Pride goes before disaster,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.  -Proverbs 16:18

I spent last week in San Francisco for work. My duties required me to arrive on Sunday, which means I got there smack in the middle of the Pride Parade. The practical effect of the parade is that it snarled traffic enough that my Lyft driver had to drop me off a block and half from my hotel, and the parade lasted for six hours. I  had work to do once I arrived, so I didn’t actually attend the parade, but I definitely saw some of the crowd.

Mostly I found myself wondering what these people were thinking. I fail to see how wearing lingerie in public and dying your hair orange – as one woman (I assume) I saw in the hotel lobby – or wearing T shirts with offensive messages “celebrates” anything. It was a six-hour long exercise in seeing who could break the most social norms and get away with it. Apparently, you can get away with anything in San Francisco.

The tragedy of a once-great city like this spending so much money on a parade was brought home to me later in the week when I walked about a mile and a half from my hotel to go see a movie (“Infinity War” – I’ll just say I’m not a fan). You know all that stuff you’ve read about homeless people and feces on the street in San Francisco? It’s all true. And it’s heartbreaking.

The caricature of Republicans is that they are heartless and uncaring, but then you see a Democrat-run city like San Francisco spend all of its money on Pride Parades and a massive construction project to extend the rail system to the new Chase Center, the future home of the Golden State Warriors. Yes, the arena itself is privately financed, but the infrastructure costs around it will come from taxpayers. And all of those taxes are being spent to make it easier for people to hand over even more of their money to the greedy capitalist who owns the team. As Instapundit always asks, “why are democrat-run cities such cesspits?”

Is it possible that the Democrats who run San Francisco are using the Gay Pride movement as a “shiny object” to lure people to this supposedly “enlightened” city to take their tax dollars while distracting them from the fact that they get nothing in return but the opportunity to dress up in weird outfits and vent for a day? What is there to be proud of in that?

By John Ruberry

Until the latest leftist outrage—the need to eliminate Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)–the gripe about President Donald J. Trump was that he is the leader of a cult.

It all started when outgoing US Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) said that his party was in a “cult-like situation” over Trump.

The left-wing media pounced on the remark and ran with it.

Not surprisingly there is a personality cult in American politics and of course it involves the left, which invented what Nikita Khrushchev condemned as “the cult of personality” that surrounded Joseph Stalin, and it’s centered on Barack Obama.

The sheep in Orwell’s 1984 chanted “All animals are equal” and the Obama minions chanted “Yes we can.”

Especially during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama followers would speak of an Obama-way-to-do-this and ask “What does Obama think about that?” The Obama campaign “O” symbol served as a 21st-century version of the Soviet hammer-and-sickle. The mainstream media was along for the ride. The best example was the “God of All Things” cover on Newsweak. oops, make that Newsweek.

The Is Barack Obama the Messiah? blog did a stupendous job collecting worshipful images from the Obama cult.

But like most demagogues, Obama stunted the next generation of leadership. So the Obama cult continues. Although he hasn’t really gone away, Democrats are clamoring for Obama’s return, in a sort-of leftist version of Joseph Campbell’s hero journey, which will end, Beowulf-like, when Obama slays the orange-haired dragon–the Russian usurper!–and completes the work of his presidency by eliminating private-sector health care, instituting an open borders policy, and of course shutting down Fox News.

As for “the Trump cult,” many backers of the president were furious with him–including myself–when Trump signed into law the fiscal 2019 budget. And if Trump commutes the prison sentence of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, I’ll be angry with him over that.

There is no Trump cult.

UPDATE 7/19/18: Oops. I meant to write Orwell’s Animal Farm up above, not 1984. My mind was on my upcoming vacation when I wrote this post!

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

At Yesterday’s Pintastic NE Jersey Jack of Jersey Jack Pinball held a seminar about his business that produces some of the best pinball machines on the market. These games are constantly in demand both on the market and at the show:

During the seminar one of the attendees asked him an obvious question, why has he made it when others have failed? Here was his answer.

This is not a light thing to say because it must be remembered he started this business in the Obama years before the Trump boom AND because when it comes down to it a Pinball machine is not a necessity.

I think thanking God and a bunch of others is important as was his decision to market to individuals, but for my money the real secret is the fact that in terms of subject matter, video, artwork and display, all of his games are PG rated or lower. I asked him why he made that decision and his answer was telling

Note that he didn’t say: “I don’t think anyone should make an R rated game”, he just decided that as a Grand Knight of the Knights of Columbus, and a Catholic Eucharistic Minister involved in his church, he decided that he wasn’t going to making anything that wasn’t family friendly.

In an era when kindergartens are having very inappropriate stuff pushed at them and Disney has apparently decided that being “woke” is more important that being family friendly that’s an incredibly radical decision.

My interview with Jack is here

And you can buy his games here

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – I abhor censorship, especially when it comes to books and things like banned books lists and instances where people who deem themselves more forward thinking than all the rest of us in their decisions to “protect” us from offensive material.

You will have no doubt heard by now about the decision to strip Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from a prestigious book award title:

A division of the American Library Association has voted to remove the name of Laura Ingalls Wilder from a major children’s book award, over concerns about how the author portrayed African Americans and Native Americans.

The board of the Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC) made the unanimous decision to change the name on Saturday, at a meeting in New Orleans. The name of the prize was changed from the Laura Ingalls Wilder Medal to the Children’s Literature Legacy Award.

The association said Wilder “includes expressions of stereotypical attitudes inconsistent with ALSC’s core values”.

The first award was given to Wilder in 1954. The ALSC said Wilder’s work continued to be published and read but her “legacy is complex” and “not universally embraced.”

So this is my question:  why must something be “universally embraced” for it to be acceptable?

