In Reversal, Florida to Take Health Law’s Medicaid Expansion

MIAMI — Gov. Rick Scott of Florida reversed himself on Wednesday and announced that he would expand his state’s Medicaid program to cover the poor, becoming the latest — and, perhaps, most prominent — Republican critic of President Obama’s health care law to decide to put it into effect.

It was an about-face for Mr. Scott, a former businessman who entered politics as a critic of Mr. Obama’s health care proposals. Florida was one of the states that sued to try to block the law. After the Supreme Court ruled last year that though the law was constitutional, states could choose not to expand their Medicaid programs to cover the poor, Mr. Scott said that Florida would not expand its programs.

Mr. Scott said Wednesday that he now supported a three-year expansion of Medicaid, through the period that the federal government has agreed to pay the full cost of the expansion, and before some of the costs are shifted to the states.

“While the federal government is committed to paying 100 percent of the cost, I cannot in good conscience deny Floridians that needed access to health care,” Mr. Scott said at a news conference. “We will support a three-year expansion of the Medicaid program under the new health care law as long as the federal government meets their commitment to pay 100 percent of the cost during that time.”

He said there were “no perfect options” when it came to the Medicaid expansion. “To be clear: our options are either having Floridians pay to fund this program in other states while denying health care to our citizens,” he said, “or using federal funding to help some of the poorest in our state with the Medicaid program as we explore other health care reforms.”

Mr. Scott said the state would not create its own insurance exchange to comply with another provision of the law.

His reversal sent ripples through the nation, especially given the change in tone and substance since the summer, when he said he would not create an exchange or expand Medicaid.

“Floridians are interested in jobs and economic growth, a quality education for their children, and keeping the cost of living low,” Mr. Scott said in a statement at the time. “Neither of these major provisions in Obamacare will achieve those goals, and since Florida is legally allowed to opt out, that’s the right decision for our citizens.”

Mr. Scott now joins the Republican governors of Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota and Ohio, who have decided to join the Medicaid expansion. Some, like Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona, were also staunch opponents of Mr. Obama’s overall health care law.

Shortly before his announcement, the governor received word from the federal government that it planned to grant Florida the final waiver needed to privatize Medicaid, a process the state initially undertook as a pilot project. Mr. Scott, who is running for re-election next year, has heavily lobbied for the waiver, arguing that Florida could not expand Medicaid without it.

Mr. Scott’s support of Medicaid expansion is significant, but is far from the last word. The program requires approval from Florida’s Republican-dominated Legislature, which has been averse to expanding Medicaid under the health care law. The Legislature’s two top Republican leaders said that before making a decision they would consider recommendations from a select committee, which has been asked to review the state’s options.

“The Florida Legislature will make the ultimate decision,” Will Weatherford, the state House speaker, said. “I am personally skeptical that this inflexible law will improve the quality of health care in our state and ensure our long-term financial stability.”

Medicaid, which covers three million people in Florida, costs the state $21 billion a year. The expansion would extend coverage to one million more people.

Mr. Scott’s reversal is sure to anger his original conservative supporters.

The governor “was elected because of his principled conservative leadership against Obamacare’s overreach,” said Slade O’Brien, state director for Americans for Prosperity, an influential conservative advocacy organization. “Hopefully our legislative leaders will not follow in Governor Scott’s footsteps, and will reject expansion.”

During his announcement on Wednesday, Mr. Scott said his mother’s recent death and her lifetime struggle to raise five children “with very little money” played a role in his decision.

“Losing someone so close to you puts everything in a new perspective, especially the big decisions,” he said.

Michael Cooper contributed reporting from New York.

Read More..

In Reversal, Florida to Take Health Law’s Medicaid Expansion

MIAMI — Gov. Rick Scott of Florida reversed himself on Wednesday and announced that he would expand his state’s Medicaid program to cover the poor, becoming the latest — and, perhaps, most prominent — Republican critic of President Obama’s health care law to decide to put it into effect.

