The New York Times has been sued for discrimination against a white male.

 

File photo of the New York Times. New York Post/AFP.

The New York Times is being sued for discrimination by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) after they hired a less qualified multiracial woman over a qualified white male. New York Post. The role was for an assistant to the real estate editor and the white male candidate had relevant experience in the field. However, the paper went with a candidate that had no relevant experience in real estate, which was a requirement for the job. The incident occurred while the paper was pushing for DEI in their newsrooms and said that too many white males were in leadership. The Times says that race and gender had no role in the hiring and that they conducted it on merit. 

My Comment:

A good test to see if this is discrimination would be to flip the races and genders. If a multiracial woman was not hired for a job she was easily qualified for, but a less qualified white man was hired instead it would absolutely raise some eyebrows. But if it happened at a employer that just said that there were too many women/non-white supervisors? There is zero question that their would be a similar case filed by the EEOC. 

This case seems fairly open and shut. The woman that was hired had experience as a journalist but none in the real estate field. And she made it to the final round, along with a Black Male, a White Woman and an Asian Woman, while the white male didn't even get that far, despite being very qualified for the role. 

The problem with the case is that the New York Times DEI policy was for management, and this wasn't a management position. They could argue that the two things were separate and that their lower ranking jobs were color-blind. Unless there is a smoking gun where someone at the times was saying "don't hire white guys" it might be hard to prove the case. 

But I doubt this will go to trial. My guess is that the New York Times will quickly settle the case. Even if there isn't a smoking gun, it does seem clear that they were discriminating against the male and it's very possible a jury would rule against them. 

The bigger threat though is discovery. No big company wants discovery as it threatens to expose other problems they have and it could very well lead to a smoking gun. Plus, they don't want their DEI practices to become public as it is obviously bad publicity. Though the Times obviously has a left wing bias, they don't want regular readers to think that they hate white people. A settlement will prevent any of that from happening. 

I am happy that the EEOC is filing this lawsuit though. Hiring should be done on merit and if that means that a company ends up entirely white or without any whites whatsoever then so be it. Doing otherwise is discrimination, even if leftists don't want to believe it. 

Regardless, I do think there is systemic discrimination against white males in modern businesses, and it's not like it is even hidden. The New York Times was saying there were "too many" white mangers and that's pretty obvious discrimination. And the Times is hardly the only one doing this, though in many cases it's less about DEI and more about hiring an H1B instead of an American of any color. 

Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman is being courted to leave the Democratic Party.

 

Senator John Fetterman. Politico. 

Senator John Fetterman is being courted by Republicans to leave the Democratic Party. Politico. Reports suggest President Trump promised to support Fetterman with an endorsement and money for the 2028 campaign. Fetterman also is friends with Republicans in the Senate, including Dave McCormick and Katie Britt and often spends more time with Republicans than Democrats. Fetterman has a mixed voting record despite mostly voting for Democrat bills, but his support for Israel and frequent criticism of the Democrats and support for President Trump have left him on the outs. For his party, Fetterman says he will remain a Democrat and that he would be a "shitty Republican". 

My Comment:

It's really crazy how much the parties have switched when it comes to John Fetterman. Back in 2022 when he beat Dr. Oz he was one of the more hated Democrats in the Republican Party. The general consensus was that Fetterman was a brain damaged idiot who only one because Dr. Oz was a terrible candidate. His dressed down looks, wearing hoodies and not suits, was seen as insulting. Democrats instead were jubilant that they picked up a senate seat in a swing state and loved him. 

Fast forward four years and everything has flipped. Fetterman has quickly become the Republican's favorite Democrat while Democrats see him as a Democrat in Name Only. Democrats absolutely hate him now and he's the only Democrat that I know that has a higher approval rating with Republicans than his own party.

Indeed, Democrats are so unhappy with Fetterman that none of the Congress members in the state have endorsed him and there's an active effort to primary him in 2028. It's an effort that has a very good chance of success given how on the outs Fetterman is in the party. This is not the old generation of Democrats, it's a party that has purged all the Blue Dog Democrats and no longer tolerates anyone that isn't 100% on board. 

Should the switch happen, I don't think we could expect that Fetterman would suddenly become a right wing Republican. I would see him more like Senators Susan Colins and Lisa Murkowski, centrists that occasionally vote for the Democrats priorities when it comes to their own special interests. Republicans would not be getting a pro-life, pro-gun guy that would vote for them on every issue, but they would be gaining another seat and would get support on other issues, like immigration. 

