Ronna McDaniel, the GOP chairwoman, speaks during the Republican National Committee, in favor of resolution calling January 6th insurrection “legitimate political discourse.  (Rick Bowmer | AP)

Dear Commons Community,

The Republican Party went completely off the rails on Friday when it voted to punish GOP Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) for their work on the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection. The censure resolution accuses Kinzinger and Cheney of “participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse,” which is an abominable description of the violent attack on the Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump.”  The January 6^th insurrection or “legitimate political discourse” left 5 Dead. 140 officers injured, and $30 million in damages to our nation’s capitol.

The resolution also calls on the party to no longer support Cheney and Kinzinger as Republicans.

GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel muddied the waters a bit by claiming that the “legitimate political discourse” referenced in the resolution “had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol.”

Kinzinger, who is not facing reelection, said on Thursday that Republican leadership had allowed “conspiracies and toxic tribalism” to hinder “their ability to see clear-eyed.”

Cheney responded by saying “I do not recognize those in my party who have abandoned the Constitution to embrace Donald Trump.”

The Republican Party is  becoming a disgraceful representative of the political climate in our country and making us a laughing stock to the rest of the world.

Tony

Melinda French Gates

Dear Commons Community,

Melinda French Gates is no longer pledging to donate most of her wealth to the charitable foundation she co-founded with her former husband and will instead disburse the funds among other philanthropies, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday.

The 57-year-old computer scientist made the change in late 2021 in her first individual pledge letter, the newspaper said, citing people familiar with the matter.

The move follows her divorce last year from Microsoft Corp co-founder Bill Gates.

The couple had pledged in 2010 to give the bulk of their fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which was founded in 2000 and spent $55 billion in its first two decades, with a focus on combating poverty, inequity and disease.

The foundation did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“I recognize the absurdity of so much wealth being concentrated in the hands of one person, and I believe the only responsible thing to do with a fortune this size is give it away – as thoughtfully and impactfully as possible,” French Gates wrote in her pledge letter, the Wall Street Journal said.

Maybe Ms. French Gates also wants to follow in the footsteps of Jeff Bezos’ ex-wife, MacKenzie Scott, who has put her own individual mark on philanthropic causes rather  than as part of a larger foundation.

Tony

https://youtu.be/E3cLX07PD8c

NBCOlympics #WinterOlympics2022 #OpeningCeremony

Dear Commons Community,

The opening ceremony at the Beijing Winter Olympics was quite a spectacular light show using high-technology to generate images and motion not seen before in such a large venue.  Above is a compilation of the best moments from the ceremonies.

On with the games!

Tony

Dear Commons Committee,

The Republican National Committee (RNC) voted Friday to formally censure two of their own party’s members — Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois — because of their work investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

The measure (see resolution below) was adopted yesterday by voice vote at the RNC’s annual meeting in Salt Lake City, which brought together the party’s 168 members for their general session. It was combined with a handful of other resolutions, such as one condemning the Chinese government, and passed overwhelmingly. Only a small handful of objections were voiced. There was no debate on any of the measures.  As reported by NBC News.

An RNC panel had advanced the measure on Thursday, which said that the committee will “immediately cease any and all support of them as members of the Republican Party for their behavior, which has been destructive to the institution of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Republican Party and our republic, and is inconsistent with the position of the conference.”

It continued by ripping the two members of Congress for their criticism of former President Donald Trump.

“The Conference must not be sabotaged by Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, who have demonstrated, with actions and words, that they support Democrat efforts to destroy President Trump more than they support winning back a Republican majority in 2022,” the resolution said.

The measure described the two members as “participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse” in their roles on the House committee investigating Jan. 6. Members who spoke with NBC News expressed frustration over the committee’s recent subpoenas of “alternate electors,” saying they felt such probing went far beyond the attack on the Capitol. (Arizona GOP chairwoman Kelli Ward, one of the electors subpoenaed, recently sued the committee to block its efforts.)

In a statement, RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said Cheney and Kinzinger “crossed a line.”

“They chose to join Nancy Pelosi in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol,” she said.

