said in a Twitter post after the visit, adding, “This cruelty is not who we are.”

View Source

>>> Don’t Miss Today’s BEST Amazon Deals! <<<<

Tesla’s Bitcoin Bet Pays Off

— Brian Wieser, president of business intelligence at GroupM, on the leverage that Apple has over Facebook. Apple’s Tim Cook and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg have increasingly been at odds, most recently over a new privacy feature Apple launched this week that gives users more control over how apps (like Facebook’s) can track them.


Amid the recent cryptocurrency frenzy, many people wonder whether it’s time to buy Bitcoin or mint an NFT and whether it’s too late to get rich quick. The Ethiopian government is also getting into blockchain in a big way — but it’s thinking longer term. Today, along with the software company IOHK, it launched the world’s biggest blockchain deployment to date, the partners say, involving five million students.

“We believe blockchain offers a key opportunity to end digital exclusion and widen access to higher education and employment,” Getahun Mekuria, Ethiopia’s education minister, said in a statement about the project hosted on the IOHK-backed, open-source Cardano platform. The project, which DealBook is first to report, will give students tools, identifications and access to a unified records system that allows rural and indigent young people to have the same system as others.

What’s Cardano? Charles Hoskinson, IOHK’s co-founder, is among the founders of Ethereum, the second-most valuable cryptocurrency after Bitcoin. He left in 2014 with a mission to bolster crypto’s intellectual underpinnings and advance blockchain’s reach around the world, emphasizing things like security and governance. IOHK does work for institutions, backs academic research on blockchain and supports the Cardano platform, the issuer of the sixth-most valuable cryptocurrency, ADA. Cardano’s critics say the platform’s valuation is mystifying because development has been sluggish. Hoskinson described his approach to DealBook by citing the axiom “To go fast, go slow.”


Basecamp, a company that makes productivity software, said yesterday that it had “made some internal changes,” including a ban on talking about politics at work. “Every discussion remotely related to politics, advocacy or society at large quickly spins away from pleasant,” Jason Fried, Basecamp’s C.E.O., wrote in a blog post. “You shouldn’t have to wonder if staying out of it means you’re complicit, or wading into it means you’re a target.”

View Source

Supreme Court to Rule on Whether C.I.A. Black Sites Are State Secrets

The defense lawyers want that information to seek the testimony of eyewitnesses to bolster their argument that the United States has lost the moral authority to execute prisoners who have been tortured.

Mr. Zubaydah, a Palestinian man whose real name is Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, was captured in Pakistan in March 2002 and was initially thought be a high-level member of Al Qaeda. A 2014 report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said “the C.I.A. later concluded that Abu Zubaydah was not a member of Al Qaeda.”

The Bush administration transferred Mr. Zubaydah, who is 50, to the Pentagon’s wartime prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in September 2006, after more than four years in C.I.A. custody. He is held as a “law of war detainee,” whom interagency review boards have deemed too dangerous to release. He was granted access to a lawyer for the first time in his sixth year of U.S. confinement, but unlike the defendants in the Sept. 11 case, he has never been charged with a crime.

It is undisputed that Mr. Zubaydah was subjected to brutal interrogations at one or more black sites.

“On 83 different occasions in a single month of 2002, he was strapped to an inclined board with his head lower than his feet while C.I.A. contractors poured water up his nose and down his throat, bringing him within sight of death,” Mr. Zubaydah’s lawyers told the justices. “He was handcuffed and repeatedly slammed into walls, and suspended naked from hooks in the ceiling for hours at a time.”

“He was forced to remain awake for 11 consecutive days, and doused again and again with cold water when he collapsed into sleep,” they wrote. “He was forced into a tall, narrow box the size of a coffin, and crammed into another box that would nearly fit under a chair, where he was left for hours. He was subjected to a particularly grotesque humiliation described by the C.I.A. as ‘rectal rehydration.’”

Mr. Zubaydah has sketched graphic self-portraits of the techniques while at Guantánamo.

Dr. Mitchell testified last year in a court hearing at Guantánamo that in August 2002, he and Dr. Jessen concluded that Mr. Zubaydah was cooperating with his interrogators and that they no longer needed to waterboard him to force his cooperation. He said that C.I.A. headquarters insisted that they continue.