I do think there is a place for someone like Fetterman in the party. The Republicans are the "big tent" party now (which is why we have been seeing so much internal sniping right now, it's all these factions trying to fight for supremacy with the groyper faction losing out) and he would join people like RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard as more left wing Republicans. 

The only problem I see is that is Fetterman the best Republicans can do in Pennsylvania? There is an argument to be made that Fetterman is better in the party he is for Republicans. We occasionally get votes for him and when he gets replaced by some left wing nutjob, it's possible that Republicans could get someone more reliably Republican after Fetterman loses in 2028. And he will lose in 2028 without Republican support, his own party won't vote for him in the primary and even if he goes independent, I can't see him winning. 

Still, all of this is academic at this point. Fetterman himself says he is not going to change parties and even though the offer is on the table, he might not take it. Fetterman also knows that going independent or switching parties is a recipe for disaster as it risks alienating both parties. The original party will view you as a traitor and the new party might not trust you and will view you as an interloper. Right now, I don't think Fetterman changing parties is too likely, but we will probably have to revisit the conversation again in 2028. 

Ukraine hits Russia's oil ports...

 

A sanctioned Russian oil tanker. Kees Torn via Flickr. 

Ukraine has struck Russia's key oil exporting infrastructure and two sanction oil tankers. CBS News. Primorsk, a major Baltic Sea port, was hit by drones from Ukraine and has hit two tankers near the Black Sea port Novorossiysk as well. This is causing a disruption of oil exports for Russia, which is making billions of dollars off of higher oil prices due to disruption from the Iran War. The Ukraine conflict has largely been a stalemate for months with most of the violence coming in tit-for-tat drone strikes. 

My Comment:

It's been awhile since I have covered the Russia-Ukraine war, and for good reason. There has been an almost total lack of coverage on the conflict ever since the conflict with Iran broke out. Many of the neutral and pro-Russia accounts that I read have totally moved on to the Iran war, many of them beclowning themselves in the process. Even pro-Ukraine accounts have been highlighting Ukraine's accomplishments in the Iran War, which, to be fair, have been a help. Ukraine actually has been a decent ally in the Iran conflict. 

Of course, there actual facts on the battlefield suggest the war has fallen into a doldrums. Sure, both Ukraine and Russia are taking territory and the war has a lot of tit-for-tat drone strikes but there hasn't been any major offensives from either side. Some of this is due to it being mud season, but it's clear that not much has changed in the conflict since the Iran war broke out. 

My general assessment for the war still remains an eventual Russian victory. This is attritional warfare, and it's messy and horrible and it's less about taking back territory and more about destroying weapons, vehicles and people. Indeed, given the state of movement in the battlefield, it seems as though Ukraine is settling into the same style of warfare, which is surprising given they can't possibly win such a conflict given their lack of economy, manpower and weapons compared to Russia. 

However, these strikes are probably important given that they are making a bad situation worse. Obviously, gas and oil prices are very high due to the Iran conflict. But it's not the only reason they are high, blowing up oil tanks and tankers in Russia is going to contribute to the problem. It's not going to be the main factor of course, but it's not helping things. 

I generally think that this is an act of desperation by Ukraine as Russia is making bank from the oil prices going up and that is being used to fund the conflict. I do think these strikes are damaging and are helping to offset the money Russia is making off of oil. It's also hurting everyone else who is already in an energy crunch due to the Iran conflict. 

Supreme Court tosses Louisiana gerrymander and limits the use of the Voting Rights Act.

 

The Louisiana district gerrymandered in favor of Black voters. New York Post.

The Supreme Court tosses Louisiana gerrymander and limits the use of the Voting Rights Act in drawing congressional districts, which will likely lead to major gains for Republicans in Congress. New York Post. Louisiana added a 2nd majority black district that sent an additional Democrat to Congress. However, voters sued saying their 14th amendment rights were violated because the map was based on race and not other factors. The six conservative justices agreed and said that Louisiana had redraw its maps. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan blasted the ruling, saying it "gutted" section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Republicans appear to agree and plans are already being made to redistrict the Southern States. However, it might not be enough to affect the outcome of the 2026 midterms given that many states have already begun the primary process. 

My Comment:

It is unfortunate that this ruling came so late in the election cycle. If it had happened in 2025 there would be basically no chance that the Democrats could win in 2026. But the timing is pretty terrible. There are a lot of states, like Texas, North Carolina and Mississippi, that aren't going to be able to redistrict because the primary process has already started. And Alabama's maps are frozen due to another court case. Louisiana and Florida should be able to redistrict but it might not go much beyond that. 

How many new seats the Republicans can pick up from this is questionable. Most analysis I have seen is that the Republicans could gain 2-4 seats, with Florida being the most likely to gain seats. Like I said, there are just too many Southern states that won't have time to redistrict. At best this would make up for the Virginia redistricting. 