It was an about-face for Mr. Scott, a former businessman who entered politics as a critic of Mr. Obama’s health care proposals. Florida was one of the states that sued to try to block the law. After the Supreme Court ruled last year that though the law was constitutional, states could choose not to expand their Medicaid programs to cover the poor, Mr. Scott said that Florida would not expand its programs.

Mr. Scott said Wednesday that he now supported a three-year expansion of Medicaid, through the period that the federal government has agreed to pay the full cost of the expansion, and before some of the costs are shifted to the states.

“While the federal government is committed to paying 100 percent of the cost, I cannot in good conscience deny Floridians that needed access to health care,” Mr. Scott said at a news conference. “We will support a three-year expansion of the Medicaid program under the new health care law as long as the federal government meets their commitment to pay 100 percent of the cost during that time.”

He said there were “no perfect options” when it came to the Medicaid expansion. “To be clear: our options are either having Floridians pay to fund this program in other states while denying health care to our citizens,” he said, “or using federal funding to help some of the poorest in our state with the Medicaid program as we explore other health care reforms.”

Mr. Scott said the state would not create its own insurance exchange to comply with another provision of the law.

His reversal sent ripples through the nation, especially given the change in tone and substance since the summer, when he said he would not create an exchange or expand Medicaid.

“Floridians are interested in jobs and economic growth, a quality education for their children, and keeping the cost of living low,” Mr. Scott said in a statement at the time. “Neither of these major provisions in Obamacare will achieve those goals, and since Florida is legally allowed to opt out, that’s the right decision for our citizens.”

Mr. Scott now joins the Republican governors of Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota and Ohio, who have decided to join the Medicaid expansion. Some, like Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona, were also staunch opponents of Mr. Obama’s overall health care law.

Shortly before his announcement, the governor received word from the federal government that it planned to grant Florida the final waiver needed to privatize Medicaid, a process the state initially undertook as a pilot project. Mr. Scott, who is running for re-election next year, has heavily lobbied for the waiver, arguing that Florida could not expand Medicaid without it.

Mr. Scott’s support of Medicaid expansion is significant, but is far from the last word. The program requires approval from Florida’s Republican-dominated Legislature, which has been averse to expanding Medicaid under the health care law. The Legislature’s two top Republican leaders said that before making a decision they would consider recommendations from a select committee, which has been asked to review the state’s options.

“The Florida Legislature will make the ultimate decision,” Will Weatherford, the state House speaker, said. “I am personally skeptical that this inflexible law will improve the quality of health care in our state and ensure our long-term financial stability.”

Medicaid, which covers three million people in Florida, costs the state $21 billion a year. The expansion would extend coverage to one million more people.

Mr. Scott’s reversal is sure to anger his original conservative supporters.

The governor “was elected because of his principled conservative leadership against Obamacare’s overreach,” said Slade O’Brien, state director for Americans for Prosperity, an influential conservative advocacy organization. “Hopefully our legislative leaders will not follow in Governor Scott’s footsteps, and will reject expansion.”

During his announcement on Wednesday, Mr. Scott said his mother’s recent death and her lifetime struggle to raise five children “with very little money” played a role in his decision.

“Losing someone so close to you puts everything in a new perspective, especially the big decisions,” he said.

Michael Cooper contributed reporting from New York.

Read More..

DealBook: Office Supply Rivals' Merger Leaked by a Wayward Report

8:56 p.m. | Updated

It was a paragraph buried on Page 4 of an earnings release, under the heading of “other matters.” Yet what those four sentences revealed sent bankers and lawyers who had been working all night on a deal scrambling early Wednesday morning.

The earnings release, from the office supplies chain Office Depot, appeared shortly after 7 a.m. and inadvertently disclosed the terms of a long-awaited merger between the company and OfficeMax. The announcement disappeared from the company’s Web site quickly, but not before a gaggle of news outlets began running full-fledged reports about the deal.