David Bossie, an RNC member from Maryland and an architect of the resolution, suggested that the committee couldn’t ignore what he described as Cheney and Kinzinger’s egregious actions.

“The committee overwhelmingly supported this resolution because of what they have done to empower Nancy Pelosi and to continue her reign of terror over the American people,” Bossie said. “It has nothing to do with anything but what Cheney and Kinzinger chose to do, which is to be Pelosi puppets.”

Paul Farrow, chairman of the Wisconsin GOP, said RNC members’ frustration with Cheney and Kinzinger was over the Jan. 6 investigation “starting to broaden their scope of what they’re looking at.”

“It almost seems like a fishing expedition where people are just trying to find something to hang on someone,” he said. “That’s not what we’re supposed to be doing. Our intent, as we look at it, is to hold our elected officials accountable, to make sure that they’re doing their best to keep the country moving forward. They’re not doing that right now.”

Ben Proto, chairman of the Connecticut GOP, was one of a handful of members to object to the resolution. He told NBC News that while he doesn’t “necessarily disagree that Cheney and Kinzinger have poked their finger at the Republican Party,” he feels any such rejection of the two should come from voters, not the party.

Kinzinger is retiring at the end of his term while Cheney is facing a primary challenge. Cheney has outraised her primary opponent by millions.

“The Wyoming voters will decide if they don’t want Liz Cheney,” Proto said. “I’m trying very hard to get my folks in Connecticut to stop standing in a circle and going ‘ready, aim, fire.'”

“We need to stop doing that around the country,” he added. “Sometimes, I think we kind of get in our own way.”

Another “no” vote came from Henry Barbour, a RNC member from Mississippi. He told NBC News after the vote that the resolution had originally been worded more harshly and was softened amid discussions with members. Still, he said members are deeply unhappy with Cheney and Kinzinger for “participating with Democratic leaders in this effort. We’re frustrated with them.”

In a Thursday statement, Cheney said GOP leaders “have made themselves willing hostages to a man who admits he tried to overturn a presidential election and suggests he would pardon Jan. 6 defendants, some of whom have been charged with seditious conspiracy.”

“I’m a constitutional conservative and I do not recognize those in my party who have abandoned the Constitution to embrace Donald Trump,” she added.

In a Thursday statement, Kinzinger said his “efforts will continue to be focused on standing up for truth and working to fight the political matrix that’s led us to this point.”

“Rather than focus their efforts on how to help the American people, my fellow Republicans have chosen to censure two lifelong members of their party for simply upholding their oaths of office,” he said. “They’ve allowed conspiracies and toxic tribalism [to] hinder their ability to see clear-eyed.”

Several lawmakers denounced the censure, including Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee. McDaniel is Romney’s niece.

“Shame falls on a party that would censure persons of conscience, who seek truth in the face of vitriol,” Romney tweeted Friday. “Honor attaches to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for seeking truth even when doing so comes at great personal cost.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., also tweeted late Thursday, “The RNC is censuring Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger because they are trying to find out what happened on January 6th — HUH?”

Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee said McDaniel and the GOP “keep reminding voters that there is no low they will not go to to protect Donald Trump and his chaos.”

“Their decision to prioritize politics over our country is disgusting and voters will not soon forget,” Ammar Moussa, the DNC rapid response director, said in a statement.

With this resolution, the RNC shows itself as representing a cowardly party that kowtows to the lying, despicable former president, Donald Trump!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Former Vice President Mike Pence issued a forceful rebuke (see video above) of Donald Trump yesterday, saying the former president is wrong to claim that Pence had the authority to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

“President Trump is wrong,” Pence said in a speech to the conservative Federalist Society in Florida. “I had no right to overturn the election.”

As is customary for a vice president, Pence oversaw the certification of the Electoral College vote and reportedly rejected direct appeals made by Trump and members of his inner circle urging him to simply refuse to declare Joe Biden the winner in six battleground states.

With Pence presiding over the Senate on Jan. 6, 2021, as Congress set about certifying the election results, a mob of Trump’s supporters descended on the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to prevent lawmakers and Pence from declaring Biden the official winner.

