Latest News
See the latest news and get GPT analysis of articles
Taraji P. Henson made Project 2025 the talk of the BET Awards 2024-07-01 18:52:03+00:00 - Project 2025, the draconian plan supported by conservative groups to dismantle the government if Donald Trump is elected in November, was the talk of the Black Entertainment Television Awards on Sunday. The plan, which includes everything from rolling back civil rights legislation to restricting contraception and abortion access, would effectively place the United States under authoritarian Christian nationalist rule and purge people from the government if they’re seen as disloyal to Trump. And despite all its horrors, recent reports suggest many people still don’t know about the plan. So it was noteworthy that Project 2025 and its role in the conservative movement’s plans to unravel civil rights protections received ample attention Sunday. Host Taraji P. Henson made multiple references to it. One came at the show's end when she encouraged viewers to research it, and another came during a midshow public service announcement. She said: Show up and show out when it’s time to vote, because it’s not just about the presidential election, you guys. It’s time for us to play chess, not checkers. It’s about making decisions that will affect us as human beings. Our careers, our next generations to come. Did you know that it is now a crime to be homeless? Pay attention. It’s not a secret: Look it up. They are attacking our most vulnerable citizens. The Project 2025 plan is not a game. Look it up! Henson went on to reference Project 2025's proposals to require mandatory national service, which could include compulsory military service and has many people concerned about the reinstitution of the draft. She also talked about the potential for the next president to seat three Supreme Court justices. "We need those seats, or we have no protection," she warned. During the show, she appeared in an ad with Vice President Kamala Harris, in which the two Howard University alums discussed the election and the civil rights at stake. The ad didn't explicitly mention Project 2025, but it did address the democratic principles — like bodily autonomy and voting rights — threatened by it. These kinds of messages struck me as significant. I’ve written at length about celebrities and pop culture figures using their platforms to promote Trump and his fascistic MAGA movement. It was promising to see the BET Awards effectively used to do the opposite — at least when Henson was onstage. Henson's messaging — and more like it — may go a long way in closing the existing information gap for many voters and Project 2025. Her words rang especially true Monday, when the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Trump's federal election interference case deeming presidents partially immune from prosecution over a wide range of actions. If Trump is elected and Project 2025 is put into action under these terms, Americans will all be living under an imperial presidency — authoritarian rule with no guaranteed end.
Supreme Court's immunity ruling will delay Trump's Jan. 6 case until after the election 2024-07-01 18:47:00+00:00 - WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision will further delay former President Donald Trump's Washington criminal case related to his efforts to stop the transfer of power in the lead-up to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, virtually guaranteeing that Trump's trial won't start before Election Day. Instead, the high court's ruling sets the stage for hearings before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on what allegations in special counsel Jack Smith's indictment should be considered official acts and, therefore, potentially immune from prosecution. Her ultimate decisions could then be subjected to further appeal, meaning that a Trump trial is unlikely to happen until well into 2025. If Trump wins in November, a trial is unlikely to happen at all. The conservative majority ruled in a 6-3 opinion that Trump is entitled to absolute immunity for core presidential functions and "at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution" for acts "within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility." He is not entitled to any immunity for unofficial acts, the court said, but the burden is on the government to rebut Trump’s presumption of immunity when there's a close call on those outer perimeters. The court’s three liberal justices said the conservative majority’s decision “will have disastrous consequences“ for the United States. The majority decision said that Chutkan must decide whether the indictment could be supported after removing allegations for which Trump can’t be charged, like his dealings with the Justice Department. Additionally, the majority said that lower courts “may not inquire into the President’s motives” when dividing up official and unofficial conduct. Smith's team is likely to argue that all of the charges against Trump can stand even with the elimination of the allegations about his efforts to use the Justice Department's power to overturn his election loss. Regardless of that outcome, the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday virtually guarantees that there will be no criminal accountability for Trump’s attempts to stop the transfer of power before the presidential election in November, before Congress certifies that election result on Jan. 6, 2025, or before the next presidential inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025. U.S. v. Trump has been pending in federal court in Washington for 11 months, since Trump was indicted on Aug. 1, 2023. The case was originally supposed to go to trial this past March, and a jury would have almost certainly returned a verdict by now had the Trump case proceeded on Chutkan’s original schedule. Instead, the case was delayed as it made its way through the federal appeals court process and the Supreme Court. But Chutkan could quickly set a briefing and hearing schedule in the case that would allow for evidentiary hearings that may shine additional light on what Vice President Mike Pence and Trump appointees said about his efforts to stay in power by boosting false claims of fraud after he lost the 2020 election to President Joe Biden. "At least that is a way for the public to hear additional evidence from the likes of former Vice President Pence, from prior general counsels and White House counsels who worked for the White House under President Trump," Andrew Weissmann, a former federal prosecutor who worked on Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation and MSNBC legal analyst, said Monday. "The allegations with respect to the Department of Justice are off the table, the president, or former president, has been found absolutely immune, which is a really scary thought," Weissmann said Monday. "Just think about that: The president's interactions with the Department of Justice are absolutely immune? Terrifying decision." Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion, wrote that distinguishing a president’s official actions from his unofficial actions "can be difficult," and said the analysis is "best left to the lower courts to perform in the first instance." Here's a breakdown of the guidance the court's conservative majority offered for Chutkan to consider. Trump is 'absolutely' immune from prosecution for his dealings with DOJ The conservative majority ruled that Trump's interactions with his Justice Department officials as he sought to overturn the 2020 election results and pushed for official investigations into his unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud were "absolutely" immune from prosecution, though the indictment alleged that Trump was using his official power for his own personal interests, not those of the country. “Certain allegations — such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General — are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual,” the conservative majority found. "The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials," the majority ruled. "Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials." Trump's interactions with Pence, state officials and private parties pose 'difficult questions' The Supreme Court said that Trump's interactions with Pence, Trump's pressure campaign on state officials, his communications with private parties and his public comments "present more difficult questions" when it comes to immunity. Mostly, though, the conservative majority left those questions for the lower courts to answer, following the guidance it laid out in its opinion. "Although we identify several considerations pertinent to classifying those allegations and determining whether they are subject to immunity, that analysis ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform in the first instance," Roberts wrote. OK, what about the Pence pressure campaign specifically? Trump endeavored to enlist Pence "to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results," according to Smith's indictment. The discussions about official responsibilities between Pence and Trump were "official conduct," the court said, including discussions of the Jan. 6 certification process, so Trump would enjoy a presumption of immunity under their ruling. The burden will be on Smith's team to "rebut the presumption of immunity," Roberts wrote for the majority. "We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch." What about Trump's communications with state officials? Whether Trump's attempts to get officials in Georgia and other states to overturn the election results in his favor constitute official actions requires a "close analysis" of the indictment against him, the court ruled. "Unlike Trump’s alleged interactions with the Justice Department, this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function. The necessary analysis is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons," Roberts wrote for the majority. Roberts noted that the government and Trump's legal team "starkly disagree on the characterization of these allegations," as demonstrated during oral arguments, and that additional arguments should play out in Chutkan's court. "The concerns we noted at the outset — the expedition of this case, the lack of factual analysis by the lower courts, and the absence of pertinent briefing by the parties — thus become more prominent. We accordingly remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance — with the benefit of briefing we lack — whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial," they ruled. And Trump's tweets? Trump's spreading lies about the election through tweets and public addresses is "likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities," the majority ruled, though it said there may be "contexts in which the President speaks in an unofficial capacity — perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader." The majority said that Chutkan will need to "determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial," indicating that those initial decisions by Chutkan could be subject to additional review. "On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution," the majority ruled. "And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial." What about Trump's actions on Jan. 6? While the president has the power of the bully pulpit and is free to speak "forcefully or critically, in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest," there might be contexts in which he speaks in an unofficial capacity, the majority ruled. Drawing the line here, the court said, "may prove to be challenging" and requires a fact-specific analysis. Whether Trump's tweets in the lead-up to and on Jan. 6, 2021, his speech that morning urging supporters to march to the Capitol and his "other communications on January 6 involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each," the court ruled. "Knowing, for instance, what else was said contemporaneous to the excerpted communications, or who was involved in transmitting the electronic communications and in organizing the rally, could be relevant to the classification of each communication." "This necessarily factbound analysis is best performed initially by the District Court," the majority continued. "We therefore remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial." Jack Smith's team can still rely upon public evidence at trial The Supreme Court held if a certain allegation in the indictment is determined to be an “official act,” prosecutors cannot introduce “testimony or private records of the President probing the official act itself." However, the court left a path for prosecutors to show jurors evidence of official acts if, and only if, that evidence can be found in the public record. “The prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act,” Roberts wrote. “And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act.” So if there is video of Trump speaking to the media or otherwise discussing any of the overt acts that are included in the indictment, those statements could be introduced as evidence, whether they are official or not. What prosecutors would not be able to do is put someone like former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows or another presidential adviser on the witness stand and have them tell jurors about their official discussions with Trump or what his motives may have been in taking any official action. Overall, that language will give prosecutors a way to show jurors the context in which indicted unofficial acts were taken, even if Trump can't be charged for the official conduct itself.
