News article:

Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), both hailing from deeply red states, announced on Friday their support for gay marriage.

 "In speaking with North Dakotans from every corner of our great state, and much personal reflection, I have concluded the federal government should no longer discriminate against people who want to make lifelong, loving commitments to each other or interfere in personal, private, and intimate relationships," Heitkamp said in a statement. "I view the ability of anyone to marry as a logical extension of this belief. The makeup of families is changing, but the importance of family is enduring."

 "In recent years, our country has been involved in an important discussion on the issue of marriage equality," Donnelly said on Facebook. "While serving in the House of Representatives, I had the opportunity to act on a core belief of mine: we are a stronger country when we draw on the strengths of all Americans. I voted to repeal ‘don't ask, don't tell’ and was an original supporter of the bill that would make it illegal to discriminate against someone in the workplace because of their sexual orientation."

 "It is also for that reason that I oppose amending either Indiana’s or our nation’s constitution to enshrine in those documents an 'us' and a 'them,' instead of a 'we,'" he continued. "With the recent Supreme Court arguments and accompanying public discussion of same-sex marriage, I have been thinking about my past positions and votes. In doing so, I have concluded that the right thing to do is to support marriage equality for all."

 Heitkamp and Donnelly join several other Democratic senators who have recently made statements backing marriage equality, including Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.). Support from Heitkamp and Donnelly is particularly notable, however, because both come from states that voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 and generally elect Republicans. However, neither face reelection until 2018, and if public opinion continues its dramatic shift in favor of same-sex marriage, the issue may become less controversial.

 Only four remaining Democratic senators have not publicly backed gay marriage: Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Tim Johnson (D-S.D.). Landrieu and Pryor face re-election in 2014 in Southern red states. Johnson is retiring in 2014, but there is a movement to draft his son to run for his seat. Manchin, like Donnelly and Heitkamp, is not up for reelection until 2018. ||||| So many senators are declaring their support for same-sex marriage that I’ve regularly had to check my Twitter feed while working on this article, lest I miss any announcements. As Dylan Matthews of The Washington Post has detailed, 50 senators have now stated their backing for same-sex marriage, up from only 16 in 2010 and eight in 2008.

 Why are senators shifting their positions so rapidly? Obviously, this mirrors the shift in opinion among the general public to some degree. But while the public’s increase in support for same-sex marriage has been exceptionally linear and steady, the number of senators endorsing it has increased at exponential rates over the last few years, with a remarkable jump in the last two weeks when a cascade of senators announced their support.

 One explanation might be that there is “momentum” in the Senate behind same-sex marriage. Often, explanations rooted in notion of momentum are analytically lazy: they describe what is happening (“support is increasing!”) without really telling you why. However, it is plausible that senators are learning from one another’s experiences. If one senator comes out for same-sex marriage and finds that she is getting a favorable response from her constituents, her donors, her colleagues and the news media, she may encourage others to do so as well.

 Nevertheless, I’m interested in whether we can replicate the increase in support through a reasonably elegant mathematical model. Same-sex marriage constitutes a very interesting data set for students of the Congress. Through polls and the results of ballot initiatives, there is good data available on public opinion over time — enough that we can develop a good estimate of how many of a senator’s constituents are likely to have supported same-sex marriage at any given point within the last dozen years or so. And compared with most public policy issues, it requires a relatively binary choice of policy outcomes: either you support same-sex marriage or you don’t. (Contrast this with budgetary politics: you might say you favor reduced deficits, but might prefer any of dozens of options to achieve them.)

 What I did, therefore, was to expand upon the data set that Mr. Matthews published with his article, which lists all known cases of senators having endorsed same-sex marriage, along with the time at which they adopted their positions. I began by extending his data to include a comprehensive list of all senators since 1997 — not just those who endorsed same-sex marriage, but also those who did not. (More specifically, I created a data point for every active senator in every year — so, for instance, Senator

 Lauch Faircloth of North Carolina in 1998 is one data point, and Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio in 2010 is another.) Then I added additional variables.

 One of these is simply a dummy variable indicating whether the senator was a Democrat or not (with independents considered as half-Democrats).

 Next, I included each senator’s ideological rating on a one-dimensional liberal-conservative scale, as measured by the DW-Nominate system. (These ratings run on a scale from negative 1 for an extremely liberal senator to positive 1 for an extremely conservative one, so higher figures indicate a more conservative voting record.) DW-Nominate ratings are available for almost all senators, except those who joined the Senate this year. For new senators, I used the ideology ratings that we used as part of our Senate forecasts, which are calibrated to match DW-Nominate ratings.

 I also included each senator’s year of birth. To what extent might the increase in support for same-sex marriage reflect generational turnover within the Senate itself?

 I also included an estimate of the support among likely voters for same-sex marriage in the senator’s state in each year, based upon the model that I developed for our March 26 article on how public opinion on same-sex marriage is changing. This model uses very detailed demographic data based on the states that voted on same-sex marriage in 2008, and then extrapolates it out to other states and other years. It does a good job of replicating the support for same-sex marriage on ballot initiatives in different states between 1998 and 2012. (It yields somewhat more conservative estimates of the support for same-sex marriage than public polls do.)

 Finally, I included a variable indicating the level of support among all voters nationally, as derived from the same model. The model assumes that support for same-sex marriage has been increasing nationally at a linear rate of about one and a half percentage points each year. (Note that this is mathematically equivalent to including a linear time trend variable in the model.)

 A logistic regression analysis that uses these variables to predict whether a senator supports same-sex marriage yields the following results:

 Photo

 The two variables that show up as highly statistically significant are the senator’s ideology rating and the estimated support for same-sex marriage among voters in his state. This is unsurprising, since voting behavior in the Senate is fundamentally about senators seeking to balance their policy preferences against the views of their constituents.

 The variable related to a senator’s party did not have any real predictive power. Does that mean that a senator’s party has no bearing on whether he’s endorsed same-sex marriage? Not quite. What it means, more precisely, is that a senator’s party did not have any additional predictive power once you’ve already accounted for his ideology rating. The ideology ratings already reflect a very substantial gap between the parties, however: the most liberal Republican in the Senate (Susan Collins of Maine) is rated by DW-Nominate as being to the right of the most conservative Democrat (Joe Manchin III of West Virginia). The split on same-sex marriage is highly partisan, but not any more partisan than the typical voting issue. (In fact, it may be very slightly less so — there might be slightly more partisan crossover on this issue than on others — although this is hard to test for because there are so few moderates in either party these days.)

 Does a senator’s age matter? The birth-year variable runs in the expected direction: senators who were born later were slightly more likely to endorse same-sex marriage, holding other factors constant. However, the effects are very modest and not statistically significant. This may indicate that senators are by and large making a strategic calculation in their endorsements of same-sex marriage.

 The interpretation of the national time-trend variable is complicated because it is highly collinear with the other variables, like the state-support variable. The question we’re more interested in is whether the model as a whole can replicate the exponential-seeming increase in same-sex marriage support in the Senate over time.