A mob clashed with Capitol police, forcing its way inside the Capitol building, some of them chanting, “Hang Mike Pence!”

Pence has mostly remained quiet about Trump’s pressure campaign and his role in inciting the mob. But the former vice president’s strong words yesterday came in response to comments made by Trump earlier this week in which he once again pushed the false narrative that Pence could have overturned the election and reinstalled Trump as the president.

In a statement on Sunday, Trump seemed to issue his most explicit public admission to date that he’d tried to convince Pence to “change the outcome” of the 2020 election, writing, “Unfortunately, he didn’t exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!”

In another statement, issued Tuesday, Trump went even further, suggesting that the House select committee investigating Jan. 6 should look into “why Mike Pence did not send back the votes for recertification or approval.”

At the Federalist Society gathering, Pence defended his decision, saying, “Under the Constitution, I had no right to change the outcome of our election.”

“The presidency belongs to the American people and the American people alone,” Pence said. “Frankly, there is no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American president.”

Pence’s former chief of staff, Marc Short, testified last week before the select committee, and Pence’s former chief counsel, Greg Jacob, met with the committee Tuesday.

On Friday, the Republican National Committee censured the two Republican members of the committee, Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, for their participation in the inquiry.

To be clear, Pence took down  Trump as well as those in the Republican Party and there are many, who continue to support the former president’s lies about the election and the insurrection on January 6th.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Meta, the company formerly known as Facebook, suffered its biggest one-day crash ever yesterday as its stock plummeted 26 percent and its market value plunged by more than $230 billion.  Mike Isaac, a technology correspondent for The New York Times, analyzes Facebook/Meta’s financial crisis in an article entitled, 6 Reasons Meta is in Trouble.  Below is an excerpt. 

His analysis is on-target!

Tony

———————————————————————————————-

Its crash followed a dismal earnings report on Wednesday, when Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive, laid out how the company was navigating a tricky transition from social networking toward the so-called virtual world of the metaverse. On Thursday, a company spokesman reiterated statements from its earnings announcement and declined to comment further.

Here are six reasons that Meta is in a difficult spot.

User growth has hit a ceiling.

The salad days of Facebook’s wild user growth are over.

Even though the company on Wednesday recorded modest gains in new users across its so-called family of apps — which includes Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp — its core Facebook social networking app lost about half a million users over the fourth quarter from the previous quarter.

That’s the first such decline for the company in its 18-year history, during which time it had practically been defined by its ability to bring in more new users. The dip signaled that the core app may have reached its peak. Meta’s quarterly user growth rate was also the slowest it has been in at least three years.

Meta’s executives have pointed to other growth opportunities, like turning on the money faucet at WhatsApp, the messaging service that has yet to generate substantial revenue. But those efforts are nascent. Investors are likely to next scrutinize whether Meta’s other apps, such as Instagram, might begin to hit their top on user growth.

Apple’s changes are limiting Meta.

Last spring, Apple introduced an “App Tracking Transparency” update to its mobile operating system, essentially giving iPhone owners the choice as to whether they would let apps like Facebook monitor their online activities. Those privacy moves have now hurt Meta’s business and are likely to continue doing so.

Now that Facebook and other apps must explicitly ask people for permission to track their behavior, many users have opted out. That means less user data for Facebook, which makes targeting ads — one of the company’s main ways of making money — more difficult.

Doubly painful is that iPhone users are a far more lucrative market to Facebook’s advertisers than, say, Android app users. People who use iPhones to access the internet typically spend more money on products and apps served up to them from mobile ads.

Meta said on Wednesday that Apple’s changes would cost it $10 billion in revenue over the next year. The company has railed against Apple’s shifts and said they are bad for small businesses that rely on advertising on the social network to reach customers. But Apple is unlikely to reverse its privacy changes and Meta’s shareholders know it.

Google is stealing online advertising share.

Meta’s troubles have been its competitors’ good fortune.

On Wednesday, David Wehner, Meta’s chief financial officer, noted that as Apple’s changes have given advertisers less visibility into user behaviors, many have started shifting their ad budgets to other platforms. Namely Google.