Trump and Rubio try — and fail — to defend ‘Black jobs’ comment 2024-07-01 18:45:22+00:00 - Quick observation from over the weekend: If our country’s pundit class weren’t overwhelmingly white, the framing of Thursday’s debate would have revolved around Donald Trump’s overt racism and not Joe Biden’s speech pattern. Because Trump’s false and bigoted claim about immigrants taking “Black jobs” instantly sparked widespread backlash — and it has arguably been the most talked about moment from the debate. Trump and his campaign have sought to pit Black people against immigrants (despite some Black people being immigrants themselves) to promote xenophobia, in hopes of aiding his election. His “Black jobs” claim was a tortured attempt to do that, despite the Black unemployment rate reaching a record low under the Biden administration. Trump and his campaign have sought to pit Black people against immigrants (despite some Black people being immigrants themselves) to promote xenophobia, in hopes of aiding his election. And, for the record, experts have since done what CNN failed to do during the debate itself: debunk Trump’s claim. So it’s remarkable that Team Trump is doubling down on the claim. Sen. Marco Rubio, who has effectively taken it upon himself to be Trump’s racism translator, tried to clean up the comments in the spin room on debate night. It didn’t go well. “When you flood a country with millions of people,” the Florida Republican claimed, “you’re going to have more competition for work. You are. And those workers are willing to do it at a lower wage.” Here, Rubio used racist and dehumanizing language to suggest that “Black jobs” are ... low-wage jobs. As an example, he mentioned construction jobs. I feel confident saying the majority of Black folks aren’t eager to work what are often backbreaking construction jobs, but that’s almost beside the point, which is that the senator is simply wrong. Evidence shows that immigrants actually drive job creation. Nonetheless, Trump repeated the claim himself at a rally in Virginia on Saturday, saying immigration is “the worst thing that’s happening” to Black people because immigrants are “taking the Black jobs.” Trump is taking one of the ugliest lines from his debate and turning it into a mantra.
Prosecutors say they plan to retry Karen Read after mistrial declared in murder case 2024-07-01 18:42:00+00:00 - A judge declared a mistrial Monday after jurors said they were at an impasse in the murder trial of Karen Read, the Massachusetts woman accused of killing her police officer boyfriend in 2022. The decision came on the fifth day of deliberations and after a nine-week trial in a courthouse outside Boston where Read’s lawyers described the killing of John O’Keefe, 46, as a cover-up carried out by law enforcement officers. Prosecutors had argued that Read, 44, and O’Keefe had a tumultuous relationship that culminated with the financial analyst backing her Lexus SUV into her boyfriend and leaving him for dead Jan. 29, 2022. Karen Read and attorney David Yannetti at her trial June 12, 2024, in Dedham, Mass. Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger / The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool Read was charged with second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter while driving under the influence and leaving the scene of a collision causing death. In a note sent Monday afternoon to Norfolk County Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone, the jury foreman said that despite rigorous efforts, the panel of six men and six women remained deadlocked. Some believed the evidence surpassed the standard of proof needed to convict Read, the note said, while others found that prosecutors had not established their case. In an earlier note, the jurors told the judge, “Despite our commitment to the duty entrusted in us, we find ourselves deeply divided by fundamental differences in our opinions and state of mind.” After the mistrial was declared, Cannone set a status hearing for the case later this month. In a statement, the district attorney's office thanked O'Keefe's family and said prosecutors intend to retry the case. Outside the courthouse, a lawyer for Read, Alan Jackson, told reporters that prosecutors had relied on compromised investigators and a compromised investigation. "We will not stop fighting," he said. O’Keefe’s body was found unresponsive that morning, and he was later pronounced dead. The medical examiner attributed his cause of death to blunt force trauma to the head and hypothermia. Her lawyers alleged that she was framed by officers who sought to conceal a beating that they said O’Keefe suffered during a gathering at the home where his body was found. The defense alleged that the lead investigator in the case, Massachusetts state Trooper Michael Proctor, manipulated evidence, failed to properly investigate O’Keefe’s death and sent a series of slurs and vulgar messages about Read to friends, family and supervisors. In his closing argument last Tuesday, Norfolk County Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally acknowledged that Proctor’s texts were “indefensible” but said they had no bearing on the integrity of the agency’s investigation. Lally dismissed the defense’s claim of a cover-up as “rampant speculation.” Read repeatedly told first responders that she had hit O'Keefe, Lally said, and vehicle data showed her reversing her SUV for 62 feet at 24 mph near the home of another officer, Brian Albert, after midnight on Jan. 29. Lally said physical evidence backed up the allegation that she struck him, including a tail light that authorities said was broken after the collision and hair and DNA from O'Keefe that was found on the rear section of the vehicle. Lally said that no one who attended the gathering recalled seeing O'Keefe inside Albert's house. Defense lawyer Alan Jackson said the tail light was actually broken after Read dropped O'Keefe off at Albert's house, drove home and left in a panic hours later she realized her boyfriend never returned. The defense presented security video from O'Keefe's home showing Read backing her SUV into her boyfriend's vehicle as she left to go find him. Data from O'Keefe's iPhone showed that his device had gone dozens of steps around the time prosecutors said he was struck, Jackson said, suggesting that those steps could have been to the basement of Albert's home. Read's lawyers were allowed to present a third-party culprit defense — a theory of O'Keefe's death that differed from the prosecution's — and they pointed to an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives who'd traded flirtatious texts with Read as a possible suspect in O'Keefe's death. Jackson suggested the agent, Brian Higgins, became angry after Read ignored him at a bar before the gathering at Albert's home. At Albert's house, Jackson said, there could have been skirmish between Higgins and O'Keefe over Read that could have ended with O'Keefe falling and hitting his head. Higgins testified that he never saw O'Keefe inside Albert's home and he said he was not upset about being ignored by Read. According to The Associated Press, a forensic engineer who reviewed law enforcement's handling of the case for the Department of Justice testified that O'Keefe's injuries should have been more severe had he been struck by a vehicle traveling more than 20 mph. “We don’t really have enough evidence in this case to determine what one specific event actually caused that injury," said the expert, Andrew Rentschler, according to the AP.