 It turns out that the model does not do a particularly good job of this. It considerably underestimates support for same-sex marriage this year (it projects that about 37 senators should have endorsed it by now, not 50). Conversely, it considerably overestimates support for same-sex marriage over the period from about 2006 through 2010. In short, it expects a more steady and linear increase in endorsements for same-sex marriage (with some modest hiccups based on liberals or conservatives having good election years) rather than the more sudden one that we’ve seen. This is not surprising, since the major inputs in the model also assume a linear increase in public support.

 Photo

 Even if public support for same-sex marriage is increasing at a steady rate, however, it does not necessarily follow that endorsements among senators should be doing so as well. The reason is the binary nature of the issue: although some senators seek to articulate ambiguous positions on same-sex marriage, for the most part they have to decide when and whether to come out in favor of it, with little ability to hedge their position once they’ve done so.

 It may further stand to reason that senators seek to time their announcements with when they perceive support for same-sex marriage has reached a majority, both within their states and nationally. Certainly, some highly ideological senators may be happy to ignore public opinion, and some modestly ideological ones might shade their assessments of it. (For instance, a liberal Democrat might endorse same-sex marriage once they perceive that either a majority of their constituents or a majority of the country supports it, while a moderate Republican might want to wait for both.) Nevertheless, majority support could represent a key threshold and could introduce some nonlinearity into the pattern of endorsements.

 We can model this by replacing the variables indicating the percentage of state and national voters who support same-sex marriage in the model with probabilistic variables indicating how likely it is that same-sex marriage has achieved majority status. I allow for some uncertainty in whether same-sex marriage has reached a majority. (Specifically, I estimate the uncertainty by comparing the projected support for same-sex marriage in each state against ballot initiative results; this yields a standard error of roughly plus-or-minus five percentage points.) In a state where the model projects that 51 percent of the voters support same-sex marriage, there is still considerable doubt about whether it has reached majority status or not. (The model estimates that there is a 58 percent chance that it has done so in this case.) Conversely, a senator can have more confidence that same-sex marriage has reached a majority once support reaches the mid-to-high fifties. (For example, the model translates 56 percent support for same-sex marriage into an 89 percent probability of a majority.)

 The result of this is that there could be some inflection points in same-sex marriage endorsements among senators. A senator may re-evaluate her stance on same-sex marriage once support for it has gone from definitely not being in the majority to possibly having become so. She may re-evaluate it again once same-sex marriage has gone from possibly having majority support to unambiguously having it.

 This “majority model” in fact does a modestly better job of predicting same-sex marriage support among individual senators:

 Photo

 This version of the model also does a considerably better job of matching the change in support over time. For instance, it projects that 48 senators should have endorsed same-sex marriage by now, close to the actual total of 50.

 Photo

 The model also does a better job of emulating the ramp-up in support over the last several years. Although the number of senators endorsing same-sex marriage has been especially noteworthy this year, it also increased considerably in 2011 and in 2012.

 The hypothesis implied by the model is that this timing reflects when same-sex marriage began to reach a national majority (or at least a plurality) in some polls. Otherwise, it is hard to understand why same-sex marriage endorsements increased considerably in the Senate in 2011. Democrats had just come off a very bad election year, in which they were punished by voters in part for being too liberal. President Obama had not yet endorsed same-sex marriage. It had not yet won any victories at the ballot booth (as it would in 2012). However, by 2011, it had become possible to argue that support for same-sex marriage had become the majority position. By extension, it was also reaching majority status in more and more states.

 The perception of majority status may influence the politics of the issue in profound ways. Mr. Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage last year may have been typical in this sense. Once it became arguable that support for same-sex marriage represented a majority view, it became harder for a blue-state Democratic president not to support it.

 How many more endorsements for same-sex marriage might we expect in the near future? (For now, I’ll continue to evaluate this from a macroscopic perspective rather than trying to predict the behavior of individual senators — something we’ll save for a separate article.)

 While there will almost certainly be a few more endorsements over the next year or two, it’s very likely that the rate of increase will slow down. Some of this is just a mathematical necessity: a bounded quantity (there are only 100 senators) cannot continue to grow exponentially forever.

 More than that, however, if the recent cavalcade of endorsements is caused in part by senators perceiving that same-sex marriage has potentially become the national majority position, endorsements will begin to decelerate once it has become unambiguously the majority stance. Some senators will continue to oppose it, either because it does not yet constitute a majority position in their states (like Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, they may say it should be decided at the state level), or because they oppose it on moral grounds, or because they are more concerned about a primary challenge than the general election.

 In other words, the past year or two has been a good time for senators to jump on the same-sex marriage bandwagon, and most of the stragglers (i.e., Democrats from blue or purple states) have been rounded up. The remaining senators who have not taken the opportunity yet may have good political reasons for it, and may wait some time before they do. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– Add two more senators to the list of gay-marriage "evolvers"—North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp and Indiana's Joe Donnelly said today that they support same-sex marriage, reports the Huffington Post. Both are Democrats from conservative states and both are safe from re-election campaigns until 2018. "The makeup of families is changing, but the importance of family is enduring," said Heitkamp in a statement. Together with yesterday's flip by Florida's Sen. Bill Nelson, the moves leave only four Democratic senators who have not publicly voiced support for gay marriage. If you're a bit amazed by how quickly senators have been "evolving" on this issue, you're not the only one. But Nate Silver decided to take things a step further, as usual, and try to come up with a mathematical model to explain why, for his latest blog post in the New York Times. The key, says Silver, is public support for gay marriage in many states growing from a slight majority to a clear one. But he expects the pace to slow down greatly at this point. "The remaining senators who have not taken the opportunity yet may have good political reasons for it, and may wait some time before they do," he writes.


Article:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former Berkshire Hathaway executive David Sokol deliberately misled Warren Buffett when pitching an investment to him, the company's board concluded in a scathing report that may add fuel to a pending SEC probe of Buffett's one-time heir apparent.

 The board said it may sue Sokol to recover the $3 million of trading profit he made when Berkshire bought chemicals company Lubrizol Corp and could seek damages from him for harm to the company's reputation. The company will cooperate with any government probe in the matter as well.

 The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is probing Sokol, a person familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.

 Sokol's high-profile attorney disputed the board's report and said his client is "a man of uncommon rectitude and probity."

 "I have known Mr. Sokol and have represented his companies in business litigation since the mid 1980s," said Barry Levine of the Washington firm Dickstein Shapiro. "He would not, and did not, trade improperly, nor did he violate any fair reading of the Berkshire Hathaway policies."

 Levine said in a statement late on Wednesday that Sokol had been studying Lubrizol for personal investment since the summer of 2010 and such investments are specifically allowed by his employment agreement.

 "Buffett was told twice, not once, about Sokol's ownership of Lubrizol stock before Buffett engaged in any discussions with Lubrizol," Levine said.

