Stephen Hawking backs boycott of Israeli academics

LONDON (AP) — British physicist Stephen Hawking has dropped plans to attend a major international conference in Israel in June, citing his belief that he should respect a Palestinian call to boycott contacts with Israeli academics.

The University of Cambridge released a statement Wednesday indicating that Hawking had told the Israelis last week that he would not be attending "based on advice from Palestinian academics that he should respect the boycott."

University officials said earlier in the day they had "previously understood" that Hawking's decision was based solely on health concerns — he is 71 and has severe disabilities — but had now been told otherwise by Hawking's office.

The decision means that one of the world's most famous scientists has joined a boycott organized to protest Israel's treatment of Palestinians. He is one of the most prominent figures to endorse the strategy, designed to bring pressure on the Israeli government.

The scientist had earlier agreed to attend the Israeli Presidential Conference, hosted by President Shimon Peres, in late June, but has now changed his mind. The theme of the meeting is "Facing Tomorrow 2013."

Tim Holt, acting communications director at the University of Cambridge, said early in the day that Hawking's decision was based strictly on health concerns. Hawking suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease.

"For health reasons, his doctors said he should not be flying at the moment so he's decided not to attend," said Holt. "He is 71 years old. He's fine, but he has to be sensible about what he can do."

The university later changed its position after consulting Hawking's office. The change was made after Israeli officials insisted Hawking had cited the boycott when informing organizers that he would not attend.

The Israeli Presidential Conference, now in its fifth year, brings together statesmen and leading experts in various disciplines to discuss ways to address the world's problems. The goal, organizers say, is to identify challenges and propose solutions.

Hawking's endorsement of the boycott prompted an angry response from organizers. Conference Chairman Israel Maimon said Hawking's decision was "unjustifiable and wrong."

"The academic boycott against Israel is in our view outrageous and improper, certainly for someone for whom the spirit of liberty lies at the basis of his human and academic mission," Maimon said, calling the imposition of a boycott incompatible with open, democratic dialogue.

He noted that former world leaders including Bill Clinton, Mikhail Gorbachev and Tony Blair plan to attend the three-day meeting that begins on June 18.

The boycott campaign is led by Palestinians, Israeli leftists and other supporters who oppose Israel's policies toward the Palestinians and are attuned to the power of celebrity in this age.

It has had some success, deterring a string of famous entertainers from performing. Elvis Costello and the Pixies canceled concerts, as well as the British dance band Klaxon and the Gorillaz Sound System. Israel has also faced occasional boycotts of its academics, unions and in some cases commercial products.

Hawking's decision was hailed by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine as support for its goal of severing academics' connections with Israel.

"This is his independent decision to respect the boycott, based upon his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there," the committee said on its website.

___

Heller reported from Jerusalem.

View the original article here

House averts government shutdown, backs Ryan budget

By David Lawder

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives eliminated the threat of a government shutdown next week, approving on Thursday a stop-gap funding bill that temporarily eases partisan tensions after months of bitter fights over budgets.

In a rare show of cooperation, the Republican-controlled House voted 318-109 to approve legislation that keeps government agencies and programs funded through the end of the fiscal year on September 30.

The debate over how to reduce the deficit will now focus on rival budget plans for fiscal 2014, that begins October 1, put forward by Republicans and Democrats.

While the two parties' proposals are vastly different, lawmakers were encouraged by the bipartisan collaboration shown in avoiding a damaging government shutdown.

Both parties have been chastened by bruising budget fights like the "fiscal cliff" negotiations that went down to the wire in January, and the failure by Congress and the White House to halt the automatic spending cuts triggered on March 1.

"We proved that when we set our mind to it, we can get complicated, hard things done," said House Appropriations Committee chairman Harold Rogers, a Kentucky Republican.

The vote gives Congress some breathing room to argue over which party has the better budget vision, but another showdown looms this summer over raising the federal debt limit.

House Speaker John Boehner said he would use the next debt limit increase deadline - likely in late July or early August - to demand more spending cuts and major changes to the federal healthcare and retirement programs.

'DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR'

He wants any increase in the federal borrowing cap to be matched by an equal amount of spending cuts, setting up potential repeat of the 2011 debt limit brawl that cost the United States its top-tier credit rating.

"Dollar for dollar is the plan," Boehner told reporters after the House votes.

Republicans chose not to use the March 27 expiration of spending authority and a potential agency shutdown as a leverage point to demand more spending cuts. Instead, they want to wage a campaign for deficit reduction centered on proposals from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

Shortly before approving the spending bill, the House backed a budget blueprint offered by Ryan to eliminate U.S. deficits within 10 years through deep cuts in healthcare and spending on other social safety net programs.

