Article:
One of Donald Trump’s lawyers shockingly said Monday that it’s legal to rape your spouse.

 Michael Cohen, who works for the Republican presidential candidate and real estate mogul, made the outrageous remark while defending Trump from a decades-old allegation that he once forced himself upon his then-wife Ivana.

 “You’re talking about the front-runner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as private individual who never raped anybody. And, of course, understand that by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse,” Cohen, 48, told the Daily Beast.

 RALPH NADER: DONALD TRUMP'S TEACHABLE MOMENT

 “It is true,” added the high-powered lawyer, who is also one of Trump’s main political advisors.

 “You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.”

 Told that New York in 1984 struck down the marital rape exemption, Cohen demonstrated why he’s known as “Trump’s pitbull.”

 “I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don’t have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know,” Cohen ranted, according to the news website.

 GOP NOT WORRIED ABOUT A TRUMP INDEPENDENT RUN AT PRESIDENT

 Michael Cohen (far r.) said in an interview with the Daily Beast that 'by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse.' (Jim Cole/ASSOCIATED PRESS)

 “So I’m warning you, tread very f---ing lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be f---ing disgusting. You understand me?

 “You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up … for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet … you’re going to have judgments against you, so much money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it,” the irate attorney threatened.

 Donald Trump's public feuds

 The Daily Beast reporters were asking Cohen about an allegation published in the 1993 book, "The Last Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump."

 Written by Newsweek scribe Harry Hurt III, the book cites a divorce deposition in which Ivana Trump claims her then-husband sexually attacked her.

 Tread very f---ing lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be f---ing disgusting. You understand me?

 According to Hurt’s book, Trump was angry about a scalp reduction surgery gone bad and blamed his blonde bombshell wife.

 Trump began to tear out clumps of his wife’s hair, according to “Last Tycoon,” then ripped off her clothes and assaulted her.

 ''#WHENTRUMPISELECTED' HILARIOUSLY MOCKS TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN

 “According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me,’” according to the book.

 Trump had denied both the scalp surgery and the allegations of rape when the book came out.

 Cohen on Monday told the Daily Beast he hadn’t read the entire divorce deposition cited by Hurt. But he had read the relevant pages and said the word “rape” was used in a misleading way.

 Ivana admitted there had been an ugly night between her and her husband in 1989, but said she did not want her words 'to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.' (Dave Kotinsky/Getty Images)

 “It’s not the word that you’re trying to make it into,” Cohen told The Daily Beast.

 Ivana Trump said “she felt raped emotionally … She was not referring to it (as) a criminal matter, and not in its literal sense, though there’s many literal senses to the word,” he said.

 A statement from Ivana, who divorced her husband in 1992, was provided to Hurt by Trump and his lawyers and wound up on the first page of “The Last Tycoon.”

 In it Ivana admitted there had been an ugly night between her and her husband in 1989.

 “I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense,” she said in the statement.

 ON A MOBILE DEVICE? WATCH THE VIDEO HERE.

 Sign up for BREAKING NEWS Emails privacy policy Thanks for subscribing! ||||| Donald Trump introduced his presidential campaign to the world with a slur against Mexican immigrants, accusing them of being “rapists” and bringing crime into the country.

 “I mean somebody’s doing it!… Who’s doing the raping?” Donald Trump said, when asked to defend his characterization.

 It was an unfortunate turn of phrase for Trump—in more ways than one. Not only does the current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination have a history of controversial remarks about sexual assault, but as it turns out, his ex-wife Ivana Trump once used “rape” to describe an incident between them in 1989. She later said she felt “violated” by the experience.

 Michael Cohen, special counsel at The Trump Organization, defended his boss, saying, “You’re talking about the frontrunner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as a private individual who never raped anybody. And, of course, understand that by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse.”

 “It is true,” Cohen added. “You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.”

 Ivana Trump’s assertion of “rape” came in a deposition—part of the early ’90s divorce case between the Trumps, and revealed in the 1993 book Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump.

 The book, by former Texas Monthly and Newsweek reporter Harry Hurt III, described a harrowing scene. After a painful scalp reduction surgery to remove a bald spot, Donald Trump confronted his then-wife, who had previously used the same plastic surgeon.

 “Your fucking doctor has ruined me!” Trump cried.

 What followed was a “violent assault,” according to Lost Tycoon. Donald held back Ivana’s arms and began to pull out fistfuls of hair from her scalp, as if to mirror the pain he felt from his own operation. He tore off her clothes and unzipped his pants.

 “Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified… It is a violent assault,” Hurt writes. “According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me.’”

 Following the incident, Ivana ran upstairs, hid behind a locked door, and remained there “crying for the rest of night.” When she returned to the master bedroom in the morning, he was there.

 “As she looks in horror at the ripped-out hair scattered all over the bed, he glares at her and asks with menacing casualness: ‘Does it hurt?’” Hurt writes.

 Get The Beast In Your Inbox! Daily Digest Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast. Cheat Sheet A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't). By clicking “Subscribe,” you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy Subscribe Thank You! You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

 Donald Trump has previously denied the allegation. In the book, he denies having had the scalp reduction surgery.

 “It’s obviously false,” Donald Trump said of the accusation in 1993, according to Newsday. “It’s incorrect and done by a guy without much talent… He is a guy that is an unattractive guy who is a vindictive and jealous person.”

 Cohen acknowledged Monday that he has not read the entire deposition but said he had read the two relevant pages of it, including the rape accusation.

 “It’s not the word that you’re trying to make it into,” Cohen told The Daily Beast, saying Ivana Trump was talking about how “she felt raped emotionally… She was not referring to it [as] a criminal matter, and not in its literal sense, though there’s many literal senses to the word.”

 Cohen added that there is no such thing, legally, as a man raping his wife. “You cannot rape your spouse,” he said. “There’s very clear case law.”

 That is not true. In New York, there used to be a so-called marital rape exemption to the law. It was struck down in 1984.

 Trump’s lawyer then changed tactics, lobbing insults and threatening a lawsuit if a story was published.

 “I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don’t have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know,” Cohen said. “So I’m warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?”

 “You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up… for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet… you’re going to have judgments against you, so much money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it,” he added.

 When Lost Tycoon was about to be printed, Donald Trump and his lawyers provided a statement from Ivana, which was posted on the first page of the book. In it, Ivana confirms that she had “felt violated” and that she had stated that her husband had raped her during a divorce deposition. But Ivana sought to soften her earlier statement.

 “During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me,” the Ivana Trump statement said. “[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.”

 The statement, according to a “Notice to the Reader” in the book, “does not contradict or invalidate any information contained in this book.”

 Nevertheless, Cohen, Trump’s attorney, said that “there is nothing reasonable about you wanting to write a story about somebody’s usage of the word ‘rape,’ when she’s talking [about how] she didn’t feel emotionally satisfied.”

 “Though there’s many literal senses to the word, if you distort it, and you put Mr. Trump’s name there onto it, rest assured, you will suffer the consequences. So you do whatever you want. You want to ruin your life at the age of 20? You do that, and I’ll be happy to serve it right up to you,” he added.

 “I think you should go ahead and you should write the story that you plan on writing. I think you should do it. Because I think you’re an idiot. And I think your paper’s a joke, and it’s going to be my absolute pleasure to serve you with a $500 million lawsuit, like I told [you] I did it to Univision,” Cohen continued.

 The 1990 divorce case between the two Trumps was granted on the grounds of Donald’s “cruel and inhuman treatment” of Ivana. The settlement, under which the Trumps agreed on the division of assets, was finalized in 1991. Her divorce involved a gag order that keeps her from talking about her marriage to Donald Trump without his permission.

 Divorce records in New York state are not open to public inspection. But some of the legal documents surrounding the contract dispute over the Trumps’ prenuptial agreement are still available and were reviewed by The Daily Beast.

 In one such document, Ivana Trump’s lawyers claim that in the three years preceding their divorce Donald Trump, “has increasingly verbally abused and demeaned [her] so as to obtain her submission to his wishes and desires” as well as “humiliated and verbally assaulted” her. The New York County Clerk’s records office couldn’t locate at least one box of documents relating to the contract dispute. (It’s not uncommon for court files to go missing.)

 Ivana Trump did not respond to a request for comment.

 Donald Trump has a history of grandstanding on rape. His controversial campaign-trail comments this year about Mexicans were hardly the first time he has waded into the hot-button issue of sexual assault.

 Two years ago, Trump weighed in on the alarming rate of sexual assault and rape in the military—and in doing so, pinned the blame on the presence of women.

 “26,000 unreported sexual [assaults] in the military—only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?” he tweeted in 2013. “The Generals and top military brass never wanted a mixer but were forced to do it by very dumb politicians who wanted to be politically [correct]!” he continued.