 Levine, who has done work for Sokol's former company MidAmerican Energy, co-heads Dickstein's white collar criminal defense practice and has also represented attempted Ronald Reagan assassin John Hinckley.

 The report is an unusual statement from a board that has historically been very close to Buffett, who is CEO and chairman. It may begin to answer the demands of shareholders who expected Buffett to address the controversy at the company's annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska this weekend.

 Buffett previously said he would have nothing further to say about Sokol's actions, a stance that became untenable over time given the intense pressure on the conglomerate.

 The report paints a picture of Buffett as having been duped by Sokol. However, one shareholder said it was also crafted to exonerate Buffett from wrongdoing.

 "This report makes it clearly look like this was not Warren Buffett's fault, this was Sokol's fault," said Michael Yoshikami, chief executive of wealth manager YCMNET Advisors and a Berkshire shareholder. "There really is an effort here to make clear that this was not Warren Buffett's behavior in any way, this was Sokol's behavior."

 GAIN AT RISK

 Buffett announced Sokol's resignation in March, noting that Sokol bought shares in Lubrizol before suggesting to Buffett that Berkshire buy the company. While Sokol mentioned to Buffett in "passing" that he held some Lubrizol stock, Buffett said he only later found out that Sokol held nearly 100,000 Lubrizol shares worth about $10 million.

 Sokol made a profit of about $3 million -- a gain that could be at risk. The Berkshire board said it was still considering legal action against Sokol to, among other things, recover any trading profits he made.

 "It hardly sounds like Berkshire is trying to circle the wagons to protect Sokol," said Francis Pileggi, a partner at Fox Rothschild LP in Wilmington, Delaware. "If I had my druthers, I would rather be representing Berkshire in this matter than Sokol in a Delaware court."

 Besides the potential civil recovery, Berkshire's board also said it would cooperate with any government investigation. A spokesman for the Securities and Exchange Commission declined to comment.

 Legal experts said Sokol appears to be in more trouble now than was first thought.

 "I think Mr. Sokol has a real problem here," said Duke University Law Professor James Cox. "This is not a close call at all."

 FALLEN HEIR

 Sokol, who used to run Berkshire subsidiaries MidAmerican and NetJets, was widely seen as Buffett's heir apparent, an image Buffett biographers say the "Oracle of Omaha" cultivated.

 Yet Sokol, in his one public appearance since the scandal broke, told CNBC he had no aspiration to the job. In Wednesday's statement, Berkshire said Sokol reiterated as much to Buffett before Buffett announced Sokol's resignation.

 When Buffett made that announcement, he said he believed Sokol had not done anything unlawful. The statement Wednesday seemed to suggest otherwise.

 "His misleadingly incomplete disclosures to Berkshire Hathaway senior management concerning those purchases violated the duty of candor he owed to the company," the board said -- noting that an executive's duty of candor was part of the duty of loyalty under Delaware law where Berkshire is incorporated.

 Berkshire's board also said certain answers Sokol gave to Buffett in response to questions about the nature of his holdings appeared "intended to deceive."

 In total, the 18-page statement uses variations on the word "violation" some 11 times.

 The board's audit committee held three meetings this month to consider the report.

 Berkshire attorney Ron Olson said Sokol was interviewed at least three times regarding his Lubrizol trading and contacts with Citigroup Inc bankers. "In connection with the preparation of the audit committee report, a request for a further interview with Mr. Sokol was made to his attorney. Mr. Sokol was not made available," Olson said in the statement.

 The audit committee members are chairman Thomas Murphy, 85, and a decades-long Buffett friend; Donald Keough, 84, a former president of key Buffett holding Coca Cola Co; and former Microsoft executive Charlotte Guyman, 54.

 Their report is likely to take some pressure off Buffett this weekend when tens of thousands of shareholders descend on Omaha for Berkshire's annual festival-cum-general-meeting.

 "One way or another, Mr. Buffett will have to address this. It's conceivable that this release relieves Mr. Buffett from the chore of addressing what is an unpleasant issue," said Jerry Bruni, CEO and portfolio manager at J.V. Bruni and Co, which owns Berkshire shares and has $450 million of assets under management.

 Berkshire's actively traded class B shares were flat at $82.99 in after-hours trading. (Additional reporting by Jonathan Stempel, Moira Herbst, Matthew Goldstein, Dan Wilchins, Alina Selyukh and Jonathan Spicer in New York, Sarah N. Lynch in Washington and Sakthi Prasad in Bangalore. Editing by Robert MacMillan) ||||| David Sokol violated Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A)’s insider-trading rules and misled the company about his personal stake in Lubrizol Corp. (LZ), which he recommended as a takeover target to Chairman Warren Buffett, the firm said.

 Berkshire will cooperate with any government investigations related to Sokol’s Lubrizol transactions and weigh suing the former manager to recover his trading profits, according to a report from Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire’s audit committee.

 Sokol’s purchase of about $10 million in Lubrizol stock while facilitating Buffett’s deal to buy the lubricant maker “violated company policies, including Berkshire Hathaway’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and its insider-trading policies and procedures,” according to the report.

 Buffett, 80, is facing questions about his oversight of managers and criticism for not condemning the stock trading that preceded Sokol’s resignation from Berkshire. Buffett had said March 30 in announcing Sokol’s departure that he didn’t believe the trades were unlawful.

 “They’re throwing Sokol under the bus,” said Stephen Bainbridge, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who has written and taught about corporate governance.

 Sokol, 54, told Buffett in January he had a stake in Lubrizol, which the billionaire chairman took to mean that Sokol had been following the company as a shareholder and then deemed it a takeover candidate, the audit committee found. Buffett didn’t realize until March 14, when the $9 billion deal was announced, that investment bankers at Citigroup Inc. had brought Wickliffe, Ohio-based Lubrizol to Sokol’s attention as a potential target, according to the report.

 ‘Misleadingly Incomplete’

 Sokol’s “misleadingly incomplete disclosures to Berkshire Hathaway senior management concerning those purchases violated the duty of candor he owed the company,” according to the report.

 Buffett learned of Citigroup’s role introducing Sokol to Lubrizol only when a representative from the bank called to congratulate him on the deal, according to the report. Sokol told CNBC last month that he did nothing wrong. Attempts to reach Sokol for comment weren’t immediately successful.

 ‘Gloves are Off’

 “The gloves are off,” said Michael Yoshikami, chief investment strategist at Berkshire shareholder YCMNet Advisors. Buffett’s “response was benevolent, and now the audit committee is coming back and saying, ‘You might be benevolent but, as a protector of the values of the firm, we don’t think benevolence is appropriate.’”

 Photographer: Jonathan Fickies/Bloomberg David Sokol, former executive of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., speaks during an interview in New York on Aug. 16, 2010. Close David Sokol, former executive of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., speaks during an interview in... Read More Close Open Photographer: Jonathan Fickies/Bloomberg David Sokol, former executive of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., speaks during an interview in New York on Aug. 16, 2010.

