Dear Commons Community,

The New York Times columnist,  Farhad Manjoo, takes a look at the state of Mark Zuckerberg’s Metaverse and is not impressed. To the contrary, he characterizes it as a “cartoony wasteland” that has nothing to show for the billions of dollars that has been invested.  Entitled, “My Sad, Lonely Expensive Adventures in Zuckerberg’s V.R.”, he concludes:

“I’m not ruling out socializing in V.R.; it’s possible that someday, someone will crack the code for having a good time in virtual worlds. But Meta’s big spending isn’t getting us there. This is a company with too much money and too little original or innovative thought. It’s burning billions on a party that nobody wants to attend.”

Wow!

His entire column is below

Tony

———————————————————————————————————–

The New York Times

My Sad, Lonely, Expensive Adventures in Zuckerberg’s V.R.

Nov. 4, 2022

By Farhad Manjoo

Opinion Columnist

Where is all the money going?

Meta, the corporation formerly known as Facebook, has been investing staggering sums in what it calls “the metaverse,” the virtual-reality wonderland that Mark Zuckerberg argues represents the future of human connection.

But to me the most interesting questions about the metaverse are less sociological than financial. When I don the company’s latest V.R. headset, the $1,500 Meta Quest Pro, and parachute into Horizon Worlds, Meta’s virtual theme park, it isn’t the future of human communication that I’m left wondering about. Instead it’s the state of Meta’s accounting department.

Zuckerberg’s Xanadu is a cartoony wasteland; everywhere you look, billboards promise big fun — there are concerts, game rooms, open mics, dance halls, bowling alleys, escape rooms and much more. But nearly all of it is a tease. Most of these places have been left for dead; you’ll be lucky to find many venues populated with more than a single other avatar. Every corner of Meta’s metaverse reeks of creepy abandonment, like the post-apocalyptic United States of the Fallout games. And as you wander about the forsaken place you can’t help picturing all those billions being set on fire: Zuckerberg spent all that dough … on this? How? Why? What is he thinking? Is he being blackmailed?

The amounts are stupefying. In an earnings release last month the company said Reality Labs, its metaverse business, had burned through nearly $4 billion in the latest financial quarter. The division spent more than $10 billion so far this year, on pace to exceed the $12 billion it spent on the metaverse last year. In just a few years, Meta’s V.R. investments have exceeded what the United States spent on the Manhattan Project (adjusted for inflation).

Sure, lots of tech companies pour boatloads into new initiatives. Netflix has invested tens of billions of dollars in movies and TV shows. Tesla is spending mightily to build out its car and battery manufacturing operations. And every year Amazon spends billions and billions on data centers and fulfillment warehouses.

But what sets Meta’s spending apart is how amazingly little it has to show for the money. At least Netflix’s billions got us “Stranger Things” and “Squid Game”; Tesla’s money is revolutionizing the car industry, and Amazon’s endless investments let me get same-day shipping on toothpaste and toilet paper. Meta’s V.R. spending, on the other hand, seems barely more fruitful than shoveling cash into a furnace. Reality Labs’ $12 billion in costs resulted in just $2.3 billion in revenue last year; so far this year revenue is just barely higher, while costs are up by more than a quarter.

Meta’s big spending might make sense if it were using the money to subsidize the cost of its V.R. headsets — lowering its prices enough to make the devices a mainstream hit. But as I said, the company’s latest V.R. device sells for an eye-bleeding $1,500.

That headset, the Meta Quest Pro, is quite nice. It’s more comfortable to wear than older and cheaper versions, and its display and motion-tracking system work much more smoothly, eliminating the slight sense of motion sickness and eye strain I’ve felt with previous V.R. devices.

Still, it’s far beyond the price range of most consumers. Meta says the device is aimed at professionals who want to make V.R. a big part of their remote offices, but even that seems a stretch. It’s still a big, bulky thing sitting on your head — I struggled to stay in any V.R. session for longer than an hour or so before my head started to ache. I doubt there will be many office workers turning to this headset as their primary work device.