 In 1989, the real estate mogul placed a full-page ad in four New York City newspapers calling for the execution of the five alleged rapists of Trisha Meili, the Central Park jogger who was put in a coma by her assailants. The defendants received different sentences and served between six and 13 years behind bars before new evidence of coerced confessions emerged that led to their convictions being vacated in 2002.

 “Criminals must be told that their CIVIL LIBERTIES END WHEN AN ATTACK ON OUR SAFETY BEGINS!” Trump’s 1989 ad blared. “BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE!”

 Trump’s other public statements on rape cases range from tone-deaf to offensive. In 1992, he floated the idea that convicted rapist and boxer Mike Tyson should be allowed to pay “millions and millions” of dollars to rape victims instead of serving jail time. Trump’s modest proposal did not go over well.

 “How offensive,” shot back Dollyne Pettingill, spokeswoman for the mayor of Indianapolis, where Tyson committed the assault. “We have a judicial process for these matters and it’s not for sale.”

 Whether Trump’s comments about rape—or the accusation of assault from his ex-wife—will hurt his burgeoning political career is an open question. So far, Trump has been able to shake off the sorts of scandals that would destroy any other campaign for president. Dissing Mexican immigrants and prisoners of war has not cost him his campaign, nor has his history of giving to Democratic campaigns. In the latest CNN poll, Trump leads all other candidates in the Republican presidential field, with 18 percent support.

 —with additional reporting by Nina Strochlic and Asawin Suebsaeng

 Update 7/28/15 9:50 AM: Ivana Trump released a statement Tuesday morning to CNN.

 “I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit. Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president.”

 Ironically, Ivana says a story based on her own words in a divorce deposition are “totally without merit.”

 In further irony, Trump is distancing himself from his lawyer.

 “Mr. Trump speaks for Mr. Trump and nobody but Mr. Trump speaks for him,” a campaign source told CNN. ||||| Reuters/Nancy Wiechec Donald Trump.

 Donald Trump’s presidential campaign team fired back Monday night after the Daily Beast published an explosive story highlighting decades-old comments Trump’s ex-wife made where she used the word “rape” to describe one of their sexual encounters.

 Ivana Trump later clarified that she didn’t mean the term in a “a literal or criminal sense,” but rather in an emotional sense.

 A spokesperson for Trump, who is currently a frontrunner in many polls of the Republican primary, provided a statement to Business Insider claiming the incident was “old news and it never happened.” They also claimed Trump’s ex-wife, Ivana Trump, made up the “rape” allegation as part of an effort to “exploit” him during their early 90’s divorce proceedings.

 “This is an event that has been widely reported on in the past, it is old news and it never happened,” the Trump spokesperson said. “It is a standard lawyer technique, which was used to exploit more money from Mr. Trump especially since he had an ironclad prenuptial agreement.”

 Ivana Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider on Monday evening.

 The “rape” story first surfaced in the 1993 book “Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump,” which was written by former Newsweek and Texas Monthly Reporter Harry Hurt III. In that book, Hurt wrote Ivana described a “violent assault” in a deposition that was part of the divorce proceedings and further added that she told “some of her closest confidantes” she was “raped” by Trump.

 When Hurt’s book was published, Trump and his lawyers provided a statement from Ivana that was included on the first page of the biography. Trump and Ivana had reached a $US14 million cash divorce settlement two years earlier in 1991.

 “During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me,” Ivana Trump’s statement said. “[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.”

 In a 1993 interview with Newsday Trump said the story that appeared in Hurt’s book was “obviously false.”

 Along with claiming the “rape” incident “never happened” and was merely an attempt by Ivana to “exploit” Trump in their divorce, the Trump campaign spokesperson also slammed the Daily Beast in the statement they provided to Business Insider on Monday.

 “It is just a way for the badly failing and money-losing Daily Beast, which has been reporting inaccurately on Mr. Trump for years, to get some publicity for itself,” the Trump spokesperson said.

 The Daily Beast’s initial story on the “rape” allegation included Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, claiming that legally “you cannot rape your spouse.” This is incorrect. According to the Daily Beast, Cohen also threatened the site’s reporters with legal action if they published a story on the accusations.

 “I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don’t have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know,” Cohen said. “So I’m warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?”

 Business Insider reached out to the Daily Beast’s executive editor, Noah Shachtman, who provided a series of questions he has for the Trump campaign including whether they have any examples of his site reporting incorrectly on Trump.

 “Did they actually provide any examples of those inaccuracies or are their media critiques as busted as their legal interpretations?” Shachtman asked.

 Shachtman also questioned Cohen’s behaviour and whether Trump shares his attorney’s views on rape.

 “I’d like to know if Mr. Trump also feels that marital rape is not a crime. … We stand by our reporting,” Shachtman said, before adding, “If this was such old, nothing news why is the Trump campaign moving so aggressively to squash it? Why did they threaten our reporter? And also, if Mr. Trump actually makes his way to the White House, the kind of intimidation tactics that Mr. Cohen displayed tonight, would he consider those to be the norm for his administration? I’d love to know answers to those things.”

 NOW WATCH: This animated map shows how religion spread across the world

 NOW WATCH: Briefing videos

 Business Insider Emails & Alerts Site highlights each day to your inbox. Email Address Join

 Follow Business Insider Australia on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram. |||||Summary:

– Donald Trump's lawyer seems pretty ignorant of the law—at least as it pertains to marital rape. The Daily Beast reports that when Michael Cohen, special counsel for the Trump Organization, was asked about an alleged incident from 1989 involving Trump's ex-wife Ivana, he claimed "that by the very definition, you can't rape your spouse"—and then threatened reporter Tim Mak, allegedly telling him to "tread very f---ing lightly, because what I'm going to do to you is going to be f---ing disgusting." "You write a story that has Mr. Trump's name in it, with the word 'rape,' and I'm going to mess your life up ... for as long as you're on this frickin' planet," Cohen warned, per the Beast, which notes that New York outlawed marital rape in 1984. The alleged incident Cohen was asked about was described in the 1993 Trump biography Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump, reports the New York Daily News. The book, citing a divorce deposition, describes an incident in which Trump allegedly forced himself on Ivana as revenge for her having talked him into failed scalp-reduction surgery, though the book contains a statement from her saying that while she referred to the incident as "rape," she doesn't want her words "to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense." A Trump spokesperson tells Business Insider that the incident is "old news and it never happened" and that Ivana made it up to "exploit" Trump during divorce proceedings.


News article:

Catherine Zeta-Jones Checks Into Mental Health Facility

 Email This With husband

 "After dealing with the stress of the past year, Catherine made the decision to check in to a mental health facility for a brief stay to treat her Bipolar II Disorder," her rep confirms.

 In addition to her duties as an actress and mother, Zeta-Jones has dealt with more than enough stress in the past few years to merit some much-needed time off and TLC. With husband Michael Douglas on the mend after completing treatment for throat cancer, Catherine Zeta-Jones has found herself in need of some expert care. Gossip Cop reports that the actress has checked herself into a mental health facility."After dealing with the stress of the past year, Catherine made the decision to check in to a mental health facility for a brief stay to treat her Bipolar II Disorder," her rep confirms.In addition to her duties as an actress and mother, Zeta-Jones has dealt with more than enough stress in the past few years to merit some much-needed time off and TLC.

 In 2010, Zeta-Jones' stepson, Cameron Douglas, was sentenced to five years in prison for drug-related charges, and only four months later, her actor husband was diagnosed with cancer. In between the devastating events, Michael Douglas was also sued by his ex-wife, Diandra, who claimed she was entitled to 50 percent of the profits from his film 'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.'Sources report , "Catherine had a lot of trouble coping [with Douglas' cancer]. She was chain smoking and drinking," although her rep has not confirmed that her stay was related to substance abuse.It does seem the actress is on the mend, however. Her rep says, "She's feeling great and looking forward to starting work this week on her two upcoming films." ||||| For months, Catherine Zeta-Jones played the part of the devoted wife as her husband, actor Michael Douglas, sought treatment for throat cancer. Now, it seems all wasn't well in her world.

 Today, Zeta-Jones' publicist revealed that the actress recently sought treatment for bipolar disorder.

 "After dealing with the stress of the past year, Catherine made the decision to check in to a mental health facility for a brief stay to treat her Bipolar II Disorder," her publicist said in a statement. "She's feeling great and looking forward to starting work this week this week on her two upcoming films."

 Bipolar disorder is also called manic-depressive illness. The disorder is most known for the unusual shifts in mood and energy that those with it experience. Sufferers can go through what is known as a manic episode -- an overly excited or joyful state -- or a depressive episode -- a state of unusual sadness or hopelessness.

 Bipolar II disorder is not as severe as bipolar I. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, while those with bipolar I typically experience mania and intense mood episodes that can last at least seven days and may require hospitalization, bipolar II usually results in less intense depressive episodes.