 Sokol joined Berkshire in 2000 when he sold MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., which he led, to Buffett for about $9 billion. Under Berkshire, Sokol retained a minority equity stake in MidAmerican and expanded the unit by buying a natural gas pipeline and power producers in California and the U.K.

 Buffett had sent Sokol to China to scout an investment in carmaker BYD Co. and tasked the executive with the turnaround of NetJets Inc., Berkshire’s luxury-flight unit. Buffett biographer Andrew Kilpatrick had said Sokol was the most likely candidate to replace the billionaire as chief executive officer.

 Sokol told Buffett before the March 30 statement that he hadn’t hoped to become CEO, according to the report. Sokol made the statement when given an opportunity to review a draft of Buffett’s comments for accuracy.

 Statement Revised

 The draft had a passage, which Buffett excluded from the eventual report, “that implied that Mr. Sokol had resigned because he must have known the Lubrizol trades would likely hurt his chances of being Mr. Buffett’s successor,” according to the report.

 Buffett said March 14 he would pay $135 a share for Lubrizol, compared with the closing price of $105.44 on the New York Stock Exchange in the last trading day before the announcement. Sokol’s investment may have given him a profit of about $3 million, according to Buffett’s disclosure and data compiled by Bloomberg.

 To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Frye in New York at afrye@bloomberg.net

 To contact the editor responsible for this story: Dan Kraut at dkraut2@bloomberg.net |||||Summary:

– Warren Buffett's former heir apparent David Sokol misled his boss and violated insider-trading rules when he bought shares in Lubrizol and then recommended Berkshire Hathaway buy it, Berkshire's board has concluded. A scathing report from the board portrays Buffett as a victim of Sokol's deception and says the company may sue to recover the $3 million Sokol made from the deal, Reuters reports. Sokol—who insists he did nothing wrong—has resigned from the company and is the target of an SEC probe, which will gain ammunition from the board's report. "They're throwing Sokol under the bus," a corporate governance experts tells Bloomberg. Buffett is facing questions about his oversight of managers, but analysts believe the board's report will take some pressure off the billionaire investor ahead of Berkshire's annual meeting this weekend.


Write an article based on this summary:

– A vampire hunter on The Lost Boys is now after Hollywood pedophiles. Former child actor Corey Feldman, a star of Stand By Me and The Goonies, has vowed to reveal the names of two Hollywood figures who abused him when he was 14. "These older men were leching around like vultures," Feldman told The Sun. "There are people who have got away with it for so long they think they are above the law. That's got to stop." Feldman and Lost Boys co-star Corey Haim hinted at their abuse on the reality television show The Two Coreys. Haim, who struggled with a drug problem, died of heart disease and pneumonia last year at the age of 38. Feldman has continued speaking out about child abuse in Hollywood since Haim's death. "I stood up and said there is a bigger problem, that I'd lost Corey and that I didn't want to see any more kids lost to these sick perverts," said Feldman. The actor's exposure threat comes as a host of pedophile cases have rocked Hollywood. At least a dozen actors, managers, production assistants, and others have been prosecuted for child abuse on the job in Hollywood since 2000, reports the Los Angeles Times.

In his private journal, Jason Michael Handy once described himself as a "pedophile, full blown."Handy snapped more than 1,000 photos of girls at the elementary school across the street from his house, using a camera with a telephoto lens, according to court documents. He volunteered at a Malibu church, where he worked with 6-year-olds. And his job as a production assistant at one of the nation's most prominent producers of children's television programs, Nickelodeon , gave him access to child actors on and off the set, and allowed him to exchange email addresses and phone numbers with them.He used the hopes of at least two girls who dreamed of careers in TV to sexually exploit them.Handy was sentenced to six years in prison after pleading no contest in 2004 to two felony counts, one of lewd acts on a child and one of distributing sexually explicit material by email, and to a misdemeanor charge related to child sexual exploitation. His arrest and prosecution received scant media attention at the time but are attracting renewed interest now, after the recent arrest of a talent manager on molestation charges and reports by The Times that a registered sex offender was working with children as a casting associate.The Handy case, which in part prompted Nickelodeon to toughen its background checks for all employees, is among at least a dozen child molestation and child pornography prosecutions since 2000 involving actors, managers, production assistants and others in the industry,according to court documents and published accounts.Advocates and professionals who work with victims of child sexual abuse say predators exploit the glittery lure of Hollywood to prey on aspiring actors or models. They assert that the problem is more widespread than the industry is willing to acknowledge and have called for tougher laws and better screening of those who represent or work with children."Unlike other settings, such as Little League, Scouts, day care and school volunteers, where adults who have unsupervised access to children are required to comply with fingerprinting requirements, there are no such standards in the entertainment industry," said Paula Dorn, co-founder of the BizParentz Foundation, a nonprofit group for families of child actors.The most recent case involves Martin Weiss, a longtime talent manager who specialized in representing young actors. He was arrested Nov. 29 and charged with eight felonies stemming from his alleged abuse of a boy who came to him for help in pursuing a music career. He is being held on $800,000 bail.Weiss' arrest came within weeks of a report that a man who was convicted of child molestation and abduction 15 years ago had been helping to cast young actors in major Hollywood films, using a different name than the one listed in the sex offender registry . Jason James Murphy, 35, faces felony charges of failing to file name and address changes with authorities.The recent arrests prompted a bill, expected to be filed this month with the California Assembly, that would require licensing and criminal background checks for those who work with actors under age 16. It would prohibit registered sex offenders from serving as child managers, photographers, career counselors or publicists."Under the existing law, talent agents are regulated; however, casting directors, managers and photographers are not. This loophole makes it very easy for a predator to gain access to children working within the entertainment industry," said the bill's sponsor, Assemblywoman Nora Campos (D-San Jose).Experts say addressing the problem is overdue."This is just like the Catholic Church pretending that priests never molested people in the past," said Dr. Daniel D. Broughton, a pediatrician at the Mayo Clinic and expert on child sexual abuse. "What's surprising to me is why it hasn't come out even stronger and sooner."Some instances of child sexual exploitation have received considerable attention, such as the one involving Oscar-winning filmmaker Roman Polanski , who pleaded guilty in 1977 to having sex with a 13-year-old girl but fled to Europe before sentencing.A number of other cases involve lesser-known assailants employed at all levels of the industry — from the set tutor in Vancouver, Canada, who worked on nearly 50 films and was convicted of child sexual assault to the acting coach from Georgia who contacted an 11-year-old girl over the Internet and enticed the aspiring actress and her sibling to meet him in Los Angeles, where he molested the girl.Some of the cases illustrate how a more rigorous screening process could have detected adults who posed a danger to young actors.The Los Angeles Police Department had been monitoring child manager Bob Villard even before 1987, when he was among nine people indicted by a federal grand jury in New Jersey on charges of transporting child pornography, according to published accounts. He was convicted but, upon appeal, the charges against him fell apart becauseprosecutors had been unable to produce the sexually explicit images at trial.Villard was again accused of child pornography in 2001, after searches of his home uncovered thousands of photographs of boys in skimpy bathing suits posed in sexually suggestive positions, police said. He pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor and was sentenced to three years of probation.Throughout this period, Villard touted his work with aspiring young actors, some of whom would later become major Hollywood stars — among them Tobey Maguire Leonardo DiCaprio and Danny Nucci . Villard boasted on a company website that as a manager he had "guided the careers of dozens of successful film and television actors." ||||| DANCING on Ice’s Corey Feldman has lifted the lid on paedophile assaults he endured as a young actor — and told how he plans to sensationally name two Hollywood perverts responsible.