At that time, bankers and lawyers for the two companies were still negotiating the final language of the merger agreement. The mistaken early publication of the release — since blamed on the data provider Thomson Reuters — prompted Office Depot’s chief executive, Neil R. Austrian, to call up his counterpart at OfficeMax, Ravi K. Saligram, and apologize.

More than two hours later, the companies formally announced their combination.

The episode recalls other times that major company news was published prematurely. Last fall, Google’s third-quarter earnings were published three hours early; the technology giant blamed R. R. Donnelley & Sons, its filings agent, for the mistake.

The chief executives played down the inadvertent disclosure as a harmless mistake, since the announcement was scheduled before the markets opened anyway.

“When two big Fortune 500 companies merge, occasionally mishaps happen,” Mr. Saligram said in an interview.

And Thomson Reuters apologized in a statement, saying it regretted the error and would take steps to prevent such a mistake from happening again.

But people involved in the deal privately bemoaned the unexpectedly bumpy ride, which knocked off kilter a carefully choreographed announcement meant to emphasize what they called a transformative merger of equals.

The union will combine two of the big retailers of staples and notepads, a major effort to combat years of losing sales to bigger, nimbler rivals. Both chief executives said that combining their companies could yield $400 million to $600 million in cost savings. It will probably lead to significant job cuts, as the companies seek to shrink their combined footprint of over 2,500 stores.

Both companies disclosed big drops in their sales for the fourth quarter on Wednesday: Office Depot’s revenue slipped 12 percent from the year-ago period, to $2.6 billion, while OfficeMax’s fell 7.4 percent, to $1.7 billion.

And both have also been under pressure from investors. Office Depot is fending off Starboard Value, an activist hedge fund that holds a 14.8 percent stake and has called for a major change in strategy. And OfficeMax has contended with Neuberger Berman, an investor with a 5 percent stake that has called for bigger payouts to shareholders.

“The whole industry and every analyst thought this made sense,” Mr. Austrian said in an interview. “The timing was right at this point in time.”

Shares of Office Depot fell 16.7 percent on Wednesday, to $4.18, while those of OfficeMax slid 7 percent, to $12.09. The decline wiped out some of the gains both stocks enjoyed after word of the deal talks emerged on Monday.

Negotiations have been held in earnest since at least last summer, people briefed on the matter said.

One important negotiating point that was resolved early on was ensuring that the deal could be presented as a “merger of equals.” Though Office Depot is paying a premium for OfficeMax — it is issuing 2.69 new shares for each share of the target, valuing the smaller retailer at about $1.2 billion as of Tuesday’s closing prices — neither company’s chief has a lock as the leader of the combined company.

Indeed, both Mr. Austrian and Mr. Saligram will remain in place while board members from each company run a search for a new chief executive, which could be either man. Also undecided: the new company’s name and whether it will have its headquarters in Office Depot’s home of Boca Raton, Fla., or OfficeMax’s base in Naperville, Ill.

People involved in the deal said that the compromise, which took about two months to complete, was important in bringing both companies to the negotiating table.

“We both put our egos aside,” Mr. Austrian of Office Depot said. “It’s not a win for one side and a loss for another.”

Both Office Depot and OfficeMax also wanted to emphasize that they would remain competitors until the deal was approved by shareholders and antitrust regulators. That is a nod to the collapse of a proposed merger of Office Depot and Staples more than a decade ago, which was blocked on anticompetitive grounds and left Office Depot reeling for years.

Mr. Saligram of OfficeMax argued on a call with analysts that the regulatory environment has shifted since. Both companies have lost ground not only to Staples, but also to online outlets like Amazon.com and bulk retailers like Target and Wal-Mart Stores.

“This industry has completely changed,” he said.

Should the deal fall apart because of antitrust concerns, neither company will be liable for a termination fee, executives said on the analyst call.

Company executives and advisers also spent significant amounts of time negotiating with BC Partners, an investment firm that owns the equivalent of 22 percent of Office Depot’s stock. Under the terms of Wednesday’s deal, BC Partners will own no more than 5 percent of the combined company’s voting shares and will have no representatives on its board.