View Source

The Israel Prize Is Meant to Unify. More Often, It’s Mired in Controversy.

Michael Sfard, an Israeli human rights lawyer who represents Professor Goldreich, said that even if his client did support B.D.S., such support should not disqualify him from receiving the Israel Prize.

“Now, to prove that someone called for a boycott, you need to scrutinize his writings and signatures, driving us straight toward a McCarthyist process,” Mr. Sfard said, referring to the 1940s and 1950s in the United States, when leftists were regularly accused of subversion and treason. “This is an attempt to exclude a whole political camp in Israel.”

Professor Goldreich missed this year’s ceremony, which was recorded on Sunday for broadcast on Thursday. The judges said that should he be approved, he could receive the award at next year’s ceremony, if not before.

Mr. Gallant, the education minister, appeared emboldened by the court decision.

“Prof. Goldreich may be a brilliant scientist, but his support for the boycott movement and his call to boycott Ariel University is a spit in the face of the state of Israel and of Israeli academia and is possibly even a violation of the law,” he wrote on Twitter. He added that he would use the time to investigate whether the professor’s “current renunciation” of the boycott movement was genuine.

Mr. Gallant’s staff declined requests for comment.

“I view this (unlawful) behavior of the minister as a small step in the process of pushing the left in Israel outside the limits of legitimacy, a process that has been going on for decades now and has been intensified in the last years,” Professor Goldreich said in an emailed comment. “I am happy to play a role in the struggle to block this delegitimization process and the attempt to reverse it.”

The professor’s colleagues and supporters held an alternative award ceremony for him at Weizmann Institute this week, where he referred to the award as the “Likud Prize.”

“I think that the Likud and the state of Israel are two different things,” he said.

The Weizmann Institute took out ads in the Hebrew newspapers on Wednesday congratulating Professor Goldreich and saying that, as far as they were concerned, he had won the prize.

View Source

F.D.A. Will Allow Abortion Pills by Mail During the Pandemic

The Biden administration has decided to allow women to receive abortion pills by mail for the duration of the coronavirus pandemic, the latest development in an issue that has increasingly taken center stage in the American abortion debate.

In a letter sent Monday to two leading organizations representing reproductive health physicians, the acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration said that the agency would temporarily stop enforcing its requirement that the first of two drugs needed to terminate an early pregnancy be dispensed in a medical clinic.

The new policy counters a Supreme Court decision in January that sided with the Trump administration, which had appealed a federal judge’s decision last July to suspend the requirement. The judge had argued that the requirement put women at risk during the pandemic because they would need to visit clinics in person and often travel significant distances to do so.

Abortion through medication, first approved by the F.D.A. in 2000, is increasingly becoming women’s preferred method for terminating a pregnancy. As of 2017, research estimated that about 60 percent of abortion patients early enough in pregnancy to be eligible — 10 weeks pregnant or less — chose medication abortion over suction or surgery.

dispensed in clinics or hospitals by specially certified doctors or other medical providers. For years, reproductive health experts have urged that the requirement be lifted on the grounds that there are no significant safety reasons for in-person dispensing of a pill that women are then legally allowed to take on their own in any location, and that the restriction places the greatest burden on low-income women and those in areas with limited access to abortion providers.

For several years, with the F.D.A.’s permission, researchers have been conducting a study that provides telemedicine consultations to women seeking abortions and mails them the pills. Their research has found the approach to be safe and effective.

Additional data was collected in recent months from the experiences of women during the pandemic who received abortion pills by mail after the judge lifted the restriction and before the Supreme Court reinstated it.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, the acting F.D.A. commissioner, wrote in her letter to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine that studies of the pandemic experience “do not appear to show increases in serious safety concerns,” like bleeding, ectopic pregnancy or the need for surgical interventions “occurring with medical abortion as a result of modifying the in-person dispensing requirement during the Covid-19 pandemic.”

Groups that oppose abortion objected to the decision. Jeanne Mancini, president of March for Life, said in a statement that allowing appointments for medication abortion via telemedicine posed “grave danger” to women’s safety, adding “chemical abortions should have more medical oversight not less.”

letter in March to President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris asking for the F.D.A. to lift the restrictions during the pandemic, welcomed the decision.