But a lot is going to ride on how that court case turns out. The maps are now on hold and the consensus is that the Democrats will either lose the case outright or be delayed enough that the current seats will stay in use through the midterms. It's very possible that four seats that were going to be lost in Virginia will be dramatically safter, giving the Republicans 6-8 seats that they were going to lose otherwise. 

Is that enough to keep the House? I am not sure. Midterms are usually brutal for the party in control of the White House. It's one of the more consistent things in American Politics and it would not be shocking if the Democrats won in 2026 even with the optimistic 6-8 seat gain that this ruling and the failure of the Virginia gerrymander.

Republicans are facing headwinds as well. The Iran War is genuinely unpopular and so are the high gas prices from it. I still think that a peace deal is going to be in place long before any votes are cast in the midterms, but the longer the war goes without a peace deal, or worse, the return to active combat, the more damage is done. 

But I also don't see a blue wave like the Democrats want. I think the Senate is safe while the House might see the kind of slim lead for Democrats the Republican currently "enjoy". The Democrats are still historically unpopular and they have made no effort to change their policies that turn off voters, like support for transgender people and other woke nonsense. They also have a huge deficit in money. Consensus is that the Democrats have an 80% chance to gain the House but I am more bullish, and say it's a 60-40 proposition, not good for Republicans, but not hopeless either, contingent on the Virginia gerrymander not surviving and the Iran conflict ending soon. 

Long term though? It's going to get rough for Democrats. I am guessing most of the black majority districts in the South are going to be removed by 2028 at the latest. And it's possible that some of the Democrats' maps in blue states will be changed due to lawsuits too. 

And the 2030 census is likely going to be an absolute bloodbath for Democrats. The combination of voters fleeing from blue states like New Yor and California and the effects of Trump getting rid of illegal aliens in blue states is going to result in a lot of house seats and electoral college votes going to the Republicans. It's very possible that the Democrats could be in the wilderness for a long time in the most optimistic outcome. 

 

Former FBI director James Comey has been arrested for a threat to President Donald Trump.

 

Former FBI Director James Comey. Fox News/Getty. 

Former FBI director James Comey has been arrested for a threat to President Donald Trump. Fox News. Comey posted on his Instagram account a picture of shells arranged to read "8647". The case hinges on the interpretation of that post. "86" is slang that means to remove or kill and "47" is a reference to Donald Trump, the 47th president of the United States. Comey argues that his usage was of the "remove" meaning of 86 while the government argues his meaning is clear. Comey had removed the post and apologized claiming that he didn't know the other interpretation of the term. Comey's post came after two attempted assassinations of President Trump, but before the latest shooting at the White House Correspondents' dinner.  

My Comment:

I'm of two minds of this. On the one hand, it's going to extraordinarily difficult to prove that Comey actually meant the "kill' interpretation of 86. You have to prove intent and that is going to be extremely hard to do so. 

But I also think that Comey knew exactly what he was saying. I know the media is saying that "86" has never always meant "kill" but I have literally never heard it used in any other way. It's to the point where it feels like gaslighting. And it's not like there is a whole lot of difference between the two meanings, and least in intent. 

The context is that the same folks that are calling for violence against President Trump are also using the 8647 phrase, to an absurd degree. It's possible that Comey was just ignorant, but I don't see how anyone with a social media account would interpret it in any other way. 

But can it be proven in court? I really don't think so. The whole post seems like it was designed to get as close as possible to the line of a real threat without crossing it. He's got the defense of ignorance and arguing that he wasn't smart enough to know the implications of his post. He can also say that he was drawing attention to someone else's work and that he was just documenting it, which is a strong defense. I don't think for a moment that Comey's arguments are actually accurate, I think for sure he knew what he was doing was wrong.

But legally? I don't think it matters. The legal standard is that Comey posted this knowingly and willfully as a threat and that it's beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't mean it in another way. Unless there is some kind of smoking gun where Comey had admitted that he absolutely meant it as a threat, I don't see how a jury will convict. 

So why pursue charges anyways? Some of it is due to Comey being a scumbag that skated other charges on a technicality. The powers that be want another shot at taking him down and a long shot is better than no shot as all. 

But mostly I think this is a message to folks making similar statements on social media that aren't at all ambiguous. That message is that if you make a threat against the President, even if you are being cheeky with it, you are getting charged. Even if you are someone like James Comey, a former FBI director, you will get charged. I do think that they believe that Comey's actions are illegal, but sending the message that nobody can threaten the President without consequences.