 Corey — star of 80s classics The Goonies, Stand By Me and The Lost Boys — said the men often preyed on him.

 In an exclusive interview with The Sun, he added: “When I was 14 and 15 things were happening to me. These older men were leching around like vultures.

 “It was basically me laying there pretending I was asleep and them going about their business.

 “I will write a book — I will put all the information forward.”

 Corey, 40, decided on the brave step after Lost Boys co-star and fellow victim Corey Haim died and a talent agent was charged with unrelated child abuse.

 Corey said Haim, 38, was also abused and added: “There are people who have got away with it for so long they think they are above the law — that’s got to stop.”

 Child star ... Corey Feldman with Corey Haim (centre) in The Lost Boys

 He is convinced Hollywood deliberately snubbed Haim by failing to feature a tribute to him at the 2011 Oscars, despite saluting other stars and movers and shakers who died that year.

 He said: “Corey died from heart failure and pneumonia. It was put out that he was a junkie and worthless to society. They went as far as to snub him at the Academy Awards.

 “What, because he did drugs in his life? Who cares? Everybody does drugs. How selfish and narrow minded.

 “The question is why had he been brushed under the carpet? Why do people make us out to be dumb and belittle us?

 “Even today people say about me, ‘80s heart-throb — hasn’t done anything since’. The truth is I haven’t stopped. Last year I did four films.

 “Corey and I were pegged as the scapegoats. Enough is enough. People need to know the reason Corey and I were swept under the carpet like the beaten dogs that were sent to the pound so no one had to deal with us anymore.”

 Famous role ... Corey in 80s cult film The Goonies

 Feldman — who has not touched drugs for 20 years — first spoke out on US TV last summer. He believes that led to an unnamed 18-year-old former child actor claiming he had been abused by talent agent Martin Weiss, 47.

 Corey said: “I stood up and said there is a bigger problem, that I’d lost Corey and that I didn’t want to see any more kids lost to these sick perverts.

 “Once I said that, it evoked this huge wave of people suddenly opening their eyes — and that’s when this kid had the courage to come forward and talk to police.

 “I’d like to get in touch with the kid. I want him to know he’s not alone and he has my support.”

 Early career .... Corey (left) in Stand By Me

 Corey says Weiss — who has been arrested but denies any offence — is not one of the men who molested him. However, he added: “I have already spoken to the detective in the Weiss case and I imagine I will continue helping.”

 He named in our interview another star who he said had spoken to police, but The Sun cannot identify them for legal reasons.

 Corey knows that vowing to name his own attackers could come with dangers. He has a seven-year-old son Zen and said: “What it’s about now is protecting my child. When you open a can of worms people are going to be in fear and they are going to want to take revenge. So you have to be careful.

 “I look for the safety of my child. I don’t really care about me. I’ve lived a decent life so if anything happened to me...”

 Starring role ... Corey in The 'Burbs

 As well as Haim, Corey also lost his once close pal Michael Jackson. They had stopped speaking after an argument on the day before the 9/11 terror attacks.

 Corey said: “There was no more relationship — but when you’re friends with someone for 18 years and then you have a giant spat and then one day they are gone, you have to feel something.”

 Corey’s second marriage ended in 2009 and has since made the most of his single status — including spending New Year’s Eve at the Playboy Mansion.

 Chat ... Corey meets Sun TV Editor Colin Robertson

 He said: “I love beautiful women and I get loads of them. I’m very grateful for that and I appreciate them.

 “For my birthday party in Vegas I brought a bus with a stripper pole and 20 girls in it up from Los Angeles. Once we got to Vegas there were 20 more to meet us and that was the party.”

 He went on: “Sex is about romance and passion for me. I’d rather go out for a romantic meal or sit at home and cuddle in front of a movie.

 “But I’m not giving my heart to any one person at the moment so that I won’t get it trampled on.”

 Dancing on Ice starts at 6.30pm tomorrow on ITV1.

 c.robertson@the-sun.co.uk

 Corey: I'm hot for Jorgie Porter

 LADIES’ man Corey Feldman has turned his eye to one of his fellow Dancing on Ice stars — Hollyoaks stunner Jorgie Porter.

 Corey said: “Jorgie is cute. When I first met her my jaw dropped on the floor. I watched her in awe. She is so gorgeous and a stunning girl.”

 'Stunning' ... Dancing on Ice skater Jorgie Porter

 Laughing, he said he hoped he would be in the show long enough to make his move on the 24-year-old. He added: “I’m here to win of course, but it’s a fun idea to learn a new skill. I think my fans will enjoy me being in the show. I want to create magic.

 "I want to do things on the ice that have never been done before. I’m also a singer and I want my own song to perform to.” |||||


||||| Just now, Rush Limbaugh responded to a couple of my email questions on air about why he's now urging listeners to call Congress over health care legislation.

 It's an unusual move for Limbaugh, who as Erick Erickson tweeted, has only done so once before. Despite having the largest talk radio audience in the country, Limbaugh typically doesn't use his show to mobilize listeners for coordinated political action.

 The last time Limbaugh gave out the Capitol's switchboard number on air, he said, was when Steve Roberts was writing a profile of him in the 1990's for U.S. News & World Report. Limbaugh said that Roberts "was of the belief -- like so many people believed back then -- that all I was doing was giving out phone numbers of members of Congress and switchboards in Washington."

 "And he asked me why I did this," Limbaugh recalled. "I don't do it. I'm the one that doesn't do it. I don't use my show for activism. I said, 'If I did it, I would shut the place down. So I'll demonstrate it for you."

 Limbaugh said he didn't remember what the issue was about, but to prove his point, he gave out the number and the switchboard was quickly tied up.

 "The same thing happened today at the two toll-free numbers I gave," Limbaugh said. "Those numbers have now -- you don't even get a recording at them now. They're invalidated. Nothing happens. So we had to give out the toll-free and the toll-call numbers."

 Given the fact that Limbaugh doesn't use his show in this way, I asked next why he was doing so now. He responded:

 "This is ball game. This is ball game, and Michael, the only reason we're at this point is because the American people have stood up. The Republicans don't have the votes to stop this. And the Martians don't have the votes to stop this. Republicans may as well be Martians on this given their influence. All we can do is continue to have the American people let it be known they want no part of this -- the substance of the bill or the process. They don't like it. And that's why I am urging -- because this is a transformation of our country into something that no one has ever seen it be like. And we don't want that transformation to take place. We like America as it was founded. We don't want to turn it into a third world country."