Read More..

Gadgetwise Blog: Q&A: Locking Caps on an iPhone

While I have no desire to SHOUT MY WAY through text messages, I do have to use ALL UPPERCASE sometimes and would like to have CAPS LOCK available on my iPhone. Do I have ANY HOPE?

While the phone’s software keyboard has no dedicated Caps Lock key, quickly tapping the Shift key twice turns on the Caps Lock function. The Shift key turns blue when in Caps Lock mode. To turn off the Caps Lock mode, tap the Shift key again.

The iPhone keyboard has a few other shortcuts to make typing in such a small area more efficient. For example, instead of tapping the .?123 key in the bottom-left corner to switch over to the section of the keyboard that holds the numbers and punctuation keys (and then having to tap the corner key again to switch back to the ABC keyboard), just press the .?123 key down and slide your finger to the number or punctuation mark you need. Once you slide over and select the character, you can resume typing without having to tap back and forth between the different keyboards.

Pressing and holding keys for vowels (and other letters) that use accent marks reveals a pop-up list of accented characters to choose from, like é or ü. When you tap the space bar twice at the end of a sentence, the iPhone inserts a period and capitalizes the next letter you type to begin a new sentence. Apple’s site has an illustrated page of other tips and tricks for the iPhone 5.

Read More..

The New Old Age Blog: The Reluctant Caregiver

Now and then, I refer to the people that caregivers tend to as “loved ones.” And whenever I do, a woman in Southern California tells me, I set her teeth on edge.

She visits her mother-in-law, runs errands, helps with the paperwork — all tasks she has shouldered with a grim sense of duty.  She doesn’t have much affection for this increasingly frail 90something or enjoy her company; her efforts bring no emotional reward. Her husband, an only child, feels nearly as detached. His mother wasn’t abusive, a completely different scenario, but they were never very close.

Ms. A., as I’ll call her because her mother-in-law reads The Times on her computer, feels miserable about this. “She says she appreciates us, she’s counting on us. She thanks us,” Ms. A. said of her non-loved one. “It makes me feel worse, because I feel guilty.”

She has performed many services for her mother-in-law, who lives in a retirement community, “but I really didn’t want to. I know how grudging it was.”

Call her the Reluctant Caregiver. She and her husband didn’t invite his parents to follow them to the small city where they settled to take jobs. The elders did anyway, and as long as they stayed healthy and active, both couples maintained their own lives. Now that her mother-in-law is widowed and needy, Ms. A feels trapped.

Ashamed, too. She knows lots of adult children work much harder at caregiving yet see it as a privilege. For her, it is mere drudgery. “I don’t feel there’s anybody I can say that to,” she told me — except a friend in Phoenix and, anonymously, to us.

The friend, therapist Randy Weiss, has served as both a reluctant caregiver to her mother, who died very recently at 86, and a willing caregiver to her childless aunt, living in an assisted living dementia unit at 82. Spending time with each of them made Ms. Weiss conscious of the distinction.

Her visits involved many of the same activities, “but it feels very different,” she said. “I feel the appreciation from my aunt, even if she’s much less able to verbalize it.” A cherished confidante since adolescence, her aunt breaks into smiles when Ms. Weiss arrives and exclaims over every small gift, even a doughnut. She worked in the music industry for decades and, despite her memory loss, happily sings along with the jazz CDs Ms. Weiss brings.

Because she had no such connection with her mother, whom Ms. Weiss described as distant and critical, “it’s harder to do what I have to do,” she said. (We spoke before her mother’s death.) “One is an obligation I fulfill out of duty. One is done with love.”

Unlike her friend Ms. A, “I don’t feel guilty that I don’t feel warmly towards my mother,” Ms. Weiss said. “I’ve made my peace.”