And Meta’s cheaper headset is hardly cheap. At $399, the Meta Quest 2 is as costly as many high-end video game consoles — and far less useful. Where an Xbox Series S or PlayStation 5 teems with games and a huge community of users to play against, much of Meta’s Quest ecosystem feels like a work in progress. There are many apps and games available in Meta’s V.R. store, and a few are pretty fun — most, though, seem like beta products, asking you for $10 or $20 for games that offer barely an hour of enjoyment.

And then there’s Horizon Worlds, the social corner of Meta’s metaverse. Horizon Worlds is meant to be the V.R. equivalent of the Facebook app — it’s a place to hang out, to chat with friends and strangers, to play games, to explore the digital future of human relationships. It seems to be Zuckerberg’s favorite part of V.R.; he frequently posts images of his adventures through Horizon Worlds, often describing it as the future of digital socialization. But on a call with investors last month he did concede that Horizon Worlds “obviously has a long way to go before it’s going to be what we aspire for it to be.”

I’ll say. Citing internal company documents, The Wall Street Journal reported last month that Meta has been forced to reduce its growth expectations for Horizon Worlds — the company once aimed for hitting 500,000 monthly active users by the end of the year, but it’s currently at fewer than 200,000.

“An empty world is a sad world,” noted a company document cited by the Journal. That rang true to me. My time in Horizon Worlds often felt more gloomy than fun. Here is the main social app on the most important new device made by the internet’s most successful social-networking company — and it’s a buggy, empty, low-fi mess, where avatars don’t even have legs (yet); where most of the “worlds” I visited were deserted and the most populous places I found had just dozens of people; and where conversations frequently go little deeper than “hey” and “how you doin’?”

I’m not ruling out socializing in V.R.; it’s possible that someday, someone will crack the code for having a good time in virtual worlds. But Meta’s big spending isn’t getting us there. This is a company with too much money and too little original or innovative thought. It’s burning billions on a party that nobody wants to attend.

Dear Commons Community,

Elon Musk will begin laying off Twitter employees today, according to a company-wide email, culling the social media service’s 7,500-person work force a little over a week after completing his blockbuster buyout.

Twitter employees were notified in the email that the layoffs were set to begin, according to a copy of the message seen by The New York Times. Workers were instructed to go home and not go to the offices today as the cuts proceeded. The message, which came from a generic address and was signed “Twitter,” did not detail the total number of layoffs.

“In an effort to place Twitter on a healthy path, we will go through the difficult process of reducing our global work force,” the email said. “We recognize that this will impact a number of individuals who have made valuable contributions to Twitter, but this action is unfortunately necessary to ensure the company’s success moving forward.”

About half of Twitter’s workers appeared set to lose their jobs, according to previous internal messages and an investor, though the final count may take time to become clear. As the email landed in employee inboxes on last night, workers posted salute emojis and heart emojis in Slack, the messaging service. Later in the evening, some employees said they had lost access to the company’s systems, a possible prelude to being laid off.

Mr. Musk completed his $44 billion purchase of Twitter on Oct. 27 and immediately fired its chief executive and other top managers. More executives have since resigned or were let go, while managers were asked to draw up lists of high- and low-performing employees, likely with an eye toward job cuts. Mr. Musk also brought in more than 50 engineers and employees from his other companies, including the electric carmaker Tesla, to review the layoff lists of Twitter workers and the social platform’s technology.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The Brooklyn Nets suspended guard Kyrie Irving indefinitely yesterday, calling him “unfit to be associated” with the team because he had declined to say he has no antisemitic views in the week since he posted a link on Twitter to a film with hateful claims about Jewish people.  As reported by The New York Times.

“Such failure to disavow antisemitism when given a clear opportunity to do so is deeply disturbing, is against the values of our organization, and constitutes conduct detrimental to the team,” the Nets said in a statement.

Irving had declined to apologize despite fierce backlash, but late last night, hours after the Nets suspended him, he relented in a post on Instagram.

“To All Jewish families and Communities that are hurt and affected from my post, I am deeply sorry to have caused you pain, and I apologize,” Irving said in the Instagram post.

The Nets said Irving would be suspended without pay for at least five games and “until he satisfies a series of objective remedial measures that address the harmful impact of his conduct.”

Yestyerday, before he was suspended, Irving did not apologize for his post but said there were some things in the film he did not agree with.

