Unless the story is completely fabricated, I don't see an angle here. If anything, the slant of the article is pro-DEI, which is...not what I would expect from American propaganda in 2025.
It's really not that complicated. If a typical organization is presented with two equally-qualified candidates, one of whom is a minority (of any kind, not just a racial minority), the organization will hire the non-minority candidate nearly every time. DEI policies exist to combat that sort of institutional bigotry.
I think the only path forward is for journalists to get serious about defining and protecting their job. No government is going to step in to do it because of the optics, but many sectors have colleges that define and enforce standards of behaviour.
It's time for journalists to step up and do the same.
I don’t doubt that this is true on balance
I know the questions keep coming up (and it's totally fair play), but...I don't have the impression that it's had any sort of impact on the electorate. Maybe I'm wrong.
I don't doubt that this is true on balance, but the Danielle Smith jokes practically write themselves...
I guess it's possible that it was a Liberal plant, but it has big "man vandalizes own house" energy.
Just the flexibility to get it done on your own terms, really.
I'm by no means defending this move (it's dumb and bad, just like...everything else the US government does these days), but they seem to be delegating the inspections to individual states.
I assume at least some states will maintain good standards, and Canada will have to pay close attention to which states those are.
All told, I was in line for about 90(!) minutes yesterday. That was at least partly the luck of the draw, though - my polling place had two polling stations open, and the other one had a line the fraction of the length of mine.
view more: next ›
I reject the framing of DEI as a "right buzzword." Don't let them co-opt it.