Tata cancels early closure of Port Talbot furnaces after Unite calls off strike 2024-07-01 18:40:00+00:00 - The owner of the Port Talbot steelworks, Tata Steel, has cancelled plans to begin shutting down both of the plant’s blast furnaces this week after Unite called off a strike, but cutbacks expected to cost 2,800 jobs will still go ahead later this year. Members of the union were scheduled to begin industrial action on 8 July, days after Indian-owned Tata began a wind-down process that will ultimately end more than 70 years of making steel from scratch at the plant. On Monday, however, Unite confirmed it had cancelled its strike plans after Rajesh Nair, the UK boss of Tata Steel, wrote to unions over the weekend to offer a further round of discussions about future investments at the south Wales site. Unite said Tata had confirmed that “it was now prepared to enter into negotiations about future investment for its operations and not just redundancies”. The union’s general secretary, Sharon Graham, said: “This is a significant development in the battle to protect jobs and the long-term future of steelmaking in south Wales. Investment from Labour secured by Unite will be key to the future of the site. “This breakthrough would not have come about without the courage of our members at Port Talbot who were prepared to stand up and fight for their jobs. Workers were simply not prepared to stand idly by while steelmaking ended and their communities were laid to waste. “It is essential that these talks progress swiftly and in good faith with the focus on fresh investment and ensuring the long-term continuation of steelmaking in south Wales.” Tata Steel had originally planned to begin shutting down Port Talbot’s blast furnace No 5 this week, with No 4 slated for closure in September. It brought forward the second half of the plan to this week in response to Unite calling the strike, saying it could not operate the site safely without enough workers. On Monday, however, Tata Steel said it had received written confirmation that industrial action would not go ahead. A spokesperson said: “As a result, and given we can now be confident of ensuring appropriate resourcing of activities to operate safely, we will halt preparations for the early cessation of operations on blast furnace 4 and the wider heavy end in Port Talbot, planned for this week. We welcome the fact that we have avoided having to progress down this path. “The resumption of discussions with the UK Steel Committee [which represents the Community, Unite and the GMB unions] will progress from the position reached in the last meeting of 22 May and will focus on the future investments and aspirations for the business, and not on a renegotiation of our existing plan for the heavy-end closure or the enhanced employment support terms. “The wind-down process for blast furnace 5 has now begun to plan and we expect to produce the final iron at the end of this week.” skip past newsletter promotion Sign up to Business Today Free daily newsletter Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning Enter your email address Sign up Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy . We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. after newsletter promotion Community, which represents more steelworkers than Unite and has often disagreed with its sister union over how to protect Port Talbot workers, welcomed the decision. “Tata confirmed that if the strike was called off they are ready to resume discussions on a potential [memorandum of understanding], through the multi-union steel committee, which is chaired by Community,” said Alun Davies, a national officer for the organisation. “The truth is Tata never walked away from those discussions, and at our last meeting on 22 May all unions agreed to conclude the negotiations and put the outcome to our members. Community will welcome resuming those discussions, but we regret that zero progress has been made since 22 May. “With thousands of jobs at stake, we welcome Unite’s decision to withdraw their strike action and get back around the table with their sister steel unions.” The new electric furnace is not due to come onstream until 2027 and unions want steelmaking to continue until then.
What's Going On With Merck Stock On Monday? - Merck & Co (NYSE:MRK) 2024-07-01 18:22:00+00:00 - Loading... Loading... On Monday, Merck & Co Inc MRK announced the notice of the mutual exercise of an option to convert the companies’ ongoing co-development and co-commercialization agreement for opevesostat (MK-5684/ODM-208) into an exclusive global license for Merck. As previously announced under the companies’ original co-development and co-commercialization agreement, each party was granted an option to convert the co-exclusive license into an exclusive global license for Merck. Also Read: FDA Declines To Approve Merck-Daiichi Sankyo Partnered Lung Cancer Drug. With the exercise of the option, Merck will gain global exclusive rights to develop and commercialize opevesostat and other candidates targeting CYP11A1 covered by the agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, Orion is now eligible to receive development milestone payments up to $30 million, regulatory milestone payments up to $625 million, and sales-based milestone payments up to $975 million, as well as annually tiered royalty payments ranging from a low double-digit rate up to a rate in the low twenties on net sales for any commercialized licensed product. In addition, as a result of exercising the option, Merck will now assume full responsibility for all past and future development and commercialization expenses associated with the candidates covered by the agreement. As a result of the option exercise and Merck’s assumption of expenses, Orion announced it will release 60 million euros that was reserved in July 2022 to cover Orion’s share of development costs, which will be accrued from the balance sheet to net sales and operating profit in Q3 2024. Orion will retain responsibility for the manufacture of clinical and commercial supply for Merck. No payment is associated with the exercise of this option. Opevesostat is an oral, non-steroidal and selective inhibitor of CYP11A1 discovered and developed by Orion and is being investigated for the treatment of hormone-dependent cancers, such as prostate cancer. By inhibiting CYP11A1 activity, opevesostat is designed to suppress the production of all steroid hormones and their precursors that may activate the androgen receptor signaling pathway. In 2023, Merck and Orion initiated OMAHA1 and OMAHA2a, two pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials evaluating opevesostat in combination with hormone replacement therapy for certain patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Read Next: Price Action: MRK shares are up 3.44% at $128.06 at last check Monday. Photo via Company
UN-led meeting in Qatar with Afghan Taliban is not a recognition of their government, official says 2024-07-01 18:11:23+00:00 - ISLAMABAD (AP) — A United Nations-led meeting held in Qatar with the Taliban on increasing engagement with Afghanistan does not translate into a recognition of their government, a U.N. official said Monday. The gathering on Sunday and Monday in Qatar’s capital of Doha with envoys from some two dozen countries was the first time that representatives of the Afghan Taliban administration attended such a U.N.