In Google’s earnings call this week, the company reported record sales, particularly in its e-commerce search advertising. That was the very same category that tripped up Meta in the last three months of 2021.

Unlike Meta, Google is not heavily dependent on Apple for user data. Mr. Wehner said it was likely that Google had “far more third-party data for measurement and optimization purposes” than Meta’s ad platform.

Mr. Wehner also pointed to Google’s deal with Apple to be the default search engine for Apple’s Safari browser. That means Google’s search ads tend to appear in more places, taking in more data that can be useful for advertisers. That’s a huge problem for Meta in the long term, especially if more advertisers switch to Google search ads.

TikTok and Reels present a conundrum.

For more than a year, Mr. Zuckerberg has pointed to how formidable TikTok has been as a foe. The Chinese-backed app has grown to more than a billion users on the back of its highly shareable and strangely addictive short video posts. And it is fiercely competing with Meta’s Instagram for eyeballs and attention.

Meta has cloned TikTok with a video product feature called Instagram Reels. Mr. Zuckerberg said on Wednesday that Reels, which is prominently placed in people’s Instagram feeds, was currently the No. 1 driver of engagement across the app.

The problem is that while Reels may be attracting users, it doesn’t make money as effectively as Instagram’s other features, like Stories and the main feed. That’s because it’s slower to make money off video ads, since people tend to skip past them. That means the more that Instagram pushes people toward using Reels, the less money it may make on those users.

Mr. Zuckerberg compared the situation to a similar time several years ago when Instagram introduced its Stories feature, which was a clone of Snapchat. That product also did not make as much money for the company when it debuted, though the ad dollars eventually followed. Still, there’s no guarantee Instagram Reels can repeat that magic.

Spending on the metaverse is bonkers.

Mr. Zuckerberg believes so much that the internet’s next generation is the metaverse — a still fuzzy and theoretical concept that involves people moving across different virtual- and augmented-reality worlds — that he is willing to spend big on it.

So big that the spending amounted to more than $10 billion last year. Mr. Zuckerberg expects to spend even more in the future.

Yet there is no evidence the bet will pay off. Unlike Facebook’s shift to mobile devices in 2012, virtual reality use is still the province of niche hobbyists and has yet to really break into the mainstream. Widespread augmented-reality headsets are also months — if not years — away.

In essence, Mr. Zuckerberg is asking employees, users and investors to have faith in him and his metaverse vision. That’s a big ask for something that will cost the company billions in the coming years and that may never come to fruition.

The specter of antitrust looms.

The threat of regulators in Washington coming for Mr. Zuckerberg’s company is a headache that just won’t go away.

Meta faces multiple investigations, including from a newly aggressive Federal Trade Commission and multiple state attorneys general, into whether it acted in an anti-competitive manner. Lawmakers have also coalesced around congressional efforts to pass antitrust bills.

Mr. Zuckerberg has argued that Meta is not a social networking monopoly. He has pointed furiously to what he calls “unprecedented levels of competition,” including from TikTok, Apple, Google and other future opponents.

But the threat of antitrust action has made it more difficult for Meta to buy its way into new social networking trends. In the past, Facebook bought Instagram and WhatsApp with little scrutiny as those services gained billions of users. Now even some of Meta’s seemingly less contentious acquisitions in virtual reality and GIFs have been challenged by regulators globally.

With deal-making less likely, the onus is on Meta to innovate its way out of any challenges.

In the past, Mr. Zuckerberg might have been given the benefit of the doubt that he would be able to do so. But on Thursday at least, faith was in short supply on Wall Street.

Dear Commons Community,

The University of Arizona announced last week that it plans to take over and operate the University of Arizona Global Campus, a nonprofit online institution created after UA purchased the for-profit Ashford University in 2020.