Let’s acknowledge that at times almost every caregiver knows exhaustion, anger and resentment.  But to me, reluctant caregivers probably deserve more credit than most. They are not getting any of the good stuff back, no warmth or laughter, little tenderness, sometimes not even gratitude.

Yet they are doing this tough work anyway, usually because no one else can or will. Maybe an early death or a divorce means that the person who would ordinarily have provided care can’t. Or maybe the reluctant caregiver is simply the one who can’t walk away.

“It’s important to acknowledge that every relationship doesn’t come from ‘The Cosby Show,’” said Barbara Moscowitz when I called to ask her about reluctance. Ms. Moscowitz, a senior geriatric social worker at Massachusetts General Hospital, has heard many such tales from caregivers in her clinical practice and support groups.

“We need to allow people to be reluctant,” she said. “It means they’re dutiful; they’re responsible. Those are admirable qualities.”

Yet, she recognizes, “they feel oppressed by the platitudes. ‘Your mother is so lucky to have you!’” Such praise just makes people like Ms. A. squirm.

Ms. Moscowitz also worries about reluctant caregivers, and urges them to find support groups where they can say the supposedly unsay-able, and to sign up early for community services — hotlines, senior centers, day programs, meals on wheels — that can help lighten the load.

“Caregiving only goes one way – it gets harder, more complex,” she said. “Support groups and community resources are like having a first aid kit. It’s going to feel like even more of a burden, and you need to be armed.”

I wonder, too, if reluctant caregivers have a romanticized view of what the task is like for everyone else. Elder care can be a wonderful experience, satisfying and meaningful, but guilt and resentment are also standard parts of the job description, at least occasionally.

For a reluctant caregiver, “the satisfaction is, you haven’t turned your back,” Ms. Moscowitz said. “You can take pride in that.”

---

Paula Span is the author of “When the Time Comes: Families With Aging Parents Share Their Struggles and Solutions.”

Read More..

The New Old Age Blog: The Reluctant Caregiver

Now and then, I refer to the people that caregivers tend to as “loved ones.” And whenever I do, a woman in Southern California tells me, I set her teeth on edge.

She visits her mother-in-law, runs errands, helps with the paperwork — all tasks she has shouldered with a grim sense of duty.  She doesn’t have much affection for this increasingly frail 90something or enjoy her company; her efforts bring no emotional reward. Her husband, an only child, feels nearly as detached. His mother wasn’t abusive, a completely different scenario, but they were never very close.

Ms. A., as I’ll call her because her mother-in-law reads The Times on her computer, feels miserable about this. “She says she appreciates us, she’s counting on us. She thanks us,” Ms. A. said of her non-loved one. “It makes me feel worse, because I feel guilty.”

She has performed many services for her mother-in-law, who lives in a retirement community, “but I really didn’t want to. I know how grudging it was.”

Call her the Reluctant Caregiver. She and her husband didn’t invite his parents to follow them to the small city where they settled to take jobs. The elders did anyway, and as long as they stayed healthy and active, both couples maintained their own lives. Now that her mother-in-law is widowed and needy, Ms. A feels trapped.

Ashamed, too. She knows lots of adult children work much harder at caregiving yet see it as a privilege. For her, it is mere drudgery. “I don’t feel there’s anybody I can say that to,” she told me — except a friend in Phoenix and, anonymously, to us.

The friend, therapist Randy Weiss, has served as both a reluctant caregiver to her mother, who died very recently at 86, and a willing caregiver to her childless aunt, living in an assisted living dementia unit at 82. Spending time with each of them made Ms. Weiss conscious of the distinction.

Her visits involved many of the same activities, “but it feels very different,” she said. “I feel the appreciation from my aunt, even if she’s much less able to verbalize it.” A cherished confidante since adolescence, her aunt breaks into smiles when Ms. Weiss arrives and exclaims over every small gift, even a doughnut. She worked in the music industry for decades and, despite her memory loss, happily sings along with the jazz CDs Ms. Weiss brings.