-sponsored meeting. The Taliban were not invited to the first meeting, and U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said they set unacceptable conditions for attending the second one, in February, including demands that Afghan civil society members be excluded from the talks and that the Taliban be treated as the country’s legitimate rulers. Ahead of Doha, representatives of Afghan women were excluded from attending, paving the way for the Taliban to send their envoys — though the organizers insisted that demands for women’s rights would be raised. “I would like to emphasize that this meeting and this process of engagement does not mean normalization or recognition,” Rosemary A. DiCarlo, a U.N. official for political and peacebuilding affairs said Monday. “My hope is that the constructive exchanges on the various issues over the last two days have moved us a little closer to resolving some of the problems that are having such a devastating impact on the Afghan people,” she added. Zabihullah Mujahid, chief Taliban government spokesman who headed the delegation to Doha, said there was an opportunity for them to meet with representatives of various countries on the sidelines of the gathering. He added that the messages from the Taliban “reached all participating” countries at the meeting. Afghanistan needs cooperation with the private sector and in the fight against drugs, he also said. “Most countries expressed their willingness to cooperate in these areas.” The talks took place behind closed doors with no media access. But that didn’t stop the Taliban delegation from posting videos of the sessions on the social media platform X featuring their officials. Michael Kugelman, director of the Wilson Center’s South Asia Institute, said the Taliban got what they wanted from the Doha gathering because they discussed the issues that mattered to them the most and the meeting excluded those they didn’t want at the table. The talks also shielded the Taliban from much of the vitriol directed at the meeting, given that so much of the anger targeted the U.N. for excluding Afghan women, and not the Taliban for being there, he said. “The Taliban played their cards well. Their conditions were met and they took full advantage with a major PR blitz targeting audiences at home and abroad.” With images and interviews and statements, the Taliban projected the narrative of their officials engaging with the world and conveying the idea that the Taliban are not the pariahs their critics want them to be, he said. Nobody from the Taliban delegation was immediately available for comment about the Doha talks, the most high-profile and high-level international meeting they’ve attended since seizing power in 2021. No country officially recognizes the Taliban and the U.N. has said that recognition remains practically impossible while bans on female education and employment remain in place. However, some participants, including Canada, expressed disappointment over the exclusion of women and civil society representatives. “Canada is extremely disappointed that the U.N. organizers have excluded non-Taliban Afghan participants, including women’s advocates, religious and ethnic minorities, and human rights groups from participating in the meeting’s main sessions,” David Sproule, Canada’s special representative for Afghanistan, said in a statement. DiCarlo, the U.N. official, said that “while women and civil society were not sitting across the table form the de facto (Taliban) authorities in last two days, we made their voices heard ... civil society has a rightful role to play in shaping Afghanistan’s future.”
Time To Cash Out? Analyst Recommends Tapping Into Meta As Prime Funding Source - Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META) 2024-07-01 18:06:00+00:00 - Loading... Loading... Needham analyst Laura Martin reiterated an Underperform rating on the shares of Meta Platforms Inc META. Needham’s Underperform rating closely corresponds to the “Sell” recommendation required by the FINRA. The analyst has put forth insights from conversations with former META employees as well as a social media ad agency CEO. The analyst has found out that generative AI already influence around 20% of Meta’s content generation and monetization efforts and is driving advertising capabilities including the Advantage+ product. Over the next 2-3 years, the analyst expects Meta to grow its GPU investments as it integrates generative AI across its entire monetization stack. The analyst notes Meta will buy >150,000 GPUs from NVIDIA Corporation NVDA in 2024, with extra GPUs purchased to handle search and AI workflows, each accounting for 3%-5% of the total. The internal hurdle rate for operating expenses at META is a 2-3x return on investment over 3 years, while the hurdle rate for CapEx is a 2-3x return on investment over 5 years, noted the analyst. Also Read: Meta’s ‘Pay Or Consent Model’ To Draw Charges From EU: Report The analyst warned that the major challenge for Facebook.com and Instagram is slowing user growth as the former is not not attracting younger users and the later is losing out to TikTok’s rapid growth. However, the analyst noted that the user engagement on Facebook and Instagram remained strong, with estimates of 35-50 minutes/day. The analyst recommend investors use Meta as a source of fund because there are worries that Chinese discount retailers like Temu and Shein, which accounted for >20% of META’s 2023 ad revs, will slow as the geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and China over a potential TikTok ban heat up. Also, why buy META now, when management is saying that they are in a 2-3 year investment cycle, and rev upside will come in 3-4 years, questioned the analyst. Meta stock has gained more than 75% in the last 12 months. Investors can gain exposure to the stock via Vanguard Communication Services ETF VOX and Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund XLC. Price Action: META shares are trading lower by 0.47% at $501.85 at last check Monday. Photo via Shutterstock Read Next:
FTC Crackdown on Teva Pharmaceuticals Over Inhaler Patent Abuse - Teva Pharmaceutical Indus (NYSE:TEVA) 2024-07-01 18:01:00+00:00 - Loading... Loading... The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has initiated an investigation into Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd TEVA over its refusal to remove about two dozen patents for its asthma and COPD inhalers. This move comes amid accusations that Teva has engaged in practices to maintain market exclusivity and block generic competition. Related: Federal Trade Commission Targets’ Junk Patent Listings’ For Diabetes, Weight Loss, Asthma Drugs From Companies Like Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca. Confidential agency documents reviewed by The Washington Post revealed that the FTC last week issued a civil investigative demand, effectively a subpoena, to Teva. This demand compels the company to provide internal communications, analysis, and financial data related to the patents listed in the federal registry known as the Orange Book. The FTC argues that pharmaceutical companies, including Teva, have made minor product adjustments to keep these patents in the Orange Book, thereby preventing cheaper generic alternatives from entering the market. This practice has led to significantly higher prices for inhalers in the United States, while the same products are sold for much less overseas. Earlier this month, Teva Pharmaceutical said it was in active discussions to settle a lawsuit with the U.S. Department of Justice. The lawsuit alleges Teva used charitable organizations to cover Medicare patients’ out-of-pocket costs, effectively paying kickbacks to boost sales of its multiple sclerosis drug, Copaxone. Reuters report adds that Teva has to comply with the agency’s demand by July 24. In a statement to Reuters, Teva said it “believes that its patents are properly listed in the Orange Book and continues to stand behind the company’s intellectual property.”. Read Next: Price Action: TEVA shares are up 0.55% at $16.34 at the last check on Monday. Disclaimer: This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors. Photo by Ralf Liebhold via Shutterstock
TV personality Carlos Watson testifies in his trial over collapse of startup Ozy Media 2024-07-01 18:00:00+00:00 - NEW YORK (AP) — Former TV host Carlos Watson took the witness stand Monday in the criminal trial surrounding the collapse of his Ozy Media, insisting he hadn’t schemed to con the startup’s backers. “Mr. Watson, did you conspire to commit securities fraud?” asked his lawyer, Ronald Sullivan Jr. “I did not,” Watson said, and repeated it when asked about the other charges against him, aggravated identity theft and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Watson, a former news and talk show host on networks including CNN and MSNBC, is the key defense witness in the federal trial. He and the now-defunct Ozy are accused of giving backers and lenders phony financial statistics, forged contracts and other false information that created a glowing image of a company that actually was on the rocks. It disintegrated in fall 2021, after The New York Times raised questions about Ozy’s audience size claims and practices, particularly a phone call in which company co-founder Samir Rao impersonated a YouTube executive to champion Ozy to some investment bankers. Watson and Ozy Media have pleaded not guilty and sought to cast blame for any misrepresentations on Rao. He pleaded guilty, testified against Watson and is awaiting sentencing. Watson, in his first day of testimony, put some distance between himself and the financial nitty-gritty at fast-growing Ozy. He said he focused on its content, vision, staff and partnerships, hosting multiple TV shows, dedicating “a ton of time” to ensuring that its productions and events were high-level, and traveling about four days a week to see key contacts. Rao and others largely took care of technology and day-to-day