The recently announced move represents a deepening of the relationship between the university and UAGC, a nonprofit entity that has been affiliated with the university but has been led by different chief executives and governed by different boards. The move follows a tumultuous few years for UAGC, which has been a vehicle for Arizona to reach a wider market of adult students, but which some critics say is a losing venture for the land-grant university. Faculty members, lawmakers, higher-ed experts, and others have raised concerns about how Arizona’s continuing relationship with the nonprofit could put it in dangerous legal territory and tarnish the flagship’s reputation.  As reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education:

In November, the U.S. Education Department told University of Arizona Global Campus that it would be unable to collect federal student aid unless it immediately provided the department a financial audit or a 25-percent letter of credit to the tune of $103 million. The next month, the department placed UAGC under heightened cash monitoring, which is an extra level of financial scrutiny. So the university signed a temporary provisional agreement with UAGC and the University of Arizona Foundation, which makes the university liable for UAGC’s performance requirements for Title IV funds. UAGC and the University of Arizona amended the terms of their affiliation agreement, which had originally specified that they would remain separate entities for at least three years. As a result of the amended agreement, the university is starting the process of absorbing its affiliate.

Jon Dudas, UA’s senior vice president and secretary, told The Chronicle that the process could take 12 to 18 months, or more.

UA Global Campus, meanwhile, is under pressure from its accreditor, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges Senior College and University Commission, which wrote in June that it “has strong concerns that the targets set for academic improvement are seriously inadequate to reach levels of student outcomes that should be expected at an accredited institution.” The commission also sought further information and analysis about UAGC’s marketing, retention, and student-success efforts.

A report from a recent site visit to UAGC’s headquarters, in Chandler, Ariz., is expected to come to the accrediting commission this month. The commission could penalize the online-education provider based on that report.

Dudas said the goal is for UA Global Campus to eventually fall under the Higher Learning Commission, the same accrediting body as the University of Arizona.

“We feel pretty good about where accreditation is going,” Dudas said. “Regardless of what the outcome is, we feel like it’s good that we’re more involved or can be more involved.”

Jamienne S. Studley, president of the accrediting group, said it would be a “substantive change” for Arizona to take over a separately accredited institution.

At the same time, Zovio — Ashford’s former parent company and UAGC’s online program manager — is facing a lawsuit from the California attorney general for allegedly misleading students to get them to enroll, and for using illegal debt-collection methods. Prosecutors are reportedly seeking $100 million in penalties and restitution for students they say were harmed; the University of Arizona has sought to distance itself and UAGC from that lawsuit, saying any damages would be for Zovio and Ashford to pay.

Through a company spokesperson, Zovio denied that it ever “systematically misled” students. The company believes that its former practice of adding debt-collection fees to overdue bills complied with California law, according to the representative.

Phil Hill, an educational-technology consultant and blogger, said the University of Arizona is naïve if it thinks the Zovio lawsuit won’t affect them.

“If you put everything on a partner that can’t deliver, you’re screwed, too,” he said. Those who want to attack UAGC, he said, “can anchor their criticisms against this lawsuit.”

Faculty members are also trying to learn more about how the acquisition could affect them. Melanie Hingle, an associate professor of nutrition at the university and vice chair of the faculty, told The Chronicle that not much happened during the year and a half after the Ashford purchase, and then in

“We have a lot of questions about what is happening,” she said.

Among them, said Jessica J. Summers, a professor in the department of teaching, learning, and sociocultural studies and chair of the faculty, are how much the university is going to invest in the merger and how it will change UA’s system of shared governance.

Dudas said the university administration plans to work with the faculty to hash out these issues.

“If we had done this over three years, we would have been discussing this over those three years,” Dudas said. “The impetus for doing it sooner was the Department of Education giving us these options.” Regarding any concerns that the faculty, accreditors, or Board of Regents have, he said, “We intend to work together over the next several months to really work through each of these issues.”

According to the Arizona Daily Star, UA Global Campus enrolls approximately 28,000 students, a level that Zovio executives characterized in an earnings call as having “remained challenging.” UAGC did not respond to a request for comment from The Chronicle.