“I didn’t mean to cause any harm,” Irving said after a Nets practice. “I’m not the one that made the documentary.”

When asked what specific points in the film he did not agree with, Irving responded vaguely.

“Some of the criticism of the Jewish faith and the community, for sure,” Irving said. “Some points made in there that were unfortunate.”

The team said in the suspension announcement that it was “dismayed” that Irving did not “acknowledge specific hateful material in the film.”

Last week, Irving posted a link on Twitter to the film “Hebrews to Negroes: Wake Up Black America,” which is driven by antisemitic tropes about Jewish people lying about their origins. Its false and outlandish claims about Jews include the assertion that the Holocaust never happened.

“Those falsehoods are unfortunate,” Irving said when asked if he believed that the Holocaust occurred, despite what the movie said. “And it’s not that I don’t believe in the Holocaust. I never said that. Never ever have said it. It’s not come out of my mouth. I never tweeted it. I never liked anything like it. So, the Holocaust in itself is an event that means something to a large group of people that suffered something that could have been avoided.”

On Sunday, Irving deleted the Twitter post that included the film’s link, but he had not spoken publicly since Saturday. That night, during a postgame news conference, Irving argued with a reporter about whether he was promoting the movie by posting about it on Twitter.

In his apology yesterday, Irving said he “initially reacted out of emotion to being unjustly labeled Anti-Semitic, instead of focusing on the healing process of my Jewish Brothers and Sisters that were hurt from the hateful remarks made in the Documentary.”

In the past week, the N.B.A. and its players’ union released statements condemning antisemitism without naming Irving. The Nets owner Joe Tsai said in a tweet that he was “disappointed” with Irving and would speak to him.

In a statement released with the Anti-Defamation League on Wednesday, Irving and the Nets said they would each donate $500,000 to unspecified causes and organizations that combat hate in their communities. When asked Thursday if he had met with the Anti-Defamation League, Irving said he was told that the organization wanted a meeting and “we handled it.”

Irving had said in his statement Wednesday that he took responsibility for his post.

Yesterday morning, less than an hour before Irving spoke to reporters at practice, N.B.A. Commissioner Adam Silver said he planned to meet with Irving and expressed disappointment that Irving had not “offered an unqualified apology and more specifically denounced the vile and harmful content contained in the film he chose to publicize.”

In his Instagram post, Irving apologized for “posting the documentary without context and a factual explanation outlining the specific beliefs in the Documentary I agreed with and disagreed with.”

He said he “had no intentions to disrespect any Jewish cultural history regarding the Holocaust or perpetuate any hate,” but he did not cite specific arguments from the film that he disagreed with.

The Nets said in their statement announcing Irving’s suspension that they had tried to help Irving “understand the harm and danger of his words and actions.”

What a sad situation!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump saw Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as their “only chance” at overturning Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election, according to emails turned over to congressional investigators and first obtained by Politico.

“We want to frame things so that Thomas could be the one to issue some sort of stay or other circuit justice opinion saying Georgia is in legitimate doubt,” Kenneth Chesebro, one of the then-president’s lawyers, wrote to other members of Trump’s legal team on Dec. 31, 2020.

Thomas was seen as key to the strategy of contesting the election results because he is the justice assigned to adjudicate emergency appeals and potentially issue a stay in matters in Georgia, where Trump and his lawyers claimed without evidence that voter fraud had cost them a victory. A stay issued by Thomas, Trump’s lawyers believed, might convince others that the fraud claims had merit.

One of the people on the email chain was lawyer John Eastman, a central architect of the Trump strategy to overturn the election who had clerked with Thomas and was in contact with the justice’s wife, Ginni Thomas, regarding efforts to block the Electoral College certification of Biden’s victory.

“Realistically, our only chance to get a favorable judicial opinion by Jan. 6, which might hold up the Georgia count in Congress, is from Thomas — do you agree, Prof. Eastman?”

“I think I agree with this,” Eastman replied in one of the emails given to the select committee last week, adding that a stay issued by Thomas would “kick the Georgia legislature into gear.”

In another email sent on Dec. 31, Chesebro laid out the urgent timeline of the Trump team’s election Hail Mary.