operations, Watson and others have testified. “I couldn’t be as hands-on as I probably wanted to be,” said Watson, who acknowledged he had about 301,000 unread email messages as of his 2023 indictment. But he said he tried to give his top executives guidance at meetings that happened at least once weekly. Prosecutors have pointed to differences between Ozy’s internal records and external presentations to support their allegations that the company was lying to outsiders about its financial straits. But Watson suggested that revenue numbers logged into the company’s main financial software program didn’t reflect all the money coming in. “Like a lot of young companies, it was kind of incomplete. People were doing the best they could,” but some revenue was logged in other spreadsheets, Watson said. He also underscored the value of “barter” or “in-kind” revenue and partnerships, such as exchanging Ozy Fest sponsor status for radio promotion. He said Ozy valued such items as revenue by determining what its counterparts would charge for them, and then halving that amount “out of an abundance of caution.” Former Ozy finance vice president Janeen Poutre testified earlier in the trial that auditors rarely agree to count such revenue and that she didn’t “know where his numbers came from.” Affable and engaging as he told his and Ozy’s life stories, Watson went through his modest Miami upbringing, his path to Harvard University and Stanford Law School degrees, and a career that ranged from Wall Street to starting and selling a college counseling company to TV. He described brainstorming about what would become Ozy with his mother as she battled cancer in 2012. “As a Black kid growing up in the ‘70s and ’80s, you wanted to know that the world would have space for your dreams and your ideas and your hopes ... and I wanted to create the kind of media that would elevate that,” he told jurors, who watched keenly. Three sat forward in their seats as they appeared to take careful notes. With “the new and the next” as a catchphrase, Ozy launched a website and newsletters in 2013. Reporters around the world were tasked with finding next-big-things before major media did. The Mountain View, California-based company eventually added TV shows including the Emmy-winning “Black Women OWN the Conversation” on the Oprah Winfrey Network, podcasts, the Ozy Genius Awards (recipients included poet Amanda Gorman, four years before her celebrated reading at President Joe Biden’s 2021 inauguration) and Ozy Fest, a music-and-ideas festival that was held annually for several years in New York’s Central Park. “We weren’t like the other new-media companies,” Watson told jurors. “We were more global, we were more inclusive, I think, and we just felt a larger mission.”
Ownership group of NBA champion Boston Celtics is putting team up for sale 2024-07-01 17:57:20+00:00 - BOSTON (AP) — The ownership group that controls the NBA champion Boston Celtics says it intends to sell all its shares of the team. In a statement released Monday, Boston Basketball Partners LLC said it intends to sell the majority of its shares in 2024 or early 2025. The balance of its shares would then close in 2028. Wyc Grousbeck, whose family leads the ownership group, is expected to remain the team’s NBA governor until the sale is complete. “The controlling family of the ownership group, after considerable thought and internal discussion, has decided to sell the team for estate and family planning considerations,” the statement said. AP AUDIO: Ownership group of NBA champion Boston Celtics is putting team up for sale One of the most iconic franchises in all of sports is up for sale shortly after winning a championship. Correspondent Gethin Coolbaugh has the story. The Celtics defeated the Dallas Mavericks in the NBA Finals last month to capture the franchise’s 18th championship. Boston Basketball Partners — led by venture capitalist Grousbeck, his father and investor H. Irving Grousbeck, along with venture capitalist Steve Pagliuca — purchased the Celtics for $360 million from the Gaston family in 2002. The Gastons had owned the team since 1983. One of the NBA’s original and storied brands, the Celtics were valued at $4.7 billion last year by Forbes, placing them behind only the Golden State Warriors ($7.7 billion), New York Knicks ($6.6 billion) and Los Angeles Lakers ($6.4 billion). The current ownership group was in charge when the Celtics won the NBA title in 2008. In an email to Celtics staff that was obtained by The Associated Press, Wyc Grousbeck wrote they are “committed to finding a worthy incoming ownership group who will guide the Celtics to more decades of success.” He added: “There will be a thoughtful and thorough process to find a buyer that recognizes the importance of Celtic Pride on the court and in the community.” Last year, the Phoenix Suns were purchased by mortgage firm owner Mat Ishbia for $4 billion. That was followed by the sale of the Milwaukee Bucks to Cleveland Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam for $3.5 billion. Last November, Mark Cuban agreed to the sale of the majority of his Dallas Mavericks’ ownership shares to Miriam Adelson and son-in-law Patrick Dumont, who operates the Las Vegas Sands casino company, for $3.5 billion. ___ This story has been corrected to show that the New York Knicks are valued at $6.6 billion, not $6.6 million, and that the Dallas Mavericks recently sold for $3.5 billion, not $3.5 million. ___ AP NBA: https://apnews.com/hub/nba
CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreens Hit Hard By Online Pharmacy Trend - Walgreens Boots Alliance (NASDAQ:WBA) 2024-07-01 17:48:00+00:00 - Loading... Loading... A U.S. bankruptcy judge has approved Rite Aid Corp’s RADCQ restructuring plan, enabling the pharmacy chain to reduce its debt by $2 billion and transfer control to a group of lenders. Rite Aid filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in October 2023, following a fiscal year in which it reported $750 million in losses and $24 billion in revenue. During the bankruptcy process, Rite Aid closed hundreds of stores, sold its pharmacy benefit company Elixir, and negotiated settlements with lenders, including its drug distribution partner McKesson Corp MCK and other creditors. Also Read: Rite Aid Forges Path To Financial Recovery With Major Settlement: Report. Reuters noted the restructuring saved the company from having to cease operations entirely. The restructuring plan also allocated $47.5 million to junior creditors, including individuals and local governments that have sued Rite Aid for its alleged role in the U.S. opioid epidemic. Before filing for bankruptcy, Rite Aid faced 1,600 opioid lawsuits, including one from the federal government, accusing the company of ignoring red flags when filling prescriptions for addictive opioid pain medications. Rite Aid has resolved opioid claims with 16 of the 17 states in which it operates. Judge Kaplan overruled Maryland’s objection, stating that the state could not delay Rite Aid’s bankruptcy to continue its investigation into the company’s opioid sales. Rite Aid, which had more than 2,000 stores at the time of its bankruptcy filing, will emerge from bankruptcy with about 1,300 locations. The company plans to exit bankruptcy within a month. It’s a trend that Jonathan Palmer, senior health care analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, projected will continue especially as the dependency on online services continues to grow. Earlier, Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc (NASDAQ: WBA) announced that it would close a “significant” number of underperforming stores across the U.S. due to ongoing challenges with profitability and declining margins. In 2021, CVS Health Corp CVS announced that it was shuttering 900 of its 10,000 retail locations over a three-year period. Palmer told FOX Business that the closures were the culmination of several different events, but online pharmacies contributed to their downfall. “More consumers buy online than ever before and with next-day delivery in many cases — the value proposition of retail pharmacy isn’t as compelling,” Palmer said. He argued that pharmacies are convenient for household products but aren’t cheap. “They’re at a significant premium to a Walmart Inc WMT or a Target Corp TGT,” Palmer said. He noted that, in addition, “reimbursement for dispensing drugs has been pressured by managed care and payers for years.” There have also been more alternatives than ever before, such as Amazon Pharmacy, GoodRx, or Mark Cuban’s Cost Plus. Read Next: Disclaimer: This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors. This image was created using artificial intelligence MidJourney.