 Limbaugh acknowledged that by responding on air, I'd be losing my "exclusivity," but that's fine -- just as long as the answers get out there.

 comments closed

 permalink |||||

Write a summary.

– Rush Limbaugh helped snarl the White House switchboard today when he gave listeners the toll-free numbers and urged them to call to chat about health care reform. “The system is being overwhelmed by calls,” one employee told Roll Call this afternoon. It's only the second time Limbaugh has pulled such as a stunt, and he explained it was necessary because "this is ballgame." Answering an email from Michael Calderone of Politico on the air, Limbaugh said: "The only reason we're at this point is because the American people have stood up. The Republicans don't have the votes to stop this. ... All we can do is continue to have the American people let it be known they want no part of this—the substance of the bill or the process."


Summarize this article:

FLINT (WWJ/AP) – Flint’s lead toxicity problem has now apparently spread to animals.

 Officials are reminding people to make sure pets aren’t drinking unfiltered Flint tap water after two area dogs recently tested positive for lead toxicity. It’s the state’s first lead toxicity cases involving dogs in five years.

 “Here in Michigan, specifically in Genesse County, we’ve had two cases of high-lead levels reported to us in dogs in the last six months,” State Veterinarian Dr. James Averill told WWJ’s Chrystal Knight. “One was last fall and one was here in January. … One was a stray dog and the other was a family animal.”

 Both dogs are still alive, although officials haven’t disclosed whether the dogs were drinking Flint water, how much lead was in their systems or what symptoms they were showing.

 “There is no regular testing for lead,” said Averill. “What we do is we rely on the veterinarians who have the boots on the ground that are interacting with their clients and looking at the patients in front of them. When they are concerned or suspect a lead toxicity may be possible, they let us know at that time and then we work with them moving forward from there.”

 Averill said the “vast majority” of tests for lead in dogs in the area have been negative amid Flint’s crisis with lead-tainted water.

 “Dogs are at a higher risk amongst mammals for finding high lead levels, but it’s not that common. Typically for us when we deal with lead toxicity, we’re usually dealing with cattle. So, really this was a new instance for us,” he said.

 To protect your pets, Averill said residents in Genesee County should “do what you are doing for yourself for your pet.”

 “So number one, get your water tested to see if you have high lead levels. Two, if necessary, get a filter in place and then water your pets through that filtered water,” he said. “Take the same steps that you would for yourself for your pets.”

 Averill said the first sign that your pet might be suffering from lead poisoning is any deviation from their normal behavior.

 “I think the key thing is, as pet owners you know what is the normal routine for your pet,” he said. “So what pet owners need to be looking for is the animal having their normal behavior in their normal routine, as they are creatures of habit.”

 The next step would be bringing your concerns to a local veterinarian, who can further decode what is going on with your pet.

 “The signs and symptoms of lead toxicity are very broad and general, and similar to so many other diseases that a veterinarian needs to work up the case and do things to determine if it’s lead toxicity or if it’s something else,” said Averill. “For example, vomiting can be caused by many things. So it’s really critical that people work with a veterinarian when a pet has gone outside their normal routine.”

 Anyone who notices their pets acting strangely is encouraged to take them to a veterinarian.

 TM and © Copyright 2016 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2016 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. ||||| "I boil and freeze tap water before giving it to my dog," says David Carswell , "it gives me peace of mind," he adds at his home in Flint on Friday, Jan. 22, 2016. (Photo: Romain Blanquart Detroit Free Press)

 DETROIT — Two dogs in the Flint area recently tested positive for lead toxicity, according to the state veterinarian.

 The dogs with lead toxicity are both cross-breeds, and they're both still alive, said Dr. James Averill, state veterinarian and Animal Industry Division Director for the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. One is a pet, and the other was a stray. Their test results were confirmed in October 2015 and January 2016, but state officials declined to release further details about the cases — including whether they live in Flint.

 Both were in Genesee County, where high levels of the heavy metal in Flint's tap water system are a major crisis. Officials in Flint continue to advise that people and their pets avoid drinking unfiltered tap water.

 "The confidentiality of the owners is like medical information in humans," Averill said.

 These were the first two dogs to be confirmed with lead toxicity in the past five years, according to state records. Officials have not disclosed whether they were drinking Flint water, how much lead was in their systems, what symptoms they were showing, their weight or how old they are.

 Dr. James Averill, State Veterinarian within MDARD's Animal Industry Division. (Photo: Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development)

 "(The state) does provide reportable disease/condition case information down to the county level, but cannot provide the specifics of those individual cases," according to an email from Jennifer Holton, spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The email cites the Animal Industry Act of 1988 for keeping information in the cases hidden from the public.

 The state is in contact with area veterinarians, and the "vast majority" of tests for lead in dogs has been negative, Averill said. But people who notice their pets acting unusual are encouraged to see their veterinarian.

 If a veterinarian determines a dog may have lead toxicity, the lab testing is provided free of charge, he said. And the number of requests has been increasing. But Averill also said that symptoms can vary widely.

 "The thing with lead toxicity in animals, their clinical signs, they're so similar to so many other diseases," he said.

 Dr. Michael Merrithew, a veterinarian for about 43 years, works at Veterinary House Call Services and Clinic in Grand Blanc, near Flint. He said he's not seen any recent cases he'd attribute to lead, but he's told his staff to watch for symptoms.

 Among the possibilities, "mental dullness," possibly arthritis, "probably general malaise first," he said.

 Averill said to watch for deviations from routines.

 "My dog, when I get up in the morning, the first thing he wants to do is get up and go to the bathroom," he said. "(Pet owners) know their animals. And when they're not their normal selves, tell them to seek veterinary care."

 Dr. Lawrence Ehrman, a veterinarian for about 33 years, works at Veterinary Medical Hospital in Flint Township. He also said he doesn't appear to have had any recent patients with lead toxicity, but lead poisoning from water can be more challenging to determine.

 "What we're dealing with here is not like an acute poisoning. It's more a chronic sort of thing," he said. "It can cause brain and mental issues, blood issues and even some digestive and kidney issues, though they're much less common."

 He said changes in attitude or signs of weakness could be symptoms of lead toxicity.

 Averill said it's OK to bathe pets in Flint's tap water, but they should only be drinking filtered or bottled water. Since 2011, all the other cases of lead in animals have involved cattle.

 Ehrman said that for people who don't immediately have bottled or filtered water available for their pets, there's an alternative.

 "Probably melt some snow," he said. "And it would be safer, if your only other choice is feeding them straight Flint water."