 While bipolar disorder often develops in a person's late teens or early adult years, it has been known to develop later on in life as well.

 Zeta-Jones, 41, was outspoken about her anger after Douglas, 66, was diagnosed with throat cancer in August 2010.

 "It makes me furious they didn't detect it earlier," Zeta-Jones told People magazine. "He sought every option and nothing was found."

 Douglas' cancer wasn't the only stress in the couple's life. Last year, Douglas' ex-wife took him to court seeking a some of his profits from his "Wall Street" sequel, which was released in 2010 but was based on the iconic film that he made while they were married, which she said entitled her to a share.

 Zeta-Jones reportedly turned down roles to be by Douglas' side through his legal and physical battles. In January, Douglas noted that his cancer fight drew him and Zeta-Jones closer.

 "One thing that all cancer survivors talk about is a new depth of feeling that you have for loved ones," he said while receiving an award at the Palm Springs Film Festival. Zeta-Jones was at the festival with him.

 "It's made us even closer," he added, "and certainly there's a depth of emotion and an appreciation of your daily life that you didn't have before."

 Zeta-Jones and Douglas married in 2000. They have two children together, Dylan Michael Douglas and Carys Zeta Douglas.

 ABC News' Dan Childs contributed reporting. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– Catherine Zeta-Jones has revealed she has undergone treatment in a mental health clinic for her bipolar illness. "After dealing with the stress of the past year, Catherine made the decision to check in to a mental health facility for a brief stay to treat her Bipolar II disorder," said her publicist. The disorder, also known as manic depression, is marked by dramatic shifts in moods. Bipolar II is not as severe as Bipolar I. Zeta-Jones has been under particular stress this year because of husband Michael Douglas' battle with throat cancer, and a tough court struggle with his ex-wife over profits from his film Wall Street 2, notes ABC News. Click for more on Zeta-Jones.


Write a summary based on this article:

Gallery Books; NAL Trade; Jove

 Chick lit—hot pink covers featuring martini glasses and Manolos, stylish city girl heroines navigating the urban jungle in search of love and career—seems to have gone the way of Friends and the dotcom bubble. "A visit to any chain bookstore will testify that its heyday has definitely passed," says Salon, quoting an editor who says, "We've pretty much stopped publishing chick lit."

 "[T]he bloom is off the "chick lit" rose," agrees The Economist.

 Well I have news. Yes, chick lit is dead (or dying, at least). But in its place, we now have a new genre. Call it "farm lit."

 In farm lit books, our heroines ditch the big cities beloved in chick lit—New York, Chicago, LA—in favor of slower, more rural existences, scrappily learning to raise goats on idyllic Vermont farms or healing their broken hearts by opening cupcake bakeries in their sweet Southern hometowns. Instead of sipping $16 appletinis with the girls, they're mucking out barns and learning to knit. Instead of pining after Mr. Big, they're falling for the hunky farmer next door.

 In Georgia's Kitchen, Georgia Gray 's job "at one of Manhattan's best restaurants" and her relationship with her handsome lawyer fiancé go sideways, causing her to run off to the earthy pleasures of rural Tuscany. In The House on Oyster Creek, Charlotte Tradescome trades Manhattan and her workaholic husband for tending bivalves with a local oysterman on Cape Cod, where she falls "in love with the locals' down-to-earth way of life." In Magnolia Wednesdays, Vivien Gray's career in New York investigative journalism gets her shot (literally), and she repairs to Georgia, where she discovers that "maybe life inside a picket fence isn't so bad after all." In The Lost Husband, young widow Libby Moran takes off for a rural Texas goat farm and a dalliance with a "gruff" farm manager. ||||| For 56-year-old Tammy Burnell, who lost everything she owned in the 2008 Iowa floods, it’s the freedom to stand in the verdant fields of Burnell Farms in Royston, Ga., and call out to the heavens — and know no one can hear her.

 Hannah Breckbill, 25, walked from a career as a mathematician and settled in Elgin, Minn., planting Humble Hands Harvest “to work in something real and be the change I want to see happen in this world.”

 Forty-one-year-old Pilar Rebar quit her job as a pesticide applicator when she realized she had been told lies about the chemicals she was spraying on crops. Vowing to only grow “clean and healthy food,” she started up Sunnyside Organic Seedlings in Richmond, Calif.

 Meet three of America’s female farmers, the most rapidly growing segment of the nation’s changing agricultural landscape. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service reported last month that the number of woman-operated farms more than doubled between 1982 and 2007. Add primary and secondary operators, and there are nearly 1 million women in farming, accounting for 30 percent of U.S. farmers.

 So hot is ag life that novels about farming are replacing chick lit, offering an unexpected twist to the notion of dirty romance.

 Unlike the Farmettes and Women’s Land Army that took over while men fought in World War II, women today see farming as both a mission and a passion. Some want to provide healthy food for the masses. Others are looking to build community or live a life of deeper meaning.

 “Women want to be outside, they want to be near family. There’s lots of interest in where our food comes from, how it was grown,” says Kathleen Merrigan, former deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “We are seeing more beginning farmers coming in and I think the trend is going to continue. Women are [already] outnumbering men in owning smaller farms.”

 They arrive on farms — urban and rural, large and small — from two opposite worlds. Many are 40 and older, leaving behind office jobs and careers for the opportunity to get their hands dirty and create something tangible. At the other end of the spectrum are younger women who are coming out of agricultural and environmental science programs with a dedication to food justice, education, and reminding a nation led astray by fast food and TV dinners where its sustenance really comes from. There is also an older generation of women who have outlived their husbands and now own vast amounts of farm and ranchland.

 Combined, they are making new inroads for women who are determined to build a life around farming.

 Tammy Steele, director of the Oklahoma-based National Women In Agriculture Association, says female farmers have gained the respect not only of the USDA but also of the national farming community. That was missing, Steele explains, during the ’60s back-to-the-land movement, when women were more concerned with breaking the glass ceiling in corporate America than they were in tilling the earth.

 What’s more, female farmers have shattered the old stereotypes. St. Paul, Minn.’s Der Thou grows flowers. Teresa Brockman of Eureka, Ill., grows 25 varieties of fruit on her Sunny Lane Farm. Debby Zygielbaum, in her 30s, raises sheep and grows organic grapes, olives, and fruits for Robert Sinskey Vineyards in Napa Valley, Calif. These women are a garden of variety.

 Women do face some unique challenges in this business. Since women’s farms tend to be smaller, many need assistance with business plans and financing. Access to equipment can be limited. Many seek advice on marketing and how to get their goods to the public. As a result, we’ve seen the emergence of organizations such as the National Women In Agriculture Association and the Women, Food and Agriculture Network, both of which are seeing their memberships soar, as well as other, less formal networks.

 Not everyone needs help, of course. Haylene Green, 68, farms alone on a single acre in Atlanta’s tough West End, raising organic Caribbean vegetables, among them her famous “huge fatty bum-bum” tropical pumpkins. But others set up businesses with friends, sisters, brothers, same-sex partners, fathers, mothers. They’ve created sisterhoods, networks for sharing livestock and tractors, seeds, labor, financial assistance, and know-how.

 Many of these networks are still unrecognized by the mainstream, but some are breaking into the open. Soil Sisters offers tours of organic farms in south-central Wisconsin as part of MOSES, the Midwest Organic Sustainable Education Service. The MOSES Rural Women’s Project is led by 46-year-old Lisa Kivirist of Browntown, Wis., who with her husband left a career in advertising at Chicago’s Leo Burnett 17 years ago to start the Inn Serendipity Farm and B&B. Annie’s Project, which offers assistance with everything from risk management to business plans to marketing, has expanded nationally.

 It makes perfect sense, says Merrigan, the former USDA chief: “Women are agriculturalists globally. The U.S. is trying to catch up.”

 What is most apparent, though, is how content these women are with their agrarian lives. “Women make the food choices, they make the choices on what to feed their family, so their movement into farming is very natural,” says Temra Costa, author of Farmer Jane: Women Changing the Way We Eat and the force behind the website Farmer Jane. Costa lives outside of Oakland, Calif., where she homesteads with chickens and a small vegetable plot.

 Tammy Burnell, for her part, says she’s known she wanted to be a farmer since she was 6 years old. Throughout the years she kept having a dream, even though she lived in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, that she was growing vegetables in Georgia, near a pond. “Then the flood came and we lost everything,” Burnell says. What next? She typed “Georgia Organics” into Google and up came an 85-acre farm for rent. “So we loaded our ’57 red Chevy truck bearing a water ring from the flood and took off.”