“[I]f we can just get this case pending before the Supreme Court by Jan. 5, ideally with something positive written by a judge or justice, hopefully Thomas, I think it’s our best shot at holding up the count of a state in Congress,” Chesebro wrote.

The Supreme Court did not intervene in the matter, however, and then-Vice President Mike Pence refused to go along with a plan hatched by Eastman to simply send the Electoral College votes back to the states. Instead, Trump’s supporters waged a violent attempt to disrupt the certification of Biden’s win, ransacking the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

White House lawyer Eric Herschmann testified to the Jan. 6 selection committee that the day after the insurrection, he was contacted by Eastman.

“He started to ask me about something dealing with Georgia and preserving something potentially for appeal and I said to him, ‘Are you out of your effing mind?’ I said, ‘I only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth from now on: orderly transition.’”

After Eastman repeated those words, Herschmann continued. “Good, John, now I’m going to give you the best free legal advice you’re ever getting in your life: Get a great effing criminal defense lawyer. You’re going to need it.”

Trump’s effort to overturn Georgia’s election results is the subject of an ongoing Fulton County grand jury investigation. In that matter, Justice Thomas did issue a stay that initially blocked a lower court order compelling Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., from testifying.

On Tuesday, however, the full court declined to block the subpoena issued to Graham, clearing the way for him to testify before the grand jury about his efforts on behalf of Trump in Georgia.

In late August, Eastman invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and cited attorney-client privilege Wednesday when he was brought before the Fulton County grand jury.

What a sleazy bunch of characters!

Tony

George Will

Dear Commons Community,

Conservative commentator George Will sent a stark warning to Democrats in his latest column for The Washington Post.

He urged them to ditch President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris as candidates for the 2024 presidential election or potentially face former President Donald Trump returning to the White House.

Biden is “past his prime,” Will wrote in the opinion piece titled “For the good of the country, Biden and Harris should bow out of the 2024 election” that was published Wednesday.

Harris is “unqualified to be considered as his successor,” he added in the article which detailed what he believed were multiple missteps from the pair.

“In 2024, the Republican Party might present the nation with a presidential nominee whose unfitness has been demonstrated,” Will said, referring to Trump. “After next Tuesday’s sobering election results, Democrats should resolve not to insult and imperil the nation by doing likewise.”

George Will quit the GOP in 2016 in protest of Trump’s takeover of the party and his presidential nomination. In 2020, he said he would vote for Biden — the first time he’d cast his ballot for a Democratic president.

George Will has a good eye for politics but I don’t know that I agree with him.  It is not clear to me that Trump will be the Republican nominee in 2024.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The two largest U.S. pharmacy chains, CVS Health and Walgreen Co., announced agreements in principle yesterday to pay about $5 billion each to settle lawsuits nationwide over the toll of opioids, and a lawyer said Walmart, a third pharmacy behemoth, is in discussions for a deal.

The prospective settlements are part of a shift in the legal landscape surrounding the opioid epidemic. Instead of suspense over whether companies in the drug industry would be held to account through trials or settlements, the big question is now how their money will be used and whether it will make a difference in fighting a crisis that has only intensified.

The deals, if completed, would end thousands of lawsuits in which governments claimed pharmacies filled prescriptions they should have flagged as inappropriate. With settlements already proposed or finalized between some of the biggest drugmakers and distribution companies, the recent developments could be the among the last multibillion-dollar settlements to be announced.

They also would bring the total value of all settlements to more than $50 billion, with most of it required to be used by state and local governments to combat opioids, which have been linked to more than 500,000 deaths in the U.S. over the last two decades.  As reported by the Associated Press

“It’s one more culprit of the overdose crisis that is having to pay their dues,” said Courtney Gary-Allen, organizing director of the Maine Recovery Advocacy Project. “Average Americans have been paying it for a long time.”

Gary-Allen, who is a member of a council that will help determine how Maine uses its opioid settlement funds, said more money to address the problem will help. In her state, she said, the needs include more beds for medical detox and for treatment.

Neither Woonsocket, Rhode Island-based CVS nor Deerfield, Illinois-based Walgreens is admitting wrongdoing.

The plans spring from mediation involving a group of state attorneys general. Before they move ahead, state and then local governments would need to sign on. So far, the detailed, formal deals have not been presented to the government entities so they can decide whether to join.