Because she had no such connection with her mother, whom Ms. Weiss described as distant and critical, “it’s harder to do what I have to do,” she said. (We spoke before her mother’s death.) “One is an obligation I fulfill out of duty. One is done with love.”

Unlike her friend Ms. A, “I don’t feel guilty that I don’t feel warmly towards my mother,” Ms. Weiss said. “I’ve made my peace.”

Let’s acknowledge that at times almost every caregiver knows exhaustion, anger and resentment.  But to me, reluctant caregivers probably deserve more credit than most. They are not getting any of the good stuff back, no warmth or laughter, little tenderness, sometimes not even gratitude.

Yet they are doing this tough work anyway, usually because no one else can or will. Maybe an early death or a divorce means that the person who would ordinarily have provided care can’t. Or maybe the reluctant caregiver is simply the one who can’t walk away.

“It’s important to acknowledge that every relationship doesn’t come from ‘The Cosby Show,’” said Barbara Moscowitz when I called to ask her about reluctance. Ms. Moscowitz, a senior geriatric social worker at Massachusetts General Hospital, has heard many such tales from caregivers in her clinical practice and support groups.

“We need to allow people to be reluctant,” she said. “It means they’re dutiful; they’re responsible. Those are admirable qualities.”

Yet, she recognizes, “they feel oppressed by the platitudes. ‘Your mother is so lucky to have you!’” Such praise just makes people like Ms. A. squirm.

Ms. Moscowitz also worries about reluctant caregivers, and urges them to find support groups where they can say the supposedly unsay-able, and to sign up early for community services — hotlines, senior centers, day programs, meals on wheels — that can help lighten the load.

“Caregiving only goes one way – it gets harder, more complex,” she said. “Support groups and community resources are like having a first aid kit. It’s going to feel like even more of a burden, and you need to be armed.”

I wonder, too, if reluctant caregivers have a romanticized view of what the task is like for everyone else. Elder care can be a wonderful experience, satisfying and meaningful, but guilt and resentment are also standard parts of the job description, at least occasionally.

For a reluctant caregiver, “the satisfaction is, you haven’t turned your back,” Ms. Moscowitz said. “You can take pride in that.”

---

Paula Span is the author of “When the Time Comes: Families With Aging Parents Share Their Struggles and Solutions.”

Read More..

DealBook: Court Gives Investor an Edge in a Lawsuit Against Apple

7:47 p.m. | Updated

In the battle between Apple and the hedge fund manager David Einhorn, score a point for the billionaire who is taking up the mantle of shareholder advocate.

A federal judge said on Tuesday that he was leaning toward Mr. Einhorn’s contention that Apple had violated securities regulations by bundling several shareholder proposals into one matter.

A lawsuit by Mr. Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital, filed this month in Federal District Court in Manhattan, argues that Apple improperly grouped a vote to eliminate the company’s ability to issue preferred stock at will with other initiatives that Mr. Einhorn supports.

While the judge overseeing the case, Richard J. Sullivan, did not immediately grant Mr. Einhorn’s request for a halt to the vote, he said that the facts of the case favored the investor’s interpretation.

“I think success on the merits lies with Greenlight,” Judge Sullivan said at the end of a nearly two-hour hearing. Earlier in the hearing, he implied that he believed Securities and Exchange Commission rules prohibited the bundling of disparate shareholder initiatives.

Spokesmen for Greenlight and Apple declined to comment after the hearing.

Though a small point in the skirmish between Apple and Mr. Einhorn, the judge’s comments may provide some ballast to the hedge fund manager’s call to other investors. Mr. Einhorn’s bigger goal is to persuade Apple to return some of its $137 billion cash trove to shareholders.

He has asked Apple to issue preferred shares, which would pay out billions of dollars in dividends over time. His lawsuit revolves around the technology giant’s proposal to eliminate “blank check” preferred shares that the company can issue without a shareholder vote. He argues that the company improperly bundled the plan with two other corporate governance changes that he supports.