 Burnell uses a plot of the farm she rents to teach young women to farm. She calls them “the blooms.” “What do I love about farming? Teaching. And being able to say I want a fresh salad and walking 20 feet and picking lettuce or a sweet pea for me and a customer,” Burnell says. “Like all the women farming and wanting to farm, I know this: We all want to lift our hands and praise the food, trees, and birds, and scream on the top of our lungs how great it is. And no one hears, not a soul.” ||||| In the four years I’ve served as Deputy Secretary, I’ve talked with thousands of women in agriculture – from young women thinking about entering farming to older women who have been tilling the soil for decades. Each of their stories is powerful on its own. But taken together, they have been an inspiration to the entire country. And today, we know that there are nearly one million of these stories around the country – nearly one million women farming and ranching on America’s working lands.

 A study released today by USDA’s Economic Research Service, Characteristics of Women Farm Operators and Their Farms found that the number of women-operated farms more than doubled between 1982 and 2007. When all women involved with farming are added up – including primary and secondary operators – they are nearly one million strong and account for 30% of U.S. farmers.

 The study also found that the number of women-operated farms increased in all sales classes, suggesting that size does not matter when it comes to agricultural opportunity for women.

 This puts real numbers to a trend that many of us have seen firsthand: there is serious momentum behind women in agriculture. This is personally gratifying for me – supporting women in agriculture has long been one of my passions. And it is a sign of the growing importance of USDA efforts to reach women farmers and ranchers.

 While at USDA, I’ve made this a priority. For instance, in the last four years, USDA’s Farm Service Agency has made significant modifications to its County committee structure to ensure fair representation of minority and women producers.

 We are also highlighting the accomplishments of women in agriculture, even as we work to ensure that USDA programs serve them better. Through the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative, we’ve seen how women are driving the development of local and regional food systems across the country. Last fall, I penned an op-ed with another women leader in agriculture, New Hampshire Agricultural Commissioner Lorraine Stuart Merrill, about the contributions women are making in the Granite State’s economy through local food.

 The ERS study also finds that women are leaders in livestock production. Nearly half of our country’s women-operated farms—those for which a woman is primarily responsible for making the business decisions—specialize in livestock. During a White House Google+ Hangout about women in agriculture, I talked with Cory Carman, a fourth-generation rancher from eastern Oregon who left farming for another career only to follow her heart back to Carman Ranch to raise cattle. Now she is the operator of a thriving direct-marketing beef business.

 For me, one of the most exciting findings of the ERS report is that younger women are entering farming faster than older women are leaving. Women also have a higher land ownership rate than their male counterparts, with 85% of women owning all of the land they farm, compared to 66% of their male counterparts.

 But women farmers and ranchers still have a ways to go. More women than men rely on off-farm income, suggesting that farming cannot support them full-time. Only 5% of women-operated farms have sales of $100,000 or more.

 Tonight, I will be traveling to LaCrosse, WI to join WomenShare 2013, an event focused on women in the food system. This will be my last official travel as Deputy Secretary of USDA. As I prepare to leave my post as the highest ranking woman at the Department, know that I will continue to work on advancing women’s opportunities in agriculture. One million women is only the beginning. |||||

– One of the biggest changes in agriculture isn't so much about what type of seeds are being planted as who is planting them: women. Grist expands on a USDA study showing that the number of farms run by women has nearly tripled in the last three decades. Add in secondary operators, and women now account for 30% of American farmers. The trend is accelerating of late, and Grist sees two general groups—women 40 and older who are ditching office jobs and 20-somethings coming out of school with agriculture or environmental science degrees. A few general characteristics: Women's farms are typically on the small side, with only 5% registering sales of $100,000 or more, says a blog post from USDA deputy chief Kathleen Merrigan. Along those lines, more female farmers rely on "off-the-farm" income than their male counterparts. 85% of women own the land they farm, versus 66% of male farmers. Younger women are entering farming at a faster clip than older women are leaving. And finally, "so hot is ag life that novels about farming are replacing chick lit, offering an unexpected twist to the notion of dirty romance," writes Grist's Lori Rotenberk, referring to this story in the Atlantic.


Here is a news article: It’s being called the “battle of the beards” — Paul Krugman vs. Ben Bernanke. Both are eminent (and bearded) economists: Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board; Krugman, a Nobel Prize winner and a prominent New York Times columnist. Krugman accuses Bernanke of being too timid in fighting high unemployment and slow economic growth. Bernanke calls Krugman’s policy proposals “reckless.” What’s going on?

 Beyond the rhetoric, there’s a serious debate about the Federal Reserve. A decade ago, the Fed was widely seen as all-knowing and powerful. It could cushion business cycles, defuse financial crises and ensure prosperity. No more. Almost everyone thinks unemployment (8.1 percent in April) is declining too slowly. By year-end 2013, it will still be somewhere between 7 and 8.1 percent, according to top Fed officials’ latest estimates.

 Robert J. Samuelson writes a weekly column on economics. View Archive

 The Fed hasn’t been passive. Since late 2008, it has kept overnight interest rates just above zero. During the 2008-09 financial crisis, its emergency loans to banks and money market funds averted a broader collapse. The Fed also bought more than $2.5 trillion of Treasury bonds and mortgage-related securities in an effort to lower long-term interest rates (studies suggest a decline of 0.7 percentage points or more) and boost stock prices, as investors seek higher returns.

 But these heroic exertions haven’t yet ignited a robust recovery.

 What we need now — and what the Fed could supply, says Krugman — is a bit more inflation. This would spur growth and job creation, he argues. The Fed now strives to keep inflation around 2 percent annually, a low level that it views as reassuring the public. Krugman wants the Fed to raise its target range to 3 to 4 percent for five years.

 “You’d make borrowing more attractive. Sitting on cash would be less attractive,” he says. The logic is straightforward. If prices rise 4 percent instead of 2, consumers and businesses have an incentive to buy now and avoid higher prices later. If interest rates don’t increase (or increase less than inflation), then “real” rates — adjusted for inflation — fall; again, that makes borrowing more appealing.

 Higher inflation would also erode the “real” value of debt. With a lighter debt burden, households and businesses would feel freer to spend. Another channel would be a cheaper dollar on foreign exchange markets, making U.S. exports less expensive and imports more expensive. (Krugman minimizes this channel, because he thinks Europe and Japan should also pursue higher inflation.)

 Besides Krugman, some other economists advocate higher inflation. But not Bernanke.

 Without naming Krugman, he responded at an April 25 news conference: “Does it make sense to actively seek a higher inflation rate in order to achieve . . . a slightly increased pace of reduction in the unemployment rate? The view [of top Fed policymakers] is that that would be very reckless.”

 Bernanke argued that the belief that the Fed keeps inflation down (what economists call the “anchoring” of inflationary expectations) tends to be self-fulfilling. If companies think inflation will stay low, they refrain from large price increases that might weaken their competitiveness. This then allows the Fed to be more aggressive in cutting interest rates to fight unemployment. If inflationary expectations shifted, as they might under Krugman’s proposal, the flexibility could be lost.

 Although Bernanke didn’t say so, there are other reasons Krugman’s policy could backfire. Consider:

 ●Prices might increase faster than wages, reducing workers’ purchasing power and (probably) dampening spending.

 ●Experiencing higher inflation, consumers might become more fearful of the future and, to protect against the unknown, might increase saving and reduce spending — the opposite of what Krugman intends. This happened in the 1970s, although at higher inflation rates than Krugman proposes.

 ●Something similar could happen in financial markets. Investors — not knowing whether inflation would return to 2 percent and fearing it might go higher than 4 percent — might demand much higher interest rates to prevent erosion of their money. This, too, would undermine Krugman’s strategy.

 None of this is preordained. Krugman’s theory could be right. It responds to an understandable urge to do something about the feeble recovery and the millions left without work and hope. But in this debate, I side with Bernanke. Flirting with more inflation is treacherous. If inflation expectations change, the consequences are hard to predict. The double-digit inflation in the late 1970s (peak: 13 percent) resulted from well-intended mistakes and unleashed many damaging side effects.

 What we should have learned since 2008 is that the Federal Reserve can’t do everything and overambitious goals guarantee disappointment. The larger lesson is that economists have exaggerated their understanding and control of the economy. People often don’t act according to academic theories. There isn’t a proper policy response for every need. This captures our frustration. ||||| I’m with Dean Baker: kudos to Robert Samuelson for a serious effort to grapple with the monetary policy dispute.

 I believe that I’m right here (but then I would, wouldn’t I?); and you should know that a lot of credentialed economists, including I think a majority of those who were worrying about the zero lower bound before it actually happened, are on my side. I also believe that in assessing risks, you have to bear in mind the enormous risk of letting high unemployment fester. But I wish more economic discussion was like this, as opposed to the fraudulence that permeates most of the “debate”.