Hill said he believes the University of Arizona committed itself to Ashford, and now UAGC, out of a genuine desire to serve Arizonans by making education more accessible. The Global Campus acquisition may also help Arizona compete with Arizona State University’s online-education program, which enrolls almost 54,000 students, according to the Arizona Daily Star — more than eight times UA’s online enrollment of 6,500.

“It’s a different model than a traditional University of Arizona model, but it’s an important model,” Dudas said. “There are a number of people out there, a number of students who, for whatever reason, didn’t have the opportunity to go to school right out of high school. And we want to make sure we provide them with education.”

Summers said she believes the University of Arizona is in a good position to “turn things around” for the former for-profit college.

“That for-profit piece really does lie with Zovio, and they’re in a lot of trouble right now,” she said. “Who knows what that’s going to look like in the coming months because of pending litigation? But we’re not associated with that liability, and the reputation of UAGC can hopefully stand on its own.”

We wish UA good luck with this take over but there are sticky-wickets here that can rear their ugly heads especially with regard to Zovio.

Tony

Adam Kinzinger and Josh Hawley

Dear Commons Community,

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.)  blasted Sen. Josh Hawley yesterday for his positions on the Ukraine and NATO.

Hawley criticized President Joe Biden’s decision to order troops to Europe as Russia increases its military presence on its border with Ukraine. At the same time, he asked the White House to drop U.S. support for Ukraine joining NATO, according to The Hill.

Kinzinger wasn’t impressed by Hawley’s suggestion that America not support its ally, especially considering that he serves on the Jan. 6 select committee, while Hawley was seen raising his fist in solidarity towards a crowd of Donald Trump supporters ahead of the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6.

And he didn’t mince words, calling Hawley “one of the worst human beings,” and “a self egrandizing con artist” in a fiery tweet, adding, ”When Trump goes down I certainly hope this evil will be layed in the open for all to see, and be ashamed of.”

Hawley told Business Insider that he didn’t understand Kinzinger’s animosity.

“And what prompts this outburst?” Hawley asked, before adding, “Weird.”

Kinzinger agreed via Twitter that “we are in weird times,” and said the proof is a Senator like Hawley who seems “more interested in pleasing Tucker Carlson of Fox News and playing to worst instincts than leading. Denying Jan 6th truth despite fomenting it, among other things.”

Kinzinger has it right and his description of Hawley is spot on!

Tony

Charlie Sykes

Dear Commons Community,

Conservative Charlie Sykes suggested people may look back “with a certain sense of nostalgia” at Donald Trump’s first presidency if he wins the White House again in 2024.

Sykes, founder of the conservative website The Bulwark, noted in an essay published yesterday there were certain lines that even Trump’s most loyal enablers from his administration wouldn’t cross — such as former Attorney General Bill Barr’s dismissal of 2020 voter fraud conspiracies or former Vice President Mike Pence’s refusal to help him overturn the election result.

“For all their many faults, Pence, Barr, and even Giuliani came from a different era of American politics, with lingering (and rapidly fading) memories of the rule of law and a (more or less) decent respect for the opinions of mankind,” he said.

“But in a second Trump term, they won’t be there,” Sykes warned. “It will be all Kayleighs, Bannons, Epshteyns, McEntees, Bonginos, D’Souzas, and Stephen Millers.”

“So consider this: In Trump 2.0, we may look back on Bill Barr, Mike Pence, and — God forgive me — Rudy Giuliani with a certain sense of nostalgia, because where are those lines now?” he concluded.

God help us if Trump even comes close to the presidency again!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Whoopi Goldberg was suspended for two weeks yesterday as co-host of “The View” because of what the head of ABC News called her “wrong and hurtful comments” about Jews and the Holocaust.

“While Whoopi has apologized, I’ve asked her to take time to reflect and learn about the impact of her comments. The entire ABC News organization stands in solidarity with our Jewish colleagues, friends, family and communities,” ABC News President Kim Godwin said in a statement.

The suspension came a day after Goldberg’s comment during a discussion on “The View” that race was not a factor in the Holocaust. Goldberg apologized hours later and again on Tuesday’s morning episode, but the original remark drew condemnation from several prominent Jewish leaders.  As reported by the Associated Press.