 Follow Robert Allen on Twitter: @rallenMI

 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1X7hCq4 |||||

– First it was the kids of Flint found to have been tainted by lead, attributed by many to the area's toxic water. Now two dogs who live in the vicinity of the Michigan city have tested positive for lead toxicity—the first two pups to be confirmed with this in state records in five years, the Detroit Free Press reports. "Here in Michigan, specifically in [Genesee] County, we've had two cases of high-lead levels reported to us in dogs in the last six months," state vet Dr. James Averill tells CBS Detroit. "One was last fall and one was here in January." He says that one of the affected dogs was a stray, while the other was a pet. Both dogs are alive, Averill notes, but the state report doesn't specify how high their lead levels were, or what symptoms they had. And indeed, it's challenging to diagnose dogs with lead toxicity, as symptoms such as "mental dullness," arthritis, and lethargy can mimic those of other illnesses, Averill says. Instead, he mentions keeping an eye on variations in a pet's routine to help pinpoint if something's wrong. He does note to CBS, however, that the "vast majority" of lead tests on area dogs have come back negative, and he says they're relying on local veterinarians with "boots on the ground" to look out for suspicious cases. In the meantime, while Averill gives the OK to bathe pets in Flint-area tap water, he says they should be drinking filtered or bottled water or, as a last resort, melted snow. "It would be safer, if your only other choice is feeding them straight Flint water," he notes. (The FBI's now on Flint's case.)


Here is a news article: “It’s a giant step in terms of conception,” said Theodore Couloumbis, a vice president of the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy, in Athens. “But it’s a baby step in terms of realization or implementation.”

 European political leaders have pressed Greece for months to commit to a thorough overhaul of its bloated, state-led economy, and they hailed the vote on Wednesday as offering hope that the debt crisis was manageable.

 Photo

 Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany welcomed the development as “really good news,” while the president of the European Commission , José Manuel Barroso , and the European Council president, Herman Van Rompuy , said in a joint statement that Greece had taken “a vital step back — from the very grave scenario of default.”

 They urged Greek lawmakers to pass the second vote on Thursday on carrying out the measures, adding that “it would also allow for work to proceed rapidly on a second package of financial assistance, enabling the country to move forward and restoring hope to the Greek people.” Officials have promised that they will make more money available to help stimulate growth in Greece if it sticks to its austerity pledges.

 Europe has much at stake in making the new bailout a success because several other countries that use the euro face similar, if less immediate, problems of high debt, widespread unemployment and little or no growth. Ultimately, many economists say, the sovereign debt of Greece and some other countries will have to be restructured, with their creditors accepting a discount on the debts’ face value. European officials have so far sought to avoid taking that step.

 “If Europe comes together with an appropriate framework, that will enable a default to be avoided,” said Joseph E. Stiglitz , the Nobel-winning economist. “But there’s every sign that Europe won’t do that, so the likelihood of a problem down the line is very significant.”

 Kenneth S. Rogoff, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund , who is now a Harvard professor, said the Greek vote and the infusion of aid would only buy a little time.

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 “It’s certainly kicking the can down the road,” Professor Rogoff said. “Greece is basically being bribed not to default. But as long as Greece doesn’t grow briskly for a sustained period, it’s in hot water.”

 Hope is also in short supply among many Greeks, who said that the first round of austerity imposed after Greece’s first bailout last year had worsened rather than improved their plight, and that the second round demanded even deeper cuts in many areas.

 “Of course things will get worse,” said Thimios Vilias, 35, who said his two-year contract at an insurance company would run out soon and who came out to protest on Wednesday. “The measures won’t do any good for Greece. We have more debt, more debt, more debt, and we have no work,” Mr. Vilias added.

 Video

 The measures approved on Wednesday will at least on paper lead to the dismantling of a big part of the economy’s state-run sector. They call for the privatization of 50 billion euros, or about $72 billion, in state assets, including ports, telecommunications concerns, real estate and stakes in the public power corporation.

 They also include one billion euros, or about $1.4 billion, in cuts in the defense sector over the next five years; more than two billion euros, or $2.9 billion, in cuts to the health sector through 2015 by reducing regulated prices for drugs; tax increases on heating oil and the self-employed; and a shrinking of permanent and temporary public-sector employment.

 They do not, however, provide for changing the Greek Constitution, which states that public-sector workers on permanent contracts have lifetime tenure. Since last year, Greece has cut the wages of its 800,000 public workers — a quarter of the work force — by more than 10 percent.

 Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.

 After days of heated debate, Mr. Papandreou won by a simple majority, 155 to 138, with all but one lawmaker from his Socialist Party voting in favor and only one conservative opposition deputy breaking ranks to support the measure.

 Perhaps the greatest challenge for the government will be to modernize the country’s confusing tax code, and to collect the billions of dollars in tax revenue that analysts say is at the heart of the country’s solvency problems.

 At his first news conference as newly appointed finance minister after a cabinet reshuffle this month, even Evangelos Venizelos acknowledged that the new changes were emergency measures that did not constitute a new tax plan.

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 “It is not the new national taxation policy, it is not the modern complete taxation system that takes into consideration everything and that eradicates injustice and contradiction,” Mr. Venizelos said.

 Mr. Papandreou is also running low on political capital, having failed to form a coalition government with the center-right opposition after a revolt in the Socialist Party. It is unclear if he can hold onto power long enough to see the austerity plan through.

 “This only buys Greece time to get the serious work done,” said Carl Weinberg, chief economist of High Frequency Economics in New York. “But now they have to make the debt situation sustainable beyond August. Much depends on whether the government will stay the course, and when there are new elections, whether a new government decides to stick with the austerity measures this government passed, which is not certain,” Mr. Weinberg added. ||||| Anti-austerity protesters set up roadblocks as they attempt to block streets leading to the parliament in Athens June 29, 2011. Greece's parliament looked increasingly likely to approve unpopular austerity measures on Wednesday, despite violent protests, to secure international funds to prevent the euro zone's first sovereign default.

 ATHENS (Reuters) - Greek police firing tear gas fought running battles with stone-throwing protesters outside parliament on Wednesday as signs grew the government would succeed in pushing through an austerity plan demanded by creditors.

 With Greece risking bankruptcy if the measures are blocked, parliament was due to vote in the afternoon on the mix of spending cuts, tax increases and privatizations to be implemented as conditions for a massive bailout by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.

 Tens of thousands of protesters, many of them waving Greek flags and beating drums, packed Syntagma Square outside parliament as a 48-hour general strike that began on Tuesday brought central Athens to a standstill.

 "Dissolve parliament," read one banner.

 Demonstrations turned violent for a second day when a surge in the crowd overturned metal barriers, forcing back a line of riot police, who responded with flash bombs and tear gas.

 "Cops, pigs, murderers!" chanted the crowd at a line of white-helmeted riot police as tear gas projectiles turned the air outside parliament white. A line of protesters joined hands in a traditional Greek dance in front of police lines.

 Inside parliament, the government of Socialist Prime Minister George Papandreou inched closer to securing the majority it needs to pass the law as a member of the conservative opposition said she would vote for the 28 billion euro ($39.7 billion) package.

 Late on Tuesday, one of three rebel Socialist (PASOK) lawmakers climbed down, saying he would support the measures.