Apple has said that it will consider Mr. Einhorn’s request, but that it has no plans to amend the shareholder proposal.

Judge Sullivan is expected to decide within days whether to grant a preliminary injunction, given the Feb. 27 cutoff for voting on Apple’s shareholder proposals.

A lawyer for Mr. Einhorn, Mitchell P. Hurley of the firm Akin Gump, argued during Tuesday’s hearing that his client would suffer “irreparable harm” if the vote were allowed to proceed, because he would be forced to vote against two matters he would ordinarily support.

During questioning, however, Judge Sullivan expressed skepticism about the need to take immediate action.

A lawyer for Apple, George Riley of O’Melveny & Myers, said in court that if shareholders approved the disputed initiative, the company would wait for the judge to rule before adopting the new measures in its corporate charter.

Judge Sullivan also questioned why Mr. Einhorn had waited so long to act. He filed suit on Feb. 6, over a month after Apple first disclosed its shareholder proxy.

A version of this article appeared in print on 02/20/2013, on page B2 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Court Gives Investor an Edge In a Lawsuit Against Apple.

Read More..

Pistorius Denies Murder in Killing of Girlfriend

PRETORIA, South Africa — Facing a charge of premeditated murder following the killing of his girlfriend, Oscar Pistorius, the double amputee track star and one of the world’s best-known athletes, flatly denied on Tuesday that he intended to take her life when he opened fire at a closed bathroom door at his home last week.

“I fail to understand how I could be charged with murder, let alone premeditated, ” he said in an affidavit read to a packed courtroom, “I had no intention to kill my girlfriend.”

His assertion contradicted an earlier accusation from prosecutor Gerrie Nel that Mr. Pistorius committed premeditated murder when he rose from his bed, pulled on prosthetic legs, walked more than 20 feet from a bedroom and pumped four bullets into the door, three of which struck Reeva Steenkamp, Mr. Pistorius’s girlfriend, on the other side.

It was the first time that either the prosecution or Mr. Pistorius, appearing at a bail hearing, had publicly provided details of their version of events. The case — one of the most sensational in recent times — stunned South Africa last Thursday when the police arrived at Mr. Pistorius’s house in a gated community in Pretoria to find Ms. Steenkamp dead from gunshot wounds.

“We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way,” Mr. Pistorius’s affidavit said. As it was read out, the athlete wept so uncontrollably that magistrate Desmond Nair ordered a brief recess to permit him to regain his composure.

Mr. Pistorius said he heard a noise from the bathroom and walked on his stumps, not prosthetic legs. He was nervous, he said, because the toilet window did not have burglar bars and contractors who had been working there had left ladders.

The room was dark, he said, and he did not realize that Ms. Steenkamp was not in bed. He felt vulnerable and fearful without his prosthetics and opened fire at the door, he said, then broke it down with a cricket back to discover Ms. Steenkamp.

He carried her downstairs, he said, and “she died in my arms.”

Earlier, Mr. Nair, the magistrate, had said he could not exclude premeditation in the killing so Mr. Pistorius’s bail application would be much more difficult. But he said he would consider downgrading the charges depending on evidence at subsequent hearings.

Prosecutor Nel said Ms. Steenkamp, a model and law graduate who had just made her debut in a reality television show, had been in a tiny room measuring less than 20 square feet when the shots rang out. “She could not go anywhere,” he said. “It must have been horrific.”

“She locked the door for a purpose. We will get to that purpose,” he said. She was struck by three of the four rounds, he said.

But a lawyer acting for Mr. Pistorius, Barry Roux, said the defense would “submit that this is not a murder.” He said there was no evidence that Mr. Pistorius, 26, and Ms. Steenkamp, 29, had fought and there was no evidence of a motive. He also challenged the prosecution to produce a witness to corroborate its version of Mr. Pistorius’s actions.

“Scratch the veneer” of the prosecution case, he said, and there was no evidence to support it.

“All we really know is she locked herself behind the toilet door and she was shot,” Mr. Roux said.