Chipotle portion sizes can vary widely from one restaurant to another, analysis finds 2024-07-01 17:46:00+00:00 - Chipotle isn't getting any help from Wall Street in trying to tamp down social media complaints about the the fast-casual restaurant chain's serving sizes. TikTok users, including influential food reviewers, have been sharing images of skimpy looking helpings, claiming they get bigger meals when they film workers putting their orders together. Attempting to put the "weight debate" to rest, analysts at Wells Fargo recently ordered and weighed 75 identical burrito bowls from eight Chipotle locations in New York City, with half ordered online and half in-store. Their findings: The consistency of Chipotle's portions "varied widely," with some locations selling bowls with identical orders that weighed roughly 33% more than other outlets, Wells Fargo analysts said in a research note. The heaviest bowls weighed as much as 87% more than the smallest ones, they found. "Order consistency remains an opportunity," the Wells Fargo analysts stated of Chipotle, which opened in Denver in 1993 and now operates more than 3,400 fast-casual restaurants across North America. Chipotle dismissed the notion that it had changed its policy on serving sizes. "Similar to others in the fast casual industry, our completely customizable meals may have variability in their size or weight depending upon the number of ingredients a guest selects or if they choose to make an ingredient extra or light when ordering from our list of real ingredients in-person or digitally. There have been no changes in our portion sizes, and we aim to provide a great guest experience every time," a Chipotle spokesperson said in a statement to CBS MoneyWatch. Chipotle founder Steve Ells last week told a forum in Chicago that the chain had always offered generous helpings. "So those who complain about portion sizes, I'm not sure I quite get it, but I understand it's a thing out there." TikTok user Keith Lee, who has 16.4 million followers on the social media platform, said in a May 3 video that he used to love Chipotle but that the quality of its offerings has deteriorated. The post has more than 2.2 million views. Lee filmed himself eating several items from Chipotle's menu, including a bowl in which he appeared to struggle finding chicken. He ultimately found just four pieces, which he described as flavorless and cold. TikTok user Drew Polenske chimed in as well, addressing the alleged portion-size issue head on. "I speak for everybody when I say I am sick and tired of the Chipotle portion sizes and it needs to change." Another TikTok user posted a video showing a Chipotle worker fulfilling his order, which appeared to be stuffed with ingredients. "The rumors are true. I held my phone up at Chipotle and they loaded my burrito," read a line of text in the video. Chipotle CEO Brian Niccol weighed in on the social media trend, dubbed the "Chipotle phone method," telling CNBC at the end of May that he thinks it's "rude to our team members." "We're not going all-you-can-eat, we are going great ingredients, great culinary, great bowls," he added. Meanwhile, any inconsistency in Chipotle's bowl servings doesn't appear to be hurting the company's bottom line or appeal to investors. Chipotle's stock split 50-to-1 last week, one of the biggest stock splits in the history of the New York Stock Exchange. The stock split, the first in Chipotle's three-decade history, came after the shares surged almost 350% during the past five years to more than $3,000. As of Monday, Chipotle's stock traded at $60.58, valuing the company at $83.2 billion.
Redbox owner Chicken Soup for the Soul files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection 2024-07-01 17:45:21+00:00 - NEW YORK (AP) — Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment, the parent of DVD rental operator Redbox, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy filing comes after months of a series of financial struggles for the company and piling unpaid bills. Chicken Soup for the Soul has accumulated nearly $1 billion in debt, the Chapter 11 filing submitted Friday in Delaware bankruptcy court shows, after reporting loss after loss over recent quarters. The filing also discloses that Chicken Soup for the Soul owes millions to over 500 creditors — which range from big names in the entertainment world like Sony Pictures and Warner Bros, to major retailers like Walgreens and Walmart. As of March of this year, Friday’s filing shows, Chicken Soup for the Soul had about $414 million in assets and $970 million in debts. Shares for the public company have fallen more than 90% over the last year. Connecticut-based Chicken Soup for the Soul declined to comment when reached by The Associated Press Monday. In court documents, the company said that its lenders were unwilling to cooperate with refinancing. Chicken Soup for the Soul acquired Redbox in 2022. At the time, the company billed the merger as the start of an entertainment conglomerate set to reach consumers across mediums and boost revenue, but losses continued to pile up. The acquisition also included the assumption Redbox’s reported $325 million in debt. Redbox, founded in 2002, is best known for red-colored, self-serve machines that sit outside of pharmacies or groceries stores to rent or sell DVDs. In Friday’s filing, Chicken Soup for the Soul noted that it currently operates about 27,000 kiosks across the U.S. — down from 36,000 at the Redbox acquisition was finalized in August 2022. Chicken Soup for the Soul also operates ad-supported streaming and video on-demand offerings. That includes Redbox Live TV and Crackle, a streamer that Chicken Soup for the Soul acquired from Sony.