Under the tentative plans, CVS would pay $4.9 billion to local governments and about $130 million to Native American tribes over a decade. Walgreens would pay $4.8 billion to governments and $155 million to tribes over 15 years. The exact amount depends on how many governments join the deals.

Both noted they have been addressing the crisis through such measures as starting educational programs and installing safe disposal units for drugs in stores and police departments. And both said the settlements would allow them to help while staying focused on their business.

“We are pleased to resolve these longstanding claims and putting them behind us is in the best interest of all parties, as well as our customers, colleagues and shareholders,” Thomas Moriarty, CVS chief policy officer and general counsel, said in a statement.

Walgreens said in a statement: “As one of the largest pharmacy chains in the nation, we remain committed to being a part of the solution, and this settlement framework will allow us to keep our focus on the health and wellbeing of our customers and patients, while making positive contributions to address the opioid crisis,” Walgreens said in a statement.

Paul Geller, a lawyer for governments in the lawsuits, said talks with Walmart continue. Walmart representatives would not comment Wednesday.

“These agreements will be the first resolutions reached with pharmacy chains and will equip communities across the country with the much-needed tools to fight back against this epidemic and bring about tangible, positive change,” lawyers for local governments said in a statement. “In addition to payments totaling billions of dollars, these companies have committed to making significant improvements to their dispensing practices to help reduce addiction moving forward.”

If these settlements are completed, they would leave mostly smaller drug industry players as defendants in lawsuits. Just this week, a group of mostly regional pharmacy chains sent to a judge, who is overseeing federal litigation, information about claims they face, a possible precursor to scheduling trials or mediating settlements involving some of those firms.

“One by one, we are holding every player in the addiction industry accountable for the millions of lives lost or devastated by the opioid epidemic,” Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said in a statement. “The companies that helped to create and fuel this crisis must commit to changing their businesses practices, and to providing the resources needed for treatment, prevention and recovery.”

Most of the nation’s opioid overdose deaths initially involved prescription drugs. As governments, doctors and companies took steps to make them harder to abuse and obtain, people addicted to them increasingly switched to heroin, which proved more deadly.

In recent years, opioid deaths have soared to record levels around 80,000 a year. Most of those deaths involve illicitly produced version of the powerful lab-made drug fentanyl, which is appearing throughout the U.S. supply of illegal drugs.

Only a handful of opioid settlements have had bigger dollar figures than the CVS plan. Distributors AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health and McKesson this year finalized a combined settlement worth $21 billion, and drugmaker Johnson & Johnson finalized a $5 billion deal.

Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, and members of the Sackler family who own the company have a proposed settlement that would involve up to $6 billion in cash, plus the value of the company, which would be turned into a new entity with its profits used to combat the epidemic. That plan has been put on hold by a court.

This is good news for all involved but there is an open question whether any of the owners and senior executives of the pharmaceutical companies who knew the dangers of opioids should also face criminal liability.

Tony

Liz Cheney and Elissa Slotkin

Dear Commons Community,

Republican Rep. Liz Cheney visited Michigan yesterday and crossed party lines to support Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin.  As reported by the Associated Press and CNN.

“If we want to ensure the survival of our republic, we have to walk away from politics as usual,” Cheney said. “We have to stand up, every one of us, and say we’re going to do what’s right for this country. We’re going to look beyond partisan politics.”

Slotkin is a two-term House member competing against Republican state Sen. Tom Barrett in Michigan’s redrawn 7th Congressional District, which includes Lansing. The contest is among the most expensive House races in the country and is considered a toss-up.

Slotkin, who described herself as a Democrat representing a Trump-voting district, told reporters that Cheney approached her last month on the House floor about the possible endorsement. Slotkin acknowledged during her speech that the two differ on most policy issues, joking that the last time Cheney was in the area was to counter something the Lansing-area Democrat was doing.

“But there is one really, really big thing we agree on and that is preserving the American democracy,” Slotkin said.

Cheney’s visit to the battleground state comes as she considers a 2024 presidential run after losing her primary earlier this year. Cheney was one of eight House Republicans who lost primaries or chose not to seek reelection after voting to impeach former President Donald Trump in 2020.