“Mifepristone itself has demonstrated, through both clinical study and decades of use, to be a safe, effective medication,” the president and chief executive of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement. “Requiring the medicine to be dispensed in person, then taken elsewhere at the patients’ discretion, is arbitrary and does nothing to bolster the safety of an already-safe medicine.”

View Source

Supreme Court Arguments May Be Turning Point for N.C.A.A.

“It would be easy for schools to label such internships ‘related to education,’ even if a star athlete was given, say, a six-month ‘internship’ at a sneaker company or auto dealership that paid $500,000,” a brief filed in February said. “But fans, student-athletes and everyone else would recognize the reality: that student-athletes were being paid large sums in cash for their athletic play — with the ‘internships’ a thinly disguised vehicle for funneling them quintessentially professional salaries.”

The Supreme Court last considered how antitrust laws applied to the association in 1984, ruling that its restrictions on television coverage of college football games were unlawful. But the decision, National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, included an influential passage on student-athletes.

“The N.C.A.A. plays a critical role in the maintenance of a revered tradition of amateurism in college sports,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. “There can be no question but that it needs ample latitude to play that role, or that the preservation of the student-athlete in higher education adds richness and diversity to intercollegiate athletics and is entirely consistent with the goals of” the antitrust laws.

The Biden administration filed a brief supporting the athletes in the new case, National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, No. 20-512, saying that the Ninth Circuit had struck the right balance.

“Promoting amateurism widens consumer choice, and thereby enhances competition, by maintaining a distinction between college and professional athletics,” the brief said. But “some of the challenged rules did not actually foster consumer demand.”

Besides the coronavirus pandemic, no issue has recently demanded more of the N.C.A.A.’s attention than the rights of student-athletes, especially whether they should be able to profit from their fame. College sports executives have long feared that loosening age-old rules would effectively professionalize students and open a different array of challenges, but they have faced mounting pressure over the past few years from Congress and many of the nation’s statehouses. Most crucially, a Florida law that directly challenges the N.C.A.A.’s policies is scheduled to take effect this summer, and California legislators are considering a proposal to speed up a similar measure there.

Although the N.C.A.A. has vowed to rewrite its rules, it delayed final approval over the winter after the Trump administration’s Justice Department raised misgivings. And Congress has not rushed to give the association the kind of political and legal cover it craves.

View Source

Ford Can Be Sued in States Where Accidents Occurred, Supreme Court Rules

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday made it easier for consumers injured by products to sue their manufacturers, unanimously ruling that courts have jurisdiction over lawsuits filed in the consumers’ home states notwithstanding that the products were made and sold elsewhere so long as the manufacturers did substantial business in the states.

The case arose from two car accidents involving vehicles made by Ford Motor Company. In one, Markkaya Gullett was driving her 1996 Explorer near her Montana home when the tread separated from a tire. The vehicle spun into a ditch and flipped over, and Ms. Gullett died at the scene. Her estate sued Ford in state court in Montana.

In the other, Adam Bandemer was a passenger in a 1994 Crown Victoria, on his way to do some ice-fishing in Minnesota, when the driver rear-ended a snowplow. The passenger-side airbag failed, and Mr. Bandemer sustained serious brain damage. He sued in state court in Minnesota.

Ford argued that the courts lacked jurisdiction because the company did not have a relevant connection to those states. It had designed the vehicles in Michigan; it had manufactured the Explorer in Kentucky and sold it in Washington State; and it had manufactured the Crown Victoria in Canada and sold it in North Dakota. (The cars ended up in Montana and Minnesota after they were resold.)

quoting an earlier decision. “Their residents, while riding in vehicles purchased within their borders, were killed or injured in accidents on their roads. Can anyone seriously argue that requiring Ford to litigate these cases in Minnesota and Montana would be fundamentally unfair?”

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, also filed a concurring opinion in the case, Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, No. 19-368, saying the court’s jurisprudence in this area was muddled and out of step with the modern reality of “corporations with global reach.”

View Source