Supreme Court orders new look at social media laws in Texas and Florida 2024-07-01 17:40:00+00:00 - Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday ordered lower courts to take another look at a pair of laws from Florida and Texas that imposed restrictions on how social media companies can moderate the content posted to their platforms, keeping the laws blocked during the additional proceedings. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's opinion, which tossed out lower court rulings and sent the two cases back for the proceedings. The court said neither lower court conducted the proper analysis of the First Amendment challenges to the laws regulating major social media platforms. There were no noted dissents, although some justices concurred in part. "[T]he question in such a case is whether a law's unconstitutional applications are substantial compared to its constitutional ones. To make that judgment, a court must determine a law's full set of applications, evaluate which are constitutional and which are not, and compare the one to the other," Kagan wrote. "Neither court performed that necessary inquiry." The Florida law The case out of Florida concerns a Republican-backed law enacted in 2021 that regulates social media platforms that make at least $100 million annually or have at least 100 million monthly users. The law aims to combat claims of censorship by restrictions for companies, such as prohibiting them from engaging in certain types of content moderation and requiring them to notify a user if their post is removed or altered. The platforms must also make general disclosures about their operations and policies. Two trade associations, whose members include Google, Meta and X, challenged the law in federal court in 2021, arguing that it violated the First Amendment. A district court blocked enforcement of the measure, siding with the trade associations. Florida then appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which likewise sided with the trade groups. The Texas law The case concerns a Republican-backed law in Texas that regulates platforms with more than 50 million active monthly users. The law imposes rules for content moderation and requires platforms to notify users when posts are removed and provide an explanation. The platforms are also required to disclose how they moderate their content and make clear how they prioritize posts through their algorithms. Two online trade associations, whose members include Google, Meta and X, challenged the law in federal district court in 2021. That court blocked enforcement of certain provisions of the law, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit halted the order, allowing the law to take effect. The trade associations then sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, which voted 5-4 to block the Texas law while legal proceedings continued. The 5th Circuit later reversed the district court's preliminary injunction, finding that the social media platforms' efforts to moderate content are not speech protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision Kagan explained that the high court vacated both decisions for reasons "separate from the First Amendment merits" because neither of the appeals courts properly considered the nature of the challenge. Noting that the parties primarily focused on the effects the laws could have on traditional social media feeds, Kagan said that arguments "revealed that the laws might apply to, and differently affect, other kinds of websites and apps." During oral arguments in February, the justices questioned whether the laws would apply to other platforms like Uber and Etsy. "In sum, there is much work to do below on both these cases, given the facial nature of NetChoice's challenges," Kagan wrote, referring to the group representing the social media companies. "But that work must be done consistent with the First Amendment, which does not go on leave when social media are involved." The challengers chose to litigate the case by arguing that the laws were unconstitutional in all of their applications, and that the decision "comes at a cost," Kagan wrote, adding that the court has made these kinds of challenges "hard to win." Kagan's opinion was joined in full by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Kagan wrote that each court must "evaluate the full scope of the law's coverage," and then decide "which of the law's applications are constitutionally permissible and which are not," and finally weigh them against each other. Despite ordering the cases back to lower courts, that didn't stop the justices from delivering criticism and making suggestions about the deeper issues. Kagan wrote that in some applications, the Texas law is "unlikely to withstand First Amendment scrutiny," adding that the 5th Circuit's decision "rested on a serious misunderstanding of First Amendment precedent and principle." In a concurring opinion, Barrett stated even more clearly that "the Eleventh Circuit's understanding of the First Amendment's protection of editorial discretion was generally correct," referring to the Florida case, while in the Texas case, "the Fifth Circuit's was not." Justice Samuel Alito, though he concurred in the judgment, wrote that the court's description of the Florida and Texas laws and the litigation "leaves much to be desired," calling its broader suggestions "unnecessary and unjustified." Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas joined Alito's concurring opinion. Social media and free speech The 2021 laws came in response to what their GOP backers saw as discrimination by social media platforms against conservative viewpoints, claims that were amplified after Facebook and Twitter, now known as X, banned former President Donald Trump from their platforms after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The states have argued that social media companies should be treated like any business and be restricted from removing posts or banning users from their platforms based upon their views. The platforms, Florida's attorney general said, serve as hosts to users' posts and abused their "market dominance" to suppress speech. But the social media companies asserted that the laws infringe upon their First Amendment rights by denying them editorial control over their platforms and forcing them to publish speech they don't want to disseminate. The companies argued they exercise editorial discretion like newspapers and other publishers, and said the laws' requirements seek to chill those judgments. Both the Biden administration and Trump weighed in on the dispute, underscoring the political divisions in the debate over alleged censorship by tech companies. Trump backed the state laws, arguing that a platform's "decision to discriminate against a user" is not protected by the Constitution. The Biden administration, meanwhile, supported the tech groups' challenges. It argued in part that the high court has repeatedly held that the presentation of speech generated by others is protected under the First Amendment, like the opinion pages of newspapers. The disputes were among several before the Supreme Court this term that stood at the intersection of social media and free speech. In March, the high court said public officials may be sued for blocking constituents on social media and laid out the parameters for when they may expose themselves to liability under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court also heard a dispute over the Biden administration's efforts to pressure social media companies to remove or suppress content it believed spread misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic and in the wake of the 2020 election. On Wednesday, the justices determined that the users and the states did not have the legal right to seek an injunction against the Biden administration over its contacts with the platforms.
Transgender runner Nikki Hiltz is headed to the Paris Olympics 2024-07-01 17:38:00+00:00 - Transgender and nonbinary middle-distance runner Nikki Hiltz ran the second fastest time ever of any American in the women’s 1500-meter race at the U.S. Olympic Trials Sunday, qualifying for the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris. Hiltz, who uses they/them pronouns, charged ahead of Elle St. Pierre and Emily Mackay in the final stretch of the race, finishing with a time of 3:55:33, a trials record. All of the top eight finishers set a new personal best time, according to OutSports. Paris will mark Hiltz’s Olympic debut. In a post-race interview with NBC Sports, Hiltz, 29, said the race had significance beyond their personal accomplishment. “This is bigger than just me. It’s the last day of Pride Month .. I wanted to run this one for my community,” they said. “All the LGBT folks, yeah, you guys brought me home that last hundred [meters]. I could just feel the love and support.” Hiltz said Elle St. Pierre, who finished third and was the top-finishing American in the Tokyo Olympics women’s 1500, pushed them and the other runners to go faster. St. Pierre was in the lead for most of the race, finishing the first lap in 61 seconds. “Elle St. Pierre has elevated women’s distance running. I saw the time, and I didn’t think that was possible,” Hiltz told NBC Sports. “We all had to rise because of her … Awesome team we’re sending to Paris.” Pierre and the second place finisher, Emily Mackay, also qualified for the Paris Olympics Sunday. Hiltz wrote in a social media post Monday that a childhood dream of theirs came true when they qualified for the Paris Olympics. “I’m not sure when this will fully sink in,” they wrote. “All I know is today I’m waking up just so grateful for my people, overwhelmed by all the love and support, and filled with joy that I get to race people I deeply love and respect around a track for a living.” The International Olympic Committee updated its rules regarding transgender athletes in 2021 to defer to each sport’s governing body. World Athletics, which oversees international track and field competition, adopted a policy last year that bars all trans women athletes who went through male puberty from competing in female track and field categories. Trans men are allowed to compete in male categories if they have a satisfactory signed declaration of their gender identity. World Athletics’ policy doesn’t specifically mention nonbinary athletes, but those who were assigned female at birth are generally allowed to compete in female categories if they haven’t received hormone therapy. Hiltz will not be the first nonbinary athlete to participate in the Olympics. Canadian soccer star Quinn became the first openly transgender and nonbinary athlete to participate in the Olympics in Tokyo in 2022. They went on to become the first transgender athlete to win a medal at the Olympics when Canada beat Sweden 3-2 in penalty kicks. Quinn was among at least 186 out LGBTQ athletes who competed at the Tokyo Games, according to OutSports. Hiltz hasn’t been the only LGBTQ athlete to qualify for the Paris Olympics so far. Timo Cavelius of Germany will be the first out gay man to compete in Olympic judo, according to OutSports. For more from NBC Out, sign up for our weekly newsletter.