 Or to put it another way, I don’t think everyone who disagrees with me is stupid and/or evil; just the ones who actually are stupid and/or evil. |||||
A summary of this is?

– Call it the "battle of the beards," suggests Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post: Paul Krugman vs. Ben Bernanke. Both are prominent economists, both have facial hair aplenty, and each has called the other "reckless." Krugman has been lambasting the Fed for not doing enough to help the economy recover—even if it means boosting inflation. Inflation, he argues, isn't so scary. Rising prices would encourage people to buy now, not later, and it would reduce the "real" value of debt. But Bernanke has said that "would be very reckless." He observed that the Fed's inflation goals are a self-fulfilling prophesy—without them, companies would jack up prices. Samuelson sides with Ben, adding that prices could rise faster than wages, hurting spending. "None of this is preordained," Samuelson writes. "Economists have exaggerated their understanding and control of the economy. People don't often act according to academic theories." Krugman actually responded, praising Samuelson for making "a serious effort" to tackle the tough issue. He still thinks he's right, "but then, I would, wouldn't I?"


Here is a news article: Here’s another reason to think twice before you post photos of yourself on the Internet: The New York Times reported Sunday that the National Security Agency collects millions of photos each day from electronic communication and analyzes them as part of a major facial recognition effort.

 According to the leaked documents obtained by the Times, of the millions of images it collects daily, the NSA harvests about 55,000 that it considers to be “facial recognition quality.”

 The report says that “it is not clear how many people around the world, and how many Americans, might have been caught up in the effort,” and goes on to state that current US privacy and surveillance laws don’t specifically protect against the use of facial recognition technology to identify individuals.

 The NSA’s facial recognition program is separate from the agency’s bulk metadata collection program, which collects information such as which phone numbers you’ve dialed. According to the Times, the NSA still needs to get court approval to collect images from American citizens, since they fall under the same legal umbrella as the content of an email or the audio from a phone call—neither of which can be collected without a warrant.

 For its part, an NSA spokesperson tells the Times that the agency can’t get at driver’s license or passport photo databases, but the agency refused to say whether it collects photos from social media “through means other than communications intercepts.”

 Although these specific revelations are new, experts have voiced concerns about the impact of facial recognition technology on your privacy for a number of years.

 In 2011, Facebook introduced a feature that could automatically tag people in photos, which had privacy activists up in arms. Senator Al Franken went on the record in 2012 to call for controls on how companies and government agencies can use facial recognition technology to identify individuals. And in 2013, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a lawsuit over the FBI’s use of facial recognition. ||||| The selfie phenomenon is undoubtedly making the NSA’s job easier by producing a mountain of tagged online data to feed its facial recognition algorithms.

 A report in The New York Times, based on documents from 2011 obtained by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, reveals that the US security agency’s reliance on facial recognition technology has grown significantly under the Obama administration — coinciding with a rise in popularity of taking and tagging self portraits on online social networks.

 The newspaper reports that the agency has turned to new software to process the flood of images being included in digital communication including social media, email, messaging, videoconferencing and other types of online comms. The 2011 documents show that agency officials believe technological advances in facial recognition software could revolutionize the way the NSA finds intelligence targets around the world.

 According to the documents, the agency intercepts “millions” of images per day — including about 55,000 “facial recognition quality images” — although it is not clear how many images the agency has amassed in total at this point. The NSA describes facial recognition technology as offering “tremendous untapped potential” for tracking intelligence targets.

 As well as its own in-house facial recognition software, the documents cited in the report note that the NSA also relies on commercially available facial recognition tech, including PittPatt — a company owned by Google — to process the data it is harvesting.

 Facial images, fingerprints and other identifiers are now considered just as important to the NSA as written and oral communications, according to the report.

 The paper says the NSA’s use of facial recognition technology goes far beyond previously detailed efforts. Back in February it emerged that the NSA and UK spy agency GCHQ had run a joint program harvesting webcam imagery from Yahoo users, between 2008 and 2012, which included the collection of sexually explicit material.

 While the NYT notes that the NSA does not have access to US state databases of drivers’ licenses or to passport photos of Americas (no such luck if you’re a foreigner of course), it’s likely that the mountain of tagged online data it can now sift through means it can obtain that intel on US citizens from other sources — such as, presumably, Facebook, Instagram et al.’s huge store of selfies.

 “It’s not just the traditional communications we’re after: It’s taking a full-arsenal approach that digitally exploits the clues a target leaves behind in their regular activities on the net to compile biographic and biometric information [that can help] implement precision targeting,” a 2010 agency document notes.

 An agency spokeswoman contacted by the NYT reporters declined to say whether it collects facial imagery of Americans from Facebook and other social media through means other than communications intercepts. But that ‘no comment’ speaks volumes.

 Facial recognition software is about as big brother as technology gets right now. Facebook, which is of course already in possession of its own data mountain of tagged facial imagery, is hard at work perfecting its own facial recognition software, under an initiative called the DeepFace project. Back in March Facebook announced that DeepFace was nearing human levels of accuracy at identifying a face in a crowd (97.25% vs the average human score of 97.5%).

 Such commercial efforts undoubtedly make the NSA’s job easier, since the more accurately tagged imagery Facebook has, the more data effectively becomes available for harvesting by the NSA. Especially as US privacy laws provide no express protection for facial recognition data, as the NYT report notes.

 That said, an NSA spokeswoman notes that images are considered a form of communications content in the US, so the NSA would require court approval for imagery of Americans collected through its surveillance programs — in the same way that it does to read their emails or eavesdrop on their phone calls. However cross-border comms — where a US citizens might be emailing or texting an image to someone targeted by the agency overseas could be excepted. So it really depends who you are sending your selfie to, and where they live.

 In Europe, Facebook switched off its ‘tag suggest‘ facial recognition algorithm-powered feature in 2012, as part of a settlement of an investigation into its transparency on user data and privacy conducted by Ireland’s Data Protection Commissioner.

 That facial recognition-software powered feature remains in place for Facebook users elsewhere, including in the US, where the tedious process of manually tagging all your selfies can be speeded up with Facebook’s tech.

 But that is, as it turns out, very likely more grist to the NSA’s mill.

 [Image by askyog via Flickr] |||||
A summary of this is?

– Move over, metadata and voice-call collection: The NSA is also harvesting images and trying to identify them with facial-recognition software, the New York Times reports. According to 2011 agency documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the NSA grabs "millions of images per day"—about 55,000 of which are good enough for facial recognition. The agency doesn't take them from state databases of US passport photos or driver's licenses, said an NSA spokeswoman, but she wouldn't say whether social media sites or State Department databases were fair game. Law enforcement agencies already create facial-imagery databases—relying on Facebook and driver's-license photos, for example—and the FBI is combining fingerprints with facial imagery and other data. But the NSA can match its images with vast troves of information it has already intercepted. So, is this legal? The NSA would need court approval to snatch images of Americans, the Times notes, unless they contacted someone overseas. The technology isn't foolproof, and gives its share of false positives, but civil-liberties advocates are still concerned. The facial-recognition debate has cropped up before—like in 2011, when Facebook introduced automatic tagging, TechCrunch notes, and later turned off a tagging feature in Europe after an investigation by Irish authorities, reports PC World.


News article:

Former state Sen. Brian Joyce was arrested Friday morning and charged in a federal indictment for allegedly using his legislative seat for private gain.

 Joyce, 55, faces more than 100 charges, including racketeering, wire fraud, extortion and money laundering, according to the 102-page indictment.

 Then-state Sen. Brian Joyce takes the oath of office in the Senate chambers at the State House on Jan. 5, 2005. (Elise Amendola/AP)

 "Defendant Joyce's objective ... was to secretly profit from his position as State Senator," the indictment alleges.

 Joyce pleaded not guilty Friday.

 The indictment claims Joyce accepted a "stream of concealed bribes and kickbacks" in exchange for his official action on matters before the state Legislature and for exerting pressure on local officials, and that he employed "various methods of concealment, including using a shell company and other entities to launder proceeds from his bribery and kickback schemes."

 The indictment details various schemes, including alleged kickbacks from an energy brokerage and alleged bribes from a coffee shop franchisee.

 “We believe Mr. Joyce was greedy, plain and simple," Harold Shaw, head of the Boston FBI office, said in a news conference Friday.

 Joyce's attorney, Howard Cooper, spoke to reporters, with Joyce by his side, after Joyce pleaded not guilty in Worcester court.

 "You just heard ... former Sen. Joyce declare in a very loud and firm voice in court that he's innocent of all of these charges," Cooper said. "I should add that in the last few years it's been apparent across the country that the federal government has brought a number of cases against public officials which have either gone nowhere, or have been rejected by juries, or highly criticized by courts."

 Joyce was taken into custody shortly before dawn Friday at his Westport home, Shaw said. He was a Milton resident when he was a senator.