“My words upset so many people, which was never my intention,” she said Tuesday morning. “I understand why now and for that I am deeply, deeply grateful because the information I got was really helpful and helped me understand some different things.”

Goldberg made her original comments during a discussion on the show Monday about a Tennessee school board’s banning of “Maus,” a Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel about the Nazi death camps during World War II. She said the Holocaust was “not about race … it’s about man’s inhumanity to other man.”

“I misspoke,” Goldberg said at the opening of Tuesday’s show.

The flare-up over Goldberg’s remarks this week highlighted the enduring complexity of some race-related issues, including the widespread but strongly contested notion that only people of color can be victims of racism.

“Effective immediately, I am suspending Whoopi Goldberg for two weeks for her wrong and hurtful comments,” Godwin said in her statement.

“The View” brought on Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League and author of “It Could Happen Here,” on Tuesday to discuss why her words had been hurtful.

“Jewish people at the moment are feeling besieged,” Greenblatt said.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, praised Goldberg for being outspoken over the years on social issues but said he struggled to understand her statement on the Holocaust.

“The only explanation that I have for it is that there is a new definition of racism that has been put out there in the public recently that defines racism exclusively as the targeting of people of color. And obviously history teaches us otherwise,” Cooper said.

“Everything about Nazi Germany and about the targeting of the Jews and about the Holocaust was about race and racism. That’s the unfortunate, unassailable historic fact,” he said.

Kenneth L. Marcus, chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, linked Goldberg’s remarks to broader misconceptions of the Holocaust, Jewish identity and antisemitism.

“In her error, she was reflecting a misunderstanding of Jewish identity that is both widespread and dangerous that is sometimes described as erasive antisemitism,” said Marcus, who is the author of ‘The Definition of Anti-Semitism.’

“It is the notion that Jews should be viewed only as being white, privileged oppressors,” he said. “It denies Jewish identity and involves a whitewashing of Jewish history.”

Marcus referred to the use of anti-Jewish stereotypes “about being powerful, controlling and sinister,” coupled with downplaying or denying antisemitism.

Jill Savitt, president and CEO of the National Center for Civil and Human Rights, offered a measured view of Goldberg’s comments.

“No one can get into Whoopi Goldberg’s head, … But I think what she’s trying to say is that the Holocaust is about hatred. It’s about inhumanity. It’s about what human beings will do to one another that is inhumane,” Savitt said.

Complex issues demand more than placing blame, she said.

“I think people are not as quick to give anybody the benefit of the doubt these days, which is a shame because in order to work through painful, complicated, difficult issues, especially painful histories,” Savitt said, “we could give each other a little more grace because people are going to make mistakes or they’re going to say things that offend.”

In Israel, being Jewish is rarely seen in racial terms, in part because of the country’s great diversity. Yet Jewish identity goes far beyond religion. Israelis typically refer to the “Jewish people” or “Jewish nation,” describing a group or civilization bound together by a shared history, culture, language and traditions and deep ties to Jewish communities overseas.

On “The View” Monday, Goldberg, who is Black, had expressed surprise that some Tennessee school board members were uncomfortable about nudity in “Maus.”

“I mean, it’s about the Holocaust, the killing of 6 million people, but that didn’t bother you?” she said. “If you’re going to do this, then let’s be truthful about it. Because the Holocaust isn’t about race. No, it’s not about race.”

She continued on that line despite pushback from some of her fellow panelists.

The U.S. Holocaust Museum in Washington responded to Goldberg with a tweet.

“Racism was central to Nazi ideology. Jews were not defined by religion, but by race. Nazi racist beliefs fueled genocide and mass murder,” it said.

That tweet also included a link to the museum’s online encyclopedia, which said the Nazis attributed negative stereotypes about Jews to a biologically determined racial heritage.

Savitt said while Jews are not a race, Nazis made Judaism a a race in their effort to create a racial hierarchy that “borrowed this, it should be said, from the American conversation about racial superiority and eugenics.”

On Twitter, there were several calls for Goldberg’s firing, where it appeared caught up in the familiar debates between left and right.

Tony