Austerity was a disastrous political choice that we are still reeling from 2024-07-01 16:42:00+00:00 - Paul Krugman (How the ‘unforced error’ of austerity wrecked Britain, 28 June) hits the nail on the head when he says that there was no economic case for the austerity that the coalition government foisted on us in 2010, the effects of which are still with us. It was a political choice on the part of George Osborne and David Cameron to advance their class interest, cleverly camouflaged by stories of Labour profligacy when the economic crisis to which it was the alleged response was caused by a surfeit of financial deregulation advocated by Osborne and Cameron and supinely accepted by Labour. The American political economist Clara E Mattei, in her 2022 book, The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism, showed how similar policies were applied in Britain and Italy after the first world war, essentially to keep workers in their place, and how in Italy they led to the rise of Mussolini and fascism. Let us be warned. Prof Roger Brown Southampton Paul Krugman is right about the impact of austerity on the UK economy – here are a couple of reasons why. First, those who advocate the shrinking of the state fail to appreciate how the economy is interdependent. Most public authorities require tendering for services. Generally, the private or voluntary sectors get the tender. So if the public sector is starved of finance and catches a cold, the private and voluntary sectors start to sneeze too. Second, the assumption is that if the public sector is smaller, the private sector will take up the slack. This ignores the fact that the private sector’s bottom line is its profitability and ability to satisfy its shareholders, not the public interest. In practice, this means that the private sector will cherry-pick the easy and profitable tasks, as with the failed privatisation of the probation service, while leaving anything difficult or unprofitable to the public sector. Alternatively, as with the failed privatisation of the railways, the private sector demands subsidies out of our taxes so that it can pay a dividend to its shareholders, thereby taking money out of the system that could otherwise be used to improve the infrastructure, reduce fares, or both. Austerity was an ideological choice by the coalition government. While I would have expected little better from the Conservatives, I would have hoped that their Liberal Democrat coalition partners would have drawn enough red lines to prevent the government from following through on its economic illiteracy and choking off the first signs of recovery from the 2007-08 crash. As it is, we’ve suffered from the consequences ever since. Dave Pollard Leicester Paul Krugman does an excellent job of exposing the disastrous consequences of 14 years of austerity for both society and the economy. But in solely blaming the Tories, he neglects to acknowledge the role of the Liberal Democrats in both enabling austerity and even co-authoring the genesis of the policy through the key role played by the then chief secretary to the Treasury David Laws. Although in post for only a short time, his role was pivotal in developing the first drastic cuts in public expenditure. We now live with the consequences of 14 years of monetarist dogma ruthlessly, pitilessly and unfairly applied. Alan Beynon Barmby Moor, East Yorkshire
CDK Global's car dealer software still not fully restored nearly 2 weeks after cyberattack 2024-07-01 16:32:00+00:00 - What to know about the CDK Global cyberattack disrupting car dealers What to know about the CDK Global cyberattack What to know about the CDK Global cyberattack CDK Global continues to struggle with the aftermath of a major cyberattack, with some of the software services the company provides to thousands of car dealerships around the U.S. still not fully functional. CDK told CBS MoneyWatch on Monday that it expects all of its dealer customers to have access to the company's management platform by no later than July 4, meaning some businesses can still expect to be down for several more days. "We are continuing our phased approach to the restoration process and are rapidly bringing dealers live on the Dealer Management System," the company said in a statement. "We anticipate all dealers connections will be live by late Wednesday, July 3 or early morning Thursday, July 4." Fallout from the ransomware attack has dragged into a third week for the 15,000 car dealerships that rely on CDK's sales, inventory management and customer relations systems to run their businesses. CDK on Saturday said the company was making progress in restoring its systems for all of its clients. "We are continuing our phased approach to the restoration process. We have successfully brought two small groups of dealers and one large publicly traded dealer group live on the Dealer Management System," a CDK spokesperson said in a statement to CBS MoneyWatch. "We are also actively working to bring live additional applications — including our Customer Relationship Management and Service solutions — and our Customer Care channels." In an automated recording on a helpline for dealership clients, the company also said that it has resumed fielding customer service calls. "We are happy to report that our customer care support channels are now live. As of today, you can call us for assistance," the company said in the recording. CDK noted added that beginning Monday it will offer extended hours for customer service calls. CDK said last week in a statement and recorded message to dealers that it did not expect services to be restored for all clients before June 30. Car dealers say the CDK outage has hurt their business. The attack is expected to cut dealerships' June sales by about 100,000 vehicles, or more than 7%, compared with the same period in 2023, according to a forecast from J.D. Power. And an analysis from Anderson Economic Group estimated dealer financial losses stemming from the CDK outage at $944 million over the first three weeks following the attack as a result of business interruptions. The disruption comes at an inopportune time for car buyers and sellers, slowing business during the traditionally busy summer selling season. "June is one of the most important selling months for the auto industry, and we were expecting sales to be fairly strong," Tyson Jominy, vice president of data & analytics at J.D. Power, told CBS MoneyWatch. However, many of the transactions that were not completed in June due to the attack could be finalized in July.
Trump Organization Signs Up to Put Its Brand on a New Saudi Tower 2024-07-01 16:30:53+00:00 - The Trump Organization has signed a new deal with a Saudi real estate company to build a residential high-rise tower in the city of Jeddah, extending the family’s close ties with the kingdom. Saudi Arabia has become one of the few reliable sources of growth for the Trump family’s business operations, as new real estate deals in the United States have slowed or stopped since the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol and since former President Donald J. Trump left the White House. This new deal is like other international projects the Trump family has signed over the past decade. It offers the family’s name and brand to a well-financed developer that will build the project and sell luxury resident units, it hopes at a premium, based on the marketability of the former president’s perceived star power. Other projects include a resort complex in Oman and Saudi-backed golf tournaments at Trump courses in recent years. “We are delighted to strengthen our ongoing relationship with the Trump Organization and expand our portfolio by delivering premium properties to redefine Saudi Arabia’s high-growth real estate market,” Ziad El Chaar, the chief executive of the real estate firm, Dar Global, said in a statement Monday.
Chinese woman facing charge of trying to smuggle turtles across Vermont lake to Canada 2024-07-01 16:25:35+00:00 - A woman from China has been arrested at a Vermont lake bordering Quebec for trying to smuggle 29 eastern box turtles, a protected species, into Canada by kayak, according to Border Patrol agents. Wan Yee Ng was arrested on the morning of June 28 at an Airbnb in Canaan as she was about to get into an inflatable kayak with a duffle bag on Lake Wallace, according to an agent’s affidavit filed in federal court. Agents had been notified by Royal Canadian Mounted Police that two other people, including a man who was believed to be her husband, had started to paddle an inflatable watercraft from the Canadian side of the lake toward the United States, according to an agent’s affidavit. The agents searched her heavy duffle bag and found 29 live eastern box turtles individually wrapped in socks, the affidavit states. Eastern box turtles are known to be sold on the Chinese black market for $1,000 each, according to the affidavit. Ng is charged with attempting to export the turtles from the U.S., in violation of the Endangered Species Act. A federal judge on Friday ordered that she remain detained. The federal public defender’s office, which is representing her, declined to comment. Border Patrol agents first spotted Ng at the Airbnb rental in May when they noticed a vehicle with Ontario plates traveling on a Vermont road in Canaan in an area used by smugglers, they said. Lake Wallace has been used for human and narcotic smuggling, the affidavit states. The vehicle had entered the U.S. in Alburgh, Vermont, agents said. Ng was admitted to the United States in May on a visitor visa with an intended destination of Fort Lee, New Jersey, the affidavit states. Border Patrol agents learned on June 18 that she had again entered the U.S. in Buffalo in a vehicle with a Quebec plate and was expected to arrive at the same Airbnb on Lake Wallace in Vermont on June 25, the affidavit states. They then started to surveil the property.