The funding bill for the rest of this fiscal year, which the Democratic-led Senate approved on Wednesday, keeps in place $85 billion in automatic spending cuts, known as the "sequester."

But it takes some of the sting out of those cuts by allowing the military and several domestic agencies to shift some money within their reduced budgets to higher priority activities.

The Defense Department, for example, will be able to shift to operations and maintenance some $10 billion that would otherwise be locked in outdated, unwanted budget accounts.

The House vote prompted the Pentagon to announce a two-week delay in any decisions on how much of its 800,000-strong civilian workforce would be put on unpaid leave due to its $46 billion share of the automatic cuts. Officials want to analyze the measure's impact.

The funding measure will now be sent to President Barack Obama to be signed into law.

COMPETING VISIONS

Ryan's budget, marked by repeal of President Barack Obama's health care reforms and deep spending cuts to Medicaid for the poor and other programs, will define Republicans' positions in the rest of this year's fiscal battles and in congressional elections in 2014.

It will be matched by a Democratic budget expected to be passed on Friday by the Senate. That plan, from Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, calls for $1 trillion in additional tax revenues, $100 billion in new infrastructure and jobs spending and modest cuts to health care programs.

And during the week of on April 8, President Barack Obama will finally weigh in with his own budget request, two months after it was due. Some analysts suggest this could try to cut a middle path between the Democratic and Republican visions.

The House voted 221-207, largely along party lines, to approve Ryan's non-binding budget resolution, with all Democrats and 10 Republican conservatives opposing it.

The Ryan plan aims to drastically shrink deficits over the next decade and reach a small surplus by 2023 without raising any additional tax revenue.

Like previous budgets that solidified his position as the Republicans' fiscal guru and helped him become the party's vice presidential candidate last year, it proposes major changes to the Medicare health care program for the elderly.

This popular but increasingly expensive program would be converted to a voucher-like system of subsidies for seniors to buy private health insurance or coverage through the traditional Medicare program.

Democrats complained the Ryan plan will crush near-term economic growth for the sake of an arbitrary goal of reaching balance in 10 years.

CREATING JOBS

"It adopts the European-style austerity approach that we've seen slow down economies in many parts of Europe," said Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen, the top Budget Committee Democrat. "We should instead be focusing on job growth and putting people back to work."

Ryan countered that his plan draws a deep contrast with Democrats, whom he says are not serious about taming the growing U.S. debt of $16.7 trillion.

"It reveals each side's priorities. It clarifies the divide that exists between us," Ryan said of his plan. "We want to balance the budget. They don't. We want to restrain spending, they want to spend more money."

The Democrats' budget plan envisions deficits in the $400-600 billion range through the next decade, but maintains that these will average 2.4 percent of U.S. economic output, a level many economists view as sustainable.

The Democrats' budget seeks $1 trillion in new tax revenues by sharply curbing tax breaks for the wealthy and proposes $100 billion in new spending on infrastructure and job training.

It aims to replace the automatic spending cuts, half with revenues and the rest with other cuts, and offers only modest, undefined spending reductions to healthcare, while keeping the structure of social safety net programs largely unchanged.

(Additional reporting by Rachelle Younglai; Editing by Alistair Bell, Tim Dobbyn and Todd Eastham)

View the original article here

Republican senator with gay son now backs gay marriage

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman has reversed his longtime opposition to same-sex marriage after learning two years ago that his son is gay, Ohio newspapers reported on Friday.

Portman, who played a key role in Republican Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign, on Thursday told reporters from Ohio papers including the Cleveland Plain Dealer and Columbus Dispatch that his 21-year-old son Will informed the senator and his wife that he was gay in February 2011.

"It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that's of a dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have - to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years," the papers quoted Portman as saying in an interview in his office.

Portman's announcement comes about a week before the Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments in two cases related to gay marriage. One case is challenging the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

In a related case, the court will also hear arguments that question a California law, known as Proposition 8, banning gay marriage. The cases will be argued on March 26 and March 27.

Portman's son, now a junior at Yale University, told the senator that being gay was "not a choice," and that he had been gay "since he could remember," Portman told the papers.

He added that his views on the matter have evolved over the past two years, and he had consulted clergy members and friends including former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has an openly gay daughter.

A spokesman for Portman could not be immediately reached for comment.

Portman told the Plain Dealer he now believes same-sex couples who marry in states where it is legal should be eligible for the same federal benefits granted to heterosexual couples.

He does not, however, plan to sign onto any legal briefs in the Supreme Court cases.

Portman previously backed the Defense of Marriage Act that is now at the heart of the battle in the Supreme Court.

(Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Vicki Allen)

View the original article here