 The Democrat, who was first elected to his Senate seat in 1998, announced in February 2016 that he would not seek re-election. That was days after his law offices were raided by federal law enforcement.

 In 2015, Joyce gave up his leadership posts in the Senate amid an ethics probe.

 The arrest of a former state senator follows a tumultuous week for the State House chamber. Senate President Stan Rosenberg has taken a leave of absence from the post following allegations of sexual assault against his husband.

 The acting Senate president, Harriette Chandler, said in a statement Friday that "[l]aw enforcement has done its job today. She added she's "confident that the justice system will come to a fair and just conclusion in the days to come."

 The Senate's top Republican, Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, said in a statement that the indictment "details reprehensible acts of criminal behavior."

 With reporting by WBUR's Fred Thys from Worcester ||||| BOSTON (CBS/AP) – Former Massachusetts Sen. Brian Joyce “violated the public’s trust” and “decided to take the path of greed” by using his office for personal profit to accept up to $1 million in bribes and kickbacks in exchange for official actions, federal investigators said Friday.

 Joyce, a longtime attorney and Milton Democrat who was arrested Friday, is accused of then hiding that money by creating a shell company and disguising it as “legal fees.”

 “We believe Mr. Joyce was greedy, plain and simple,” FBI Special Agent in Charge Hank Shaw said.

 Federal authorities arrested Joyce, 55, at his Westport home on Friday. Joyce pleaded not guilty to the charges before a federal magistrate in Worcester Friday afternoon.

 The 113-count indictment against Joyce, stemming from a two-year investigation, includes charges of racketeering, extortion, wire fraud, conspiracy to defraud the IRS and money laundering. His lawyer, Howard Cooper, said in an email to The Associated Press that he is still reviewing the charges.

 READ: THE FULL INDICTMENT AGAINST BRIAN JOYCE

 The indictment alleges that Joyce secretly profited from his position as state senator by accepting “a stream of concealed bribes and kickbacks” that included a free Jeep and hundreds of pounds of Dunkin Donuts coffee, in exchange for official actions before the state Legislature. He is accused of pressuring state and municipal officials to take official action on government matters.

 Acting U.S. Attorney William Weinreb said Joyce, who as a state senator represented more than 100,000 constituents across Milton, Randolph, Avon, Canton, Stoughton, West Bridgewater and parts of Braintree, East Bridgewater and Sharon, ran his public office as a “criminal enterprise.”

 “He had a duty to serve (his constituents) honestly, and he violated that duty by accepting bribes and kickbacks in exchange for his official action,” Weinreb said.

 In February 2016, the FBI and IRS raided Joyce’s Canton law office. Months later, Joyce reportedly sold his Milton home and also sold his family burial plot in Milton, where he grew up.

 Joyce is accused of participating in a number of complex schemes dating back to 2010 that netted him hundreds of thousands of dollars and concealing the payments by using his law office as a “money laundering conduit.” Prosecutors say he also lied to the state’s ethics commission and used the panel as a “cloak of legitimacy for his corrupt schemes.”

 In one case, prosecutors alleged Joyce used his position to exert influence on behalf of a New York-based energy brokerage business and formed a shell company to collect secret kickbacks from the firm. In another scheme, prosecutors say Joyce pressured the Milton Planning Board to approve a waiver sought by a developer, who gave Joyce a Jeep from one of the developer’s car dealerships.

 The indictment also accuses Joyce of taking legislative action to aid a Dunkin Donuts franchise whose owner was paying him tens of thousands of dollars for “purported legal fees” and providing him with hundreds of pounds of free coffee. Investigators allege Joyce took steps to conceal this by submitting backdated checks to the State Ethics Commission and instructed the franchise owner and his relative to falsely represent to the Ethics Commission that they had agreed to provide Joyce coffee in exchange for legal services.

 The indictment also alleges that Joyce attempted to use his Senate position to collect money for “legal work” from representatives of a Philadelphia solar company who sought Joyce’s assistance with local permitting and pending legislation.

 Joyce is also charged with conspiring to defraud the IRS in connection with his purchase of more than $470,000 in common stock from the energy brokerage firm and falsely reporting the stock purchase as a tax-exempt retirement account rollover in his personal tax return.

 Weinreb would not say whether charges would be brought against any of the companies accused to be involved in the schemes but said the investigation remains ongoing.

 Joyce, who had served as assistant majority leader, announced last year that he would not seek re-election in 2017. He had represented his district since 1998.

 A 1980 graduate of Milton High School, Joyce received a bachelor’s degree from Boston College School of Management and a law degree from Suffolk University Law School.

 As a state legislator, Joyce served as chairman of the Special Senate Committee on Government Expenditures and the Vice Chair of the Senate Committee on Redistricting. He was also a member of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy as well as the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing.

 In 2015, then-Senate President Stan Rosenberg asked the ethics commission to review Joyce’s conduct after The Boston Globe reported on potential conflicts of interest focusing on whether he used his position to boost his law practice.

 In an unrelated case last year, Joyce agreed to pay nearly $5,000 to resolve issues raised by state campaign finance regulators, including using campaign funds for his son’s 2014 high school graduation party. Joyce said there had been no finding of wrongdoing on his part in that case.

 The arrest is the second blow to the state Senate in the past week.

 Rosenberg announced Monday he was stepping aside as president of the chamber during a Senate Ethics Committee investigation into the circumstances surrounding reported sexual misconduct allegations by several men against his husband, Bryon Hefner.

 Harriette Chandler, a Worcester Democrat who is serving as acting Senate president, said in a statement about Joyce that she’s confident the “justice system will come to a fair and just conclusion in the days to come.”

 Republican Gov. Charlie Baker called the allegations against Joyce disturbing.

 “People in public life need to respect the offices they hold and that means not using them for personal gain, and if the feds believe there’s enough there to justify an indictment then the investigation needs to be thorough and move forward accordingly,” Baker said.

 Last year, after federal authorities raided Joyce’s law office in Canton, Baker poked fun at then-Sen. Joyce at the annual St. Patrick’s Day Breakfast in Boston.

 (© Copyright 2017 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. The Associated Press contributed to this report.) ||||| Former state senator Brian A. Joyce collected about $1 million in bribes and kickbacks that he laundered through his law firm, according to a sweeping 102-page indictment that accuses the Milton Democrat of turning his public office into a criminal enterprise — even accepting hundreds of pounds of free coffee from a Dunkin’ Donuts owner.

 Joyce, once the Senate’s assistant majority leader, was taken from his Westport home in handcuffs early on Friday morning and escorted by federal agents to be booked and fingerprinted, and face federal charges of mail fraud, corruption, money laundering, and embezzlement, among many others.

 Acting US Attorney William Weinreb said prosecutors launched the investigation of Joyce after a series of stories by The Boston Globe that began in January 2015 looking at Joyce’s mingling of public and personal business.

 Advertisement

 Weinreb said investigators estimated that Joyce’s many illegal schemes have netted him about $1 million since 2010. Prosecutors say, among other things, Joyce extorted a Jeep from a Milton developer and collected more than $100,000 in phony legal fees from a Dunkin’ Donuts store owner in exchange for using his influence to help them.

 Get Metro Headlines in your inbox: The 10 top local news stories from metro Boston and around New England delivered daily. Sign Up Thank you for signing up! Sign up for more newsletters here

 “Brian Joyce represented over 100,000 Massachusetts citizens in the state Legislature,’’ Weinreb said at a morning press conference. “He had a duty to serve them honestly. And he violated that duty by accepting bribes and kickbacks in exchange for his official action.”

 Harold Shaw, special agent in charge of the Boston FBI office, was more blunt: “We believe Mr. Joyce was greedy, plain and simple.’’

 Late on Friday afternoon, Joyce appeared in a federal courtroom in Worcester, roughly 10 hours after his arrest, in a dark blue suit and a tie. He nodded to his wife and other family members.

 Standing before US Magistrate Judge David Hennessy, Joyce pleaded not guilty to all the charges before he was released on $250,000 secured bond. The case was continued until a status hearing on Feb. 23. Joyce must surrender his passport, and his travel is restricted to Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

 Advertisement

 “You just heard former senator Joyce declare in a very loud and affirmative voice in federal court that he is innocent of all these charges and he expects that’s what will happen in court,” said Joyce’s attorney, Howard Cooper, outside the courtroom as Joyce stood by his side.

 The 113-count indictment describes Joyce as someone who considered his duties as an elected public official secondary to his goal of secretly amassing wealth, a goal he would achieve by using the power of his Senate office to help those who allegedly provided bribes and kickbacks to him.

 “Defendant Joyce’s objective in conducting and participating in the affairs of the Senate Office . . . was to secretly profit from his position as State Senator [by] . . . accepting a stream of concealed bribes and kickbacks from private individuals and entities in exchange for his official action as specific opportunities arose,’’ the indictment reads.

