deep differences over "perpetual war," climate change, immigration, equal rights, voting rights, rights to decent wages for honest labor and rights to "basic measures of security and dignity" as "petty grievances."This time around, Obama offered us not song and dance morals from an old Depression musical comedy to "pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and start all over again," but solid, specific support for the serious New Deal pillars of Social Security and Medicare.Almost for the first time as president, he dared to utter the word "poverty" in a major address, and declared ''we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice."

These moments and more earned his speech the warm response and respect it deserves. Now it will receive the careful analysis it cannot escape. This will reveal even more profound differences between Obama's second inaugural speech and his historic appearance on the steps of the U.S. Capitol as the president of color few believed they would see elected in their lifetimes

.

1. His first inaugural address was a puzzling disappointment after the passionate convictions he expressed so powerfully in both his primary and general election campaigns. Some suggested that his finest moment was Election Night in Chicago's Grant Park. No one who followed his campaign, including his opponents, could have been surprised by his second inaugural speech.

2. Monday's words were those of a leader who has chosen to fight for the change he believes in over flailing attempts to placate that only produced astounding charges that he was unwilling to compromise when in fact he had given so much in doomed efforts to do just that.

3. His repeated calls for "We the People" to work together were not-so-subtle warnings of who would be responsible if the U.S. government is unable to do so. No blame-splitting this time.

4. Even Obama's delivery and demeanor conveyed conviction, not the sense that a press aide might soon emerge from Caesar's tent beside the Rubicon to explain that his thinking is still "evolving."In this second inaugural address, Obama the Candidate became Obama the President without a trace of the bait and switch to which too many citizens have become so accustomed that in their cynicism they cease to vote at all. He spoke as a leader who has stopped splitting differences and is prepared to make choices and fight for them -- together as We the People if possible, alone as Obama the President if not.

Opinion: Obama's America, better than what Founders imagined

In fact, Monday's speech felt as if after four frustrating years of trying to appease his opponents, Barack Obama had finally met Machiavelli one night in the Lincoln Bedroom and learned that when faced with two equally powerful opposing forces, a president must choose, or both will attack him. He sounded like a leader who knows now that the difference between making a choice and making love is that decisions don't feel better the longer you can draw them out.

As Obama goes from celebration to celebration, his supporters and his opponents have a much clearer idea of what he will do tomorrow, and for the next 1,000-plus days he is president.

This time when he tells banks and insurance companies that "a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play," they will do well to believe him. Because even with all the cash he collected to fill the coffers of his campaign, Monday's speech makes it clear he will not let it line the coffin of his presidency.

It betrays no security measures to mention that the Secret Service chooses oddly accurate code words for the presidents it protects.

After Obama's first inauguration, that could have been "dancer." After Monday's address, it could legitimately consider ''leader." If the president is able to act in accordance with his second inaugural address, it's not impossible now to imagine "Lincoln." He wasn't afraid to fight when the nation would not stay together.

49ers and Ravens -- and Harbaugh brothers -- to face off in Super Bowl XLVII

One Harbaugh will win Super Bowl XLVII. Another will lose it.

That much is guaranteed after the San Francisco 49ers, coached by Jim Harbaugh, and the Baltimore Ravens, led by his brother John Harbaugh, beat their respective foes in conference championship games Sunday. Those wins mean the Harbaughs will be the first siblings to face off as head coaches in the NFL's title contest and, in fact, for any major U.S. professional sports championship.

Both teams rallied from halftime deficits on the road to earn berths in the Super Bowl, which will be played February 3 in New Orleans.

Baltimore did it by reeling off 21 straight points to overcome Tom Brady and the New England Patriots. It was sweet revenge for the Ravens, who lost last year's nail-biter AFC Championship to the same Patriots foe on the same Gillette Stadium field in Foxborough, Massachusetts.A few hours earlier, the 49ers rallied from a 17-0 hole to defeat the Atlanta Falcons, who had posted the best regular season record in the NFC.

John Harbaugh joked to reporters, after the Ravens' win, that he and his brothers had a "few dreams" -- one of which may have been meeting up in the Super Bowl -- as well "as a few fights ... just like all brothers."

"We'll let the two teams duke it out, as much as possible," John Harbaugh said, smiling.

The Baltimore coach then made a point to talk about how proud he was of his brother Jim, as well as how much he admired the San Francisco team.

"I'd like to think that when you look at (the) two teams, you're looking at mirror images," John Harbaugh said, referring to the Super Bowl foes. "It's going to be a great football game."

Baltimore's dominant second half leads to win

Beyond their recent playoff history, Baltimore and New England matched up earlier this season -- one in which the Ravens came back from a late 9-point deficit, winning on a last-second field goal by Justin Tucker.

Still, victory Sunday evening was hardly guaranteed.

New England had the superior regular record, not to mention a storied playoff pedigree having played in five Super Bowls in the past 11 years. They also had Brady, who last Sunday passed Joe Montana as the quarterback with the most playoff wins ever.

And the Patriots started out strong, jumping to a 3-0 lead and -- after a Baltimore score -- entering halftime up 13-7.

But the second half was all Baltimore. The Ravens scored touchdowns on their first three possessions, two of them on Joe Flacco touchdown passes to receiver Anquan Boldin.

Meanwhile, the vaunted Patriots offense sputtered, hurt especially by a Stevan Ridley fumble and two Brady interceptions. Baltimore ended up winning 28-13.

"We came here last year and left with a bitter taste in our mouths," Baltimore's Boldin told reporters after the game. "We felt like this team took something away from us. And we wanted to come back and make that right."

49ers rally, hold on for 28-24 victory

Led by quarterbacks Montana and Steve Young, San Francisco was one of the NFL's top franchises through much of the 1980s and 1990s.

But the 49ers haven't been in the Super Bowl in 1995, and their 2000s were marred by mostly losing regular seasons.

The team's fortunes, however, have turned since the 2011 hiring of Jim Harbaugh, a former NFL quarterback himself who'd been coaching at nearby Stanford. The next season, they made it to the NFC Championship, only to fall to the eventual Super Bowl winners, the New York Giants.

On Sunday, trailing by three scores midway through the second quarter, San Francisco rallied for two quick touchdowns -- one on a LaMichael James 11-yard run, the other on a four-yard reception by tight end Vernon Davis.

Still, Atlanta maintained its slim advantage -- in part thanks to a missed field goal and a fumble by the 49ers Michael Crabtree just inches from the end zone -- into the fourth quarter. But then, running back Frank Gore scored from nine yards out to put San Francisco ahead 28-24.

At this point, there were still just over eight minutes left in the game.

Atlanta -- paced by quarterback Matt Ryan, known as "Matty Ice" for his strong play in the waning minutes of games -- made a run. With just over a minute to go, the Falcons got within striking distance of the goal line. But San Francisco defenders broke up two straight passes, effectively sealing the win.

After the game, San Francisco linebacker Patrick Willis said the 49ers prevailed because they refused to give up and stuck together as a team, just as they have all season long.

"One thing about our team all year long is that we continue to fight," Willis told Fox, which broadcast the game. "We have an unbelievable team."