In her endorsement last week, Cheney mentioned that she’s become acquainted with Slotkin while serving together on the House Armed Services Committee. Slotkin also worked in U.S. intelligence, national security and defense during the Obama and Bush administrations.

Cheney said that this was the first time she has ever campaigned for a Democrat but that “it was not a hard decision at all.”

Both have been vocal critics of House Republicans who have sought to downplay the siege of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Cheney is vice chair of the House Jan. 6 committee, which recently issued a subpoena for Trump to testify.

“As a nation today, we are facing an ongoing assault by the former president and by people that are spreading his lie,” Cheney said Tuesday.

Following Cheney’s endorsement last week, her primary opponent Harriet Hageman and former U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard both announced that they were supporting Barrett in the Lansing-area race.

Barrett criticized Cheney during an event yesterday morning for having the “audacity” to endorse his opponent in a critical race that will “decide which party controls Congress.”

Cheney is leaving Congress at the end of her current term after losing the Republican primary for her at-large Wyoming seat in August. Her continued criticism of former President Donald Trump for his role in inciting the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol was seen as a key factor in her defeat.

Cheney said last month that she would not remain a Republican if Trump is the GOP nominee for president in 2024.

Kudos for Cheney for putting the country ahead of the party!

Tony

(Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Dear Commons Community,

The US Supreme Court yesterday ruled that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) must testify in the Georgia investigation into alleged election interference by former President Donald Trump.

The justices, in an unsigned order, lifted a temporary hold on an appeals court’s order compelling Graham to appear before an Atlanta special grand jury probing Trump’s efforts to overturn his narrow 2020 election loss in the Peach State.

Graham has no choice but to testify on Nov. 17 however, the top court did note that Graham still could raise objections to some questions from prosecutors.

The South Carolina senator, a top Trump ally, had argued that a provision of the Constitution, the speech and debate clause, shields him from being forced to testify at all.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis had told the justices that “the delay resulting from a stay would be unavoidably harmful” to the grand jury investigation.

Graham, a four-term senator who last won reelection in 2020, was first subpoenaed in July by Willis. The district attorney opened her investigation shortly after a recording of a January 2021 phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger was made public. In that call, Trump suggested Raffensperger could “find” the votes needed to overturn his narrow loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Willis wants to question Graham about two phone calls he made to Raffensperger and his staff in the weeks after the election.

During those calls, Graham asked about “reexamining certain absentee ballots cast in Georgia in order to explore the possibility of a more favorable outcome for former President Donald Trump,” Willis wrote in a petition seeking to compel his testimony.

Raffensperger said he took Graham’s question about absentee ballots as a suggestion to toss out legally cast votes. Graham has dismissed that interpretation as “ridiculous.” Graham has also argued that the call was protected because he was asking questions to inform his decisions on voting to certify the 2020 election and future legislation.

Graham’s legal team plans to reach out to Willis’ office about what happens next, according to a statement from the senator’s office.

Graham became a toady for Trump!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Fox News has been fueling a “culture and a climate” that led to last week’s violent break-in at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco house, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said in a CBS News interview airing today.

“They’re sowing the seeds, creating a culture and a climate like this,” Newsom told CBS News’ chief Washington correspondent, Major Garrett, referring to the conservative network. “I mean, look online. Look at the sewage that is online that they amplify on these networks and in social media to dehumanize people like Nancy Pelosi and other political leaders.”

The governor’s remarks come days after an intruder broke into the San Francisco house Pelosi shares with her husband, Paul, whom the intruder attacked with a hammer, causing a skull fracture and other injuries that required surgery.

“I’ve seen the dehumanization of Nancy Pelosi. I don’t think anyone’s been dehumanized like she has consistently,” Newsom said of his fellow California Democrat.

He specifically called out Fox News host Jesse Watters, who has done several segments about Paul Pelosi pleading guilty to a misdemeanor driving under the influence charge earlier this year.

“What he’s been saying about Paul Pelosi the last five, six months, mocking him consistently ― don’t tell me that’s not aiding and abetting all this. Of course it is,” Newsom said.

Watters downplayed the attack shortly after it happened, suggesting that the suspect, David Wayne DePape, should be released from custody.