 Joyce is accused of using his law office, the Joyce Law Group in Canton, “as a money laundering conduit for the corrupt payments” by labeling the bribes and kickbacks as legal referral fees and consulting fees for working on real estate issues, and by using the “corrupt payments” to buy a 2014 Jeep, according to the indictment.

 David L. Ryan/Globe Staff US Attorney William D. Weinreb addressed the media about the Joyce indictment.

 A developer seeking help with Milton town officials is accused of handing over the Jeep to Joyce without demanding he pay the $20,000 due on the purchase price, authorities allege. The developer, John Morrill, who owns two car dealerships, has been a longtime political supporter of Joyce.

 Advertisement

 Under one scheme, federal authorities allege, Joyce spent $471,250 to purchase 65,000 shares in a company, Energi, whose business activities he was actively supporting on Beacon Hill. But Joyce never disclosed his financial ties to the company and falsely claimed the money he used to buy the stock came from a tax-free rollover of an IRA account.

 “Defendant Joyce created sham retirement accounts for himself and his spouse in order to conceal his stock ownership from the Ethics Commission and to defraud the IRS,’’ the indictment alleges.

 Joyce is also accused of collecting hundreds of pounds of coffee — along with $125,089 in “purported legal fees” — from a Carlos Andrade, a major Dunkin’ Donuts franchisee who sits on the Dunkin’ Donuts foundation board of directors. On one occasion in 2015, he collected 504 pounds of coffee, worth an estimated $4,278, for free, authorities allege.

 When the Globe asked Joyce how he obtained the free coffee in 2015, he had someone else make up a fake invoice and backdate it, the indictment alleges. At the time, his lawyer insisted Joyce had paid full retail price, like anyone else.

 Governor Charlie Baker told the Globe that the charges against Joyce should be a warning to anyone in public office.

 “People in public life need to respect the offices they hold, and that means not using them for personal gain,’’ he said Friday. “And, if the feds believe there is enough there to justify an indictment, then the investigation needs to be thorough and move forward accordingly.”

 Acting Senate President Harriette Chandler issued a brief statement:

 “Law enforcement has done its job today. This case now moves to the courts, and I am confident that the justice system will come to a fair and just conclusion in the days to come.”

 Joyce had been an early supporter of then Senate President Stanley Rosenberg, who appointed him assistant majority leader in 2015 and made him chairman of the committee that decided which bills would come up for a vote.

 Now, Joyce is facing more than 100 criminal charges, outpacing the corruption counts leveled against other politicians in recent years, including former House speaker Sal DiMasi and former state senator Dianne Wilkerson, who was charged with one count of bribery. DiMasi was sentenced to eight years after he was convicted of helping a software company win multimillion-dollar state contracts in exchange for kickbacks. Wilkerson was sentenced to three and a half years.

 If convicted on all counts, Joyce could face far more jail time. Some of the counts in the indictment carry possible sentences of up to 20 years each.

 But Joyce’s attorney Cooper suggested that the charges against his client are the work of overzealous federal prosecutors.

 “I should add that, in the last few years, it has been very apparent across the country that the federal government has brought a number of cases against public officials, which have either gone nowhere, or have been rejected by juries, or have been highly criticized by the courts,” Cooper said.

 The charges against Joyce represent a stunning fall from grace over the past two years.

 Joyce, 55, decided not to run for reelection in 2016 — and moved out of Milton, his longtime hometown — after the FBI and IRS raided his Canton law office. The raid followed a series of stories published by the Globe describing some of the ways in which he appeared to use his public position to get private benefits for himself and his family.

 Joyce aroused suspicions by repeatedly receiving discounted and sometimes free goods and services, often from businesses in his legislative district. For instance, when he was angling for a Senate leadership position in late 2014, he gave his Senate colleagues expensive sunglasses that he got at a significant discount from a company in his district, as well as pounds of Dunkin’ Donuts coffee. Joyce also received free dry cleaning from a Randolph dry cleaner for more than a decade, services worth thousands of dollars. Neither the sunglasses nor the dry cleaning were mentioned in the indictment.

 Through his attorney, Joyce denied any wrongdoing. He said he bartered the dry cleaning for legal work and paid for coffee and sunglasses the same price as anyone else.

 The Globe also wrote extensively about Joyce’s relationship with Energi, the Peabody company that is the subject of much of the indictment. The company, which sells insurance to the energy industry, hired Joyce and his law firm to do legal work and to handle regulatory matters before the state Division of Insurance. Between 2010 and 2015, the company paid the Joyce Law Group $377,169 in fees, according to the indictment.

 Even so, Joyce apparently wanted more legal business and fees in return for his help with a bill promoted by the company. He filed the bill and spoke at a symposium sponsored by Energi promoting the bill — never disclosing his ties to the company. Energi put him on retainer, paying him $5,000 a month for approximately five months.

 “We intend to cooperate fully with the government . . . and we regret that we too were victimized by Mr. Joyce,” said Brian Kelly, a lawyer who represents Energi.

 The indictment also describes Joyce’s relationship with a company that sells solar credits, Power Management, referred to in the indictment as the “energy broker.” The company paid him “secret kickbacks” for his help in landing the company energy consulting work with the towns of Randolph, Easton, East Bridgewater, Southbridge, and Holbrook, the indictment said.

 He created a shell company, “Windswept LLC,” where he deposited the kickbacks, the indictment says.

 In Milton, where he lived until this year, he allegedly approached developer John Morrill about buying and redeveloping the Milton Women’s Club, a historic building that had fallen into disrepair, the indictment says.

 Joyce pressured the planning board to allow Morrill to take actions that would allow Morrill to build four houses on the site. In return, the indictment says, Morrill agreed to pay Joyce a kickback — a 2014 Jeep from one of his dealerships. Morrill also agreed that Joyce’s wife, Mary, a local realtor, would be a sales broker for the homes built on the site.

 Joyce was also accused of using his position to try to extract a $25,000 fee from a Philadelphia-based solar company, Tecta Solar. The company was looking for help with legislation and permitting for a project in West Bridgewater.

 “Yeah, I can get the permit for you,” Joyce told Tecta officials. “It would be through my law firm, and our fee would be $25,000 . . .’ according to the indictment.

 Company officials told the Globe in 2015 that they were stunned by his request and declined to hire him.

 “It was suggested we could retain him, but we never pursued it. It was certainly not our intent and it was twisted in a completely different direction,” said Samir Dube, who was then the company’s managing director.

 John Tlumacki/Globe staff Brian Joyce pleaded not guilty to all charges Friday before he was released on $250,000 secured bond.

 Joshua Miller of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Andrea Estes can be reached at estes@globe.com . Milton J. Valencia can be reached at milton.valencia@globe.com . Follow him on Twitter @miltonvalencia . John R. Ellement can be reached at ellement@globe.com . Follow him on Twitter @JREbosglobe |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– A former Massachusetts state senator was arrested Friday on charges he accepted about $1 million in bribes and kickbacks, laundered through his law firm, between 2010 and 2016, the Boston Globe reports. Part of those bribes and kickbacks? Hundreds of pounds of free Dunkin' Donuts coffee. Brian Joyce has been charged with more than 100 criminal counts, including federal charges of money laundering, corruption, mail fraud, and embezzlement. "Joyce's objective ... was to secretly profit from his position as State Senator," WBUR quotes the indictment as stating. Or, as FBI agent Harold Shaw puts it: "We believe Mr. Joyce was greedy, plain and simple." As for the coffee-related part of Joyce's alleged schemes: The former Democratic senator is accused of receiving the coffee and more than $125,000 in fake legal fees from "major" Dunkin' Donuts franchisee Carlos Andrade. Joyce allegedly got 504 pounds of coffee worth more than $4,000 on just one occasion in 2015. CBS Boston reports prosecutors say the money and coffee was in exchange for unspecified legislative action beneficial to Andrade. Joyce allegedly told Andrade to tell the Ethics Commission that the coffee was in exchange for legal services. It's reported that Joyce gave pounds of coffee to his colleagues in the Senate while gunning for a Senate leadership position. Joyce has pleaded not guilty to all charges.


News article:

Image copyright Thinkstock

 Women who have had their appendix or tonsils removed appear to be more fertile, a 15-year study suggests.

 The researchers, at the University of Dundee, analysed medical records from more than half a million British women.

 They argue the operations could directly affect fertility or there may be a "behavioural" explanation.

 Experts said the findings might lead to new treatments, but advised women not to have their tonsils and appendix taken out unnecessarily.

 The study found that for every 100 pregnancies in women who had had no procedures there were:

 134 pregnancies in women who had had their appendix removed

 149 pregnancies in women who had had their tonsils removed

 and 143 pregnancies in women who had had both removed

 One of the researchers, Dr Sami Shimi, said most doctors were wrongly taught that having an appendix removed damaged fertility.