Mr. Nel, the prosecutor, however, declared: “If I arm myself, walk a distance and murder a person, that is premeditated,” he said. “The door is closed. There is no doubt. I walk seven meters and I kill.”

He added “The motive is ‘I want to kill.’ That’s it.”

If convicted of premeditated murder, Mr. Pistorius would face a mandatory life sentence, though under South African law he would be eligible for parole in 25 years at the latest. South Africa abolished the death penalty in 1995.

Mr. Pistorius was appearing for the second time since Friday. He arrived in court looking grim-faced, his jaw set. But, as during his earlier appearance, he broke down in tears when the prosecutor said that he had “killed an innocent woman.”

As the court went into a midday recess, Ms. Steenkamp’s private funeral service began in the southern coastal city of Port Elizabeth, her hometown, with six pallbearers carrying a coffin swathed in a white cloth and white flowers as mourners expressed emotions from dismay to rage. More than 100 relatives and friends attended the funeral at the Victoria Park crematorium.

“Why? Why my little girl? Why did this happen? Why did he do this?” June Steenkamp, the victim’s mother, said in a published interview in The Times of Johannesburg.

Gavin Venter, a former jockey who worked for the victim’s father, a horse trainer, said on Tuesday, “She was an angel. She was so soft, so innocent. Such a lovely person. It’s just sad that this could happen to somebody so good.”

“I’m disgusted with what he did. He must be dealt with harshly,” he added, according to news reports.

The affair has stunned a nation that had elevated Mr. Pistorius as an emblem of the ability to overcome acute adversity and a symbol of South Africa’s ability to project its achievements onto the world stage.

During his first court appearance on Friday, Mr. Pistorius did not enter a formal plea. But a statement released by his agent said that he disputed the charge of premeditated murder “in the strongest terms” and that “our thoughts and prayers today should be” for Ms. Steenkamp, and her family, “regardless of the circumstances of this terrible, terrible tragedy.”

Mr. Pistorius was born without fibula bones and both of his legs were amputated below the knee as an infant. But he became a Paralympic champion and became the first Paralympic sprinter to compete against able-bodied athletes at the 2012 London Olympics.

His triumphs made him a global track star. Several companies have withdrawn lucrative sponsorships and his case has played into an emotional debate in South Africa about violence against women.

Members of the Women’s League of the ruling African National Congress protested outside the building, waving placards saying: “No Bail for Pistorius,” Reuters reported.

Lydia Polgreen reported from Pretoria, South Africa, and Alan Cowell from London.

Read More..

Gadgetwise Blog: Q&A: Controlling Access to a Kindle Fire HD

Is there any way to keep my kid from roaming around through the videos on my Kindle Fire HD tablet?

Amazon’s Kindle Fire tablets include built-in parental controls for restricting access to specific apps, functions and content on the device. On the Kindle Fire HD, swipe your finger down on the screen to get to the settings area and tap More. Tap Parental Controls and then tap the On button. Select a password (one that will be needed to unlock the restrictions), and tap the Finish button. Select the apps and actions you want to block, like the Web browser, e-mail, video playback or the power to make purchases. Amazon has more information on parental controls here.

The newer Kindle Fire HD models also include Kindle FreeTime, an app that lets you select videos, apps and other specific content the child can view on the tablet. Instructions for setting up a child’s FreeTime profile are on Amazon’s site as well.

Read More..

National Briefing | South: Abortion Curbs Clear Senate in Arkansas

The State Senate voted 25 to 7 on Monday to ban most abortions 20 weeks into a pregnancy. The measure goes back to the House to consider an amendment that added exceptions for rape and incest. The legislation is based on the belief that fetuses can feel pain 20 weeks into a pregnancy, and is similar to bans in several other states. Opponents say it would require mothers to deliver babies with fatal conditions. Gov. Mike Beebe has said he has constitutional concerns about the proposal but has not said whether he will veto it.

Read More..