“What I want is that I want this alleged perpetrator to be treated the exact same way if he had treated ― if he had attacked anybody else,” Watters said on his show. “Because a lot of people get hit with hammers. A lot of people get attacked. And a lot of the times they’re out on bail the next day and it’s a simple assault charge. So I don’t know why this guy is being treated differently.”

When law enforcement arrived at the Pelosis’ home during the attack, they found a roll of tape, rope, rubber and cloth gloves, two hammers and zip ties. DePape has been charged with one count of assault of an immediate family member of a U.S. official and one count of attempted kidnapping of a U.S. official. He faces a potential 50 years in prison.

DePape has “a long history of fringe conspiracy theory views,” California state Sen. Scott Wiener (D) said earlier this week, noting he became familiar with him and his pro-nudism activism while serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. A blog that media investigations have uncovered shows several troubling posts written by someone named David DePape, including remarks questioning the results of the 2020 presidential election, supporting former President Donald Trump and propping up QAnon conspiracy theories.

Watters is a Tucker Carlson wannabe who will do or say anything for a ratings bump!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The US Supreme Court yesterday appeared ready to rule that the race-based admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina were unlawful, based on questioning over five hours of vigorous arguments, a move that would overrule decades of affirmative action precedents.

Such a decision would jeopardize affirmative action at colleges and universities around the nation, particularly elite institutions, decreasing the representation of Black and Latino students and bolstering the number of white and Asian ones.  As reported by The New York Times:

Questioning from members of the court’s six-justice conservative majority was sharp and skeptical. “I’ve heard the word diversity quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means,” Justice Clarence Thomas said. “It seems to mean everything for everyone.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked a similar question about the term “underrepresented minority.”

“What does that mean?” he asked, adding that college admissions are “a zero-sum game” in which granting advantages to one group necessarily disadvantages another.

If the court does away with affirmative action by the end of its current term, it would represent the second time in the space of a year that its conservative supermajority has jettisoned decades of precedent to overturn a policy that has helped define American life. But as its decision in June eliminating the constitutional right to abortion made plain, members of that majority have not hesitated to take bold steps on divisive issues.

A ruling against the universities would be further evidence of the court’s rightward lurch after President Donald J. Trump’s appointment of three justices, and it could raise fresh questions about whether the court’s approach to precedent threatens the stability of the law and the court’s own legitimacy.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who views himself as the custodian of the court’s independence and authority, may have conflicting impulses in the cases argued Monday. He has long been critical of drawing distinctions based on race. His questions about race-neutral means of achieving diversity suggested that he might be pursuing a characteristically incremental path. That approach could limit the sweep of a decision rejecting race-conscious programs.

In general, two themes ran through questions from the court’s conservatives: that educational diversity can be achieved without directly taking account of race and that there must come a time when colleges and universities stop making such distinctions.

The court’s three liberal members put up a spirited defense.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said “race does correlate to some experiences and not others.”

“If you’re Black,” she said, “you’re more likely to be in an underresourced school. You’re more likely to be taught by teachers who are not as qualified as others. You’re more likely to be viewed as having less academic potential.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said it would be odd if admissions officers could consider factors like whether applicants were parents, veterans or disabled — but not if they were members of racial minorities. That has “the potential of causing more of an equal protection problem than it’s actually solving,” she said.

Justice Elena Kagan said she was worried about “a precipitous decline in minority admissions” if the court were to rule against affirmative action in higher education. “These are the pipelines to leadership in our society,” she said of elite universities.

Over the course of the argument, the justices discussed with seeming approval several kinds of race-neutral approaches: preferences based on socioeconomic status; so-called top 10 programs, which admit students who graduate near the top of their high school classes; and the elimination of preferences for children of alumni and major donors, who tend to be white.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether it would be permissible for minority students to write essays describing their experiences with race discrimination. Patrick Strawbridge, a lawyer for Students for Fair Admission, the group challenging the programs, said that was fine.

“What we object to,” he said, “is a consideration of race and race by itself.” Personal essays are different, he said. “It tells you something about the character and the experience of the applicant other than their skin color,” he said.

We will likely know in June but the hearing yesterday does not bode well for affirmative action.

Tony