 'Reassuring'

 He told BBC News: "This [study] is very important in reassuring young women that appendicectomy will not reduce their chances of future pregnancy.

 "More importantly, looking at both the appendix and tonsils together, this study confirms beyond doubt that removal of inflamed organs or organs likely to suffer from repeated inflammation, in women, improves their chances of pregnancy."

 Explaining the findings, published in Fertility and Sterility, is more of a challenge.

 Image copyright PA Image caption Medical records from more than half a million British women were analysed by researchers

 One biological possibility is that regularly infected tonsils or appendixes raise levels of inflammation in the body, which affects the ovaries and womb.

 The Dundee team favour a behavioural explanation such as women enjoying more "liberal sexual activity", being both more likely to get pregnant and have pelvic inflammatory disease, which could lead to an appendix being removed.

 More research is needed to figure this out.

 'Interesting paper'

 Prof Allan Pacey, from the University of Sheffield, told the BBC: "This is an interesting paper which suggests that surgical removal of the appendix or tonsils (or both) in young women is associated with an increase in their fertility later in life.

 "There are several explanations which may account for these observations, one of which is that the removal of these tissues makes an alteration to their immune system which has an impact to some aspect of the reproductive process (such as how their embryos implant in the womb).

 "If true, this may ultimately give doctors and scientists some new ideas for novel drugs or therapies to enhance women's fertility.

 "But to suggest that infertile women have their tonsils or appendix removed as a way of improving their chances is a step too far at this stage."

 Follow James on Twitter. ||||| The findings are surprising as most doctors believe that an appendectomy can damage fertility by blocking the fallopian tubes. The researchers warn that many women who sought fertility help may have been wrongly told their failure to get pregnant was down to having their appendix removed.

 “For many years medical students were taught that appendectomy had a negative effect on fertility and young women often feared that having their appendix removed threatened their chances of later becoming pregnant,” said Sami Shimi, Clinical Senior Lecturer in the School of Medicine at the University of Dundee and a consultant surgeon with NHS Tayside.

 “We have found that women who have had an appendectomy or tonsillectomy, or even more particularly both, are more likely to become pregnant, and sooner than the rest of the general population.

 “This scientifically challenges the myth of the effect of appendectomy on fertility. What we have to establish now is exactly why that is the case.”

 Mr Shimi said it was possible that women who suffered from appendix problems may simply have more sexual intercourse, which can cause pelvic inflammation. But reducing inflammation in the pelvis through an appendectomy could reverse any problems, making pregnancy easier. ||||| (CNN) Have you had your tonsils or appendix removed? If you have and you're a woman, you probably weren't told that the surgery may have increased your chances of having a baby.

 In fact, you may have been told the opposite.

 But a new 15-year study found that women who had their tonsils or appendix removed when they were young are more likely to get pregnant -- and to do so earlier in life.

 The reasons behind the link are not fully understood.

 Researchers at the University of Dundee examined the medical records of more than 530,000 women across the United Kingdom and found pregnancy rates to be higher among women who had had their tonsils or appendix removed. Pregnancies were even higher among people missing both.

 Rates of pregnancy among women without an appendix or tonsils were 54% and 53%, respectively, and rates in women lacking both parts of their body were 59%. This was higher than pregnancies among the group representing the rest of the population, which was almost 44%.

 The findings go against previous theories in medicine that these surgeries, particularly appendectomies, reduce chances of fertility due to scar tissue forming around a woman's fallopian tubes, where her eggs travel.

 "The study has challenged the myth that was previously accepted on the deleterious effects of appendectomies," said Dr. Sami Shimi , a consultant surgeon and clinical lecturer in surgery at the University of Dundee who led the study. "Young women should not have any fear or anxiety about an appendectomy (or tonsillectomy) reducing their fertility."

 The current research follows a report in 2012 that linked appendectomies to higher rates of pregnancy. The new study backs this previous insight on a wider scale but added the extra association with tonsillectomies and people who have undergone both surgeries.

 Biology or behavior?

 It's hoped the findings will reassure women who need these surgeries, but the researchers are now eager to understand why fertility was seen to increase.

 "We now need to find the mechanism," Shimi said. He believes there could be either a biological or behavioral reason behind it. "We're not discounting either for now."

 The biological contender is the idea that inflammation within the body from a continually inflamed appendix, or tonsils, puts strain and burden on the body, weakening it and potentially reducing chances of conception.

 Alternatively, Shimi suggests that increased promiscuity among some women, and therefore increased contact and intimacy -- through kissing or sex -- may directly increase chances of tonsillitis or else chances of abdominal infection. The latter would not cause appendicitis as such but could lead to more abdominal infections or pain, which is more likely to lead to hospital referrals and investigations in which an inflamed appendix may be spotted more readily.

 Both options need further investigation.

 "It's a very interesting association they've shown here," said Richard Anderson , professor of clinical reproductive science at the University of Edinburgh, who wasn't involved in the new study. "The issue is that it's purely an association."

 Join the conversation See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter.

 Anderson warns that people may believe that the two factors -- the surgeries and fertility -- are causally linked, but "there's no evidence of that here." He added that the real question now is whether women who undergo these surgeries are more fertile or whether they are more likely to get pregnant at a younger age.

 "Tonsillectomies are rare these days," he added. "It's whether women who chose to have their tonsils removed (rather than ongoing rounds of antibiotics) are also choosing to fall pregnant more often."

 Both Anderson and Shimi agree that the findings should instead be used to reassure women who need the surgeries and that those wanting to improve their fertility should not request to have them.

 "Young women should not seek appendectomies or tonsillectomies to increase their chances of pregnancy," Shimi said. "But if they need one, the operation will not reduce their future chances of pregnancy." ||||| OBJECTIVE:

 To study pregnancy rates after appendectomy and/or tonsillectomy.

 DESIGN:

 Population-based cohort study using the United Kingdom (U.K.) primary health care-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).

 SETTING:

 Not applicable.

 PATIENT(S):

 Female patients who underwent appendectomy, tonsillectomy, or both from 1987 to 2012 and appropriate comparators.

 INTERVENTION(S):

 Timed follow-up until first pregnancy after surgery. The association between prior surgery and subsequent pregnancy was determined with the use of Cox regression models.

 MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S):

 Pregnancy rate and time to first pregnancy after surgery.

 RESULT(S):

 The analyses included 54,675 appendectomy-only patients, 112,607 tonsillectomy-only patients, 10,340 patients who had both appendectomy and tonsillectomy, and 355,244 comparators matched for exact age and practice from the rest of female patients in the database. There were 29,732 (54.4%), 60,078 (53.4%), and 6,169 (59.7%) pregnancies in the appendectomy-only, tonsillectomy-only, and both appendectomy tonsillectomy cohorts, respectively versus 155,079 (43.7%) in the comparator cohort during a mean follow-up of 14.7 ± 9.7 years. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for subsequent birth rates were 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32-1.35), 1.49 (95% CI 1.48-1.51), and 1.43 (95% CI 1.39-1.47), respectively. Time to pregnancy was shortest after both appendectomy and tonsillectomy followed by appendectomy only and then tonsillectomy only compared with the rest of the population.

 CONCLUSION(S):

 Appendectomy and/or tonsillectomy was associated with increased subsequent pregnancy rates and shorter time to pregnancy. The effect of the surgical procedures on the pregnancy outcome was cumulative.

 Copyright © 2016 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– Having their tonsils or appendix removed might result in an unexpected benefit for young women who hope to become pregnant someday: New research suggests they might be more fertile as a result. A 15-year study of half a million British women finds that a woman who has undergone a tonsillectomy or appendectomy has a 49% and 34% higher chance of getting pregnant, respectively, than a woman with her appendix and tonsils intact, reports the Telegraph. A woman who's had both procedures has a 43% higher chance of getting pregnant. One of the researchers says the study "confirms beyond doubt that removal of inflamed organs or organs likely to suffer from repeated inflammation, in women, improves their chances of pregnancy" rather than reduces those chances, as some doctors believe. It isn't clear why the procedures are linked to increased fertility—doctors previously suggested scar tissue around the fallopian tubes after an appendectomy reduced the chance of pregnancy—but it may simply be that women who have more sex are more likely to develop an infection. However, inflammation in the body can affect a woman's ovaries and womb, per the BBC, and it's possible that "the removal of these tissues makes an alteration to their immune system" that affects reproduction, says a scientist not involved in the study. "If true, this may ultimately give doctors and scientists some new ideas for novel drugs or therapies to enhance women's fertility." The researchers stress they're not advocating that otherwise healthy women have the procedures, notes CNN. (This procedure may double a woman's chance of conception.)