 "I have made the decision to vote for the plan because national interests are more important than our own dignity," the deputy, Thomas Robopoulos, told Reuters.

 A parliamentary official said the vote would probably take place between 2 and 5 p.m. (1100-1400 GMT).

 One communist deputy was pelted with yoghurt as protesters tried to block several avenues around parliament to prevent the vote. At least three people were treated for minor injuries as protesters skirmished with police.

 The communist-affiliated PAME labor group held a rally in the morning and several other meetings were expected during the day, culminating in a major demonstration by public service union ADEDY and private sector union GSEE at 7 p.m. (1600 GMT).

 Greece's central bank governor, George Provopoulos, warned that a "no" vote would be suicidal for Greece.

 "For parliament to vote against this package would be a crime - the country would be voting for its suicide," he told the Financial Times.

 BITTER RESENTMENT

 The measures demanded by international lenders as the price for continuing to support Athens have wrought bitter resentment in a Greek population coping with the deepest recession since the 1970s and now facing years of grim austerity.

 Another PASOK rebel, Panagiotis Kouroublis, said he still objected to the plan but declined to say whether he would vote against it. "I will speak to the parliament later and you will hear what I have to say," he told Alter TV. "Nothing is more important than my dignity and my love for my country."

 The Socialists hold a narrow majority with 155 seats in the 300-member legislature and with Robopoulos, the most prominent of a handful of potential rebels, backtracking on his opposition, chances of the vote going through improved.

 In a sign of growing optimism on financial markets about the outcome, Greek bank stocks opened up 3 percent on Wednesday, while Greek bond yields fell.

 However, even with approval on Wednesday, there will still be a risk of lawmakers rejecting detailed austerity bills in votes on Thursday on the implementation of different elements of the plan, such as tax rises and the sale of state assets.

 "Will there be a way to compensate households for the heating fuel increase? Will there be exemptions for agriculture to help it be competitive? I am waiting for answers to see what I will do in the implementation law," said Socialist MP Mihalis Tzelepis, reflecting the anger within the party.

 The EU and the IMF have said the entire plan must be passed this week for Greece to obtain the next, 12 billion euro ($17.3 billion) tranche of emergency loans under the bailout.

 Greek officials have said the country needs the money by mid-July to continue paying its debts.

 Despite heavy international pressure, the center-right opposition declared it would vote against the package but close attention was being paid to a splinter group of conservative deputies led by former foreign minister Dora Bakoyanis.

 Bakoyanis, who broke party ranks to vote in favor of Greece's first EU/IMF bailout last year, said on Wednesday she would abstain from voting this time. The other four deputies in her group would vote according to their consciences.

 "The government cannot govern and apply the program and the political opposition is lying, this is the problem. It does not dare to tell people that there are no magic solutions, that sacrifices are necessary," Bakoyanis said.

 (Additional reporting by George Georgiopoulos and Ingrid Melander; writing by James Mackenzie and Daniel Flynn; editing by Mark Heinrich) |||||
A summary of this is?

– Things got ugly in the streets of Athens today, as Greece’s parliament began voting on austerity measures—needed to keep the nation out of default—that looked increasingly likely to pass. Police firing tear gas fought what Reuters describes as “running battles” with protesters, who threw firebombs, rocks, and firecrackers, and knocked over barricades. Other protesters remained peaceful—one group broke into a traditional dance in front of police lines. One of the two remaining members of the ruling Socialist Party publicly opposing the austerity measures changed his mind today, as did one opposition legislator. That stoked expectations that the bill will pass and had European stock markets climbing, the New York Times reports. Protesters, naturally, were less enthused. “They’ll be the worst criminals in history” if the vote passes, one 57-year-old pharmacist opined. “We want to see them hanged.”


Girl’s arrival on Fernando de Noronha on Saturday came as a surprise to everyone – including the parents

 First baby in 12 years born on remote island where births are banned

 A remote Brazilian island has welcomed its first baby in 12 years after a local woman broke the rule against giving birth there.

 The baby girl born on the Atlantic outpost of Fernando de Noronha on Saturday came as a surprise to everyone – including the parents.

 'It is strange': Brazilian church blockbuster plays to empty cinemas Read more

 “The mother, who does not want to be identified, went into labor at home,” the island’s administration said in a statement carried by O Globo newspaper. “The family says it wasn’t aware of the pregnancy.”

 Tiny Fernando de Noronha – an archipelago famous for its wildlife preserve and with a population of just over 3,000 – doesn’t authorize births because there’s no maternity ward, O Globo reported.

 Expectant mothers are told to travel to the mainland, where the nearest big city is Natal, 227 miles (365km) across the ocean.

 The unidentified mother has another child who was born on the mainland, but told O Globo that this time she “didn’t feel anything” during her pregnancy.

 “On Friday night I had pains and when I went to the bathroom I saw something coming down between my legs. That’s when the child’s father came and picked it up. It was a baby, a girl. I was dumbstruck.” ||||| Image copyright AFP Image caption Fernando de Noronha has one of the world's best beaches

 A remote Brazilian island with a ban on childbirth is nonetheless celebrating the first baby born there in 12 years.

 Fernando de Noronha island, 370km (230 miles) from the city of Natal, has about 3,000 residents but no maternity wards.

 Expectant mothers are requested to travel to the mainland.

 A woman who does not want to be named had a baby girl on Saturday on the island - she says she was unaware she was pregnant and is "dumbstruck".

 Surprise birth

 The woman is believed to be aged 22.

 "On Friday night I had pains and when I went to the bathroom I saw something coming down between my legs," she was quoted as saying by O Globo website.

 "That's when the child's father came and picked it up. It was a baby, a girl. I was dumbstruck."

 The baby was later taken to the local hospital.

 In a statement, the local administration confirmed the birth.

 "The mother, who does not wish to be identified, went into labour at her home," the statement says, according to O Globo.

 "The family says they were not aware of the pregnancy."

 To celebrate the rare birth, local residents are now helping the family, with some donating clothes for the baby girl, reports say.

 Fernando de Noronha boasts some of the world's best beaches and is famous for its wildlife reserve in Brazil's national maritime park. Sea turtles, dolphins, whales and rare birds are frequently observed there.

 Because of the reserve's vulnerability, strict population controls are in place on the island. |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– It lies 230 miles off the coast of Brazil, making Fernando de Noronha a fairly isolated island—so much so that women who become pregnant there are told to go to the mainland to give birth. So amidst what the BBC terms a "ban" on childbirth comes a surprise: a baby, the first born on the island in 12 years. The AFP reports the unnamed mother had previously given birth on the mainland, but told O Globo she was unaware of this pregnancy, as she "didn't feel anything." "On Friday night I had pains and when I went to the bathroom I saw something coming down between my legs. That’s when the child’s father came and picked it up. It was a baby, a girl. I was dumbstruck," she says. The BBC reports the baby was taken to the hospital—which has no maternity ward.