As a child I read every one of the Little House on the Prairie books; I loved them.  They transported me to that frontier era and taught me a lot about how those early settlers survived.  I was fascinated by them.

I never read the books as a child and thought, “Well, my goodness, that’s an awfully racist way to depict Indians.”

The Association for Library Service to Children has the right to make decisions about their own award, certainly.  What concerns me, and always has when it comes to things like this, is where does it stop?  Are we now to go back and revise every piece of literature that mentions Indian violence on the frontier?

What else in our American literary canon might offend someone?  The list could be pretty extensive.

This is so closely related to those people who want to ban To Kill a Mockingbird or The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from reading lists and libraries because they contain language we no longer use today.

Somebody cue Guy Montag…he can handle this.

 

 

 

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.  She is the author of Cane River Bohemia (Oct. ’18).  Follow her on Instagram @patbecker25 and Twitter.

Welcome to Liberal, Kansas

By John Ruberry

“You’re not of the body,” is what Dr. McCoy shouted at his Enterprise officers after being brainwashed in the ways of Landru in the Star Trek episode, The Return of the Archons

The most intolerant people I know are liberals, who I often refer to as leftists.

First a story:. Back in 2007 I visited Liberal, a small city in southwestern Kansas. The Sunflower State is one of the most least liberal states in America, so how did Liberal get its name? According to a Liberal visitors guidebook, a generous 19th century homesteader bucked the trend to charge passersby for water for their livestock. When learning that, it’s said that the travelers would reply, “That’s mighty liberal of you.”

Two nights ago Sarah Huckabee Sanders, President Trump’s press secretary, sat down with members of her family to have dinner at the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia.

Stephanie Wilkinson, the owner of the Red Hen pulled her aside–then asked Sanders to leave because she worked for the president.

In a 21st century way, that was mighty liberal of Wilkinson.

I have another story for you: In the 1980s, Republican governor Jim Thompson was having dinner at a restaurant in the Southwest Side Chicago district of Michael Madigan, a Democrat, who was then, as he is now, the speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives. The restaurateur called Madigan on the telephone and asked, “What do I do?” Madigan replied, “Give him first class treatment.”

That was mighty liberal of Madigan, in the 20th century way.

But in the present day liberals, make that leftists, not only can’t tolerate dissent, they can’t tolerate the very concept of contrary ideas. It devolves into blind delusional hatred, which was first identified by the late Charles Krauthammer in 2003 when he identified Bush Derangement Syndrome as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush.”

Bush Derangement Syndrome was a mild case of the sniffles among the libs compared to the raging fever that is Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Leftists gather their news from their preferred sources, such as the CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Huffington Post. They congregate in private Facebook groups where no conservatives are allowed. “Aha,” a liberal will scream out while reading my entry, “But don’t you wingnuts do the same thing, getting your news from Fox, the Wall Street Journal, and Breitbart? Don’t you have your own Facebook groups?”

Guilty as charged. But there’s a big difference with our side. The mainstream media leans to the left. Proof? Last week I was channel surfing and both ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel and NBC’s Jimmy Fallon, on their late night comedy shows, were simultaneously attacking Trump’s policies. Of course neither of them were funny.

When I was accompanying my mother, who has since passed away, for her chemotherapy treatments, we’d be subjected to the propaganda from the leftists on The View in the waiting room.

Sports reporting has become politicized. ESPN’s SportCenter dishes out liberalism, as do newspaper sports columnists Nancy Armour of USA Today and the Chicago Tribune’s David Haugh.

Those of us on the right can’t bury our heads in the sand even if we wanted to.

Curt Schilling, a conservative, was immediately fired from ESPN for sharing a Facebook post that was viewed as anti-transgender.

A 2016 poll discovered that liberal and Democrats are three-times more likely to unfriend someone on Facebook over politics as opposed to conservatives. I’ve had good friends I’ve known for years, including a former girlfriend, unfriend me on Facebook because I support Donald Trump and they don’t. I’ve never unfriended anyone on FB over politics. I’ve only blocked abusive people on Twitter–never once over their political views.

Which is why I was not surprised when I heard Sarah Huckabee Sanders walked into the alternative leftist universe of the Red Hen in Virginia, she was told to scram.

Sanders is not of the body. She is not a denizen of the liberal echo chamber.

Finally, I’ll end with a quote. When the 1992 Los Angeles riots raged Rodney King pleaded, “Can’t we all just get along?”

Sanders should have been given first class treatment at the Red Hen, just as any other patron there deserves.

Despite our political differences, Americans still have plenty in common.

Wait! I’m not done. Of course parallels are being drawn between the Sanders booting and the devout Christian Coloradans who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. They view same-sex weddings as a sin. Personally, I believe the bakers should have taken the order with a love-the-sinner-but-hate-the-sin approach.

But our constitution offers religious protections, that are still not completely determined, even after the US Supreme Court ruled in Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

“Mr. President, if we understand you correctly, you think that we of the Confederacy have committed treason; that we are traitors to your government, that we have forfeited our rights and are proper subjects for the hangman. Is that not about what your words imply?”

There was a pause while they waited for Lincoln’s answer, and presently he gave it.

“Yes” he said. “You have stated the proposition better than I did. That is about the size of it.”

Shelby Foote The Civil War a Narrative Red River to Appomattox Page 777

Yesterday’s news of mobs harassing a government official at home and of a business refusing to serve Trump supporters brought to mind a pair of last month’s pieces, one on Israel and one about the left’s comments on that NYT piece on the necessary of not treating conservatives like asses in order to win some votes, there is one that unpleasant fact needs to be said out loud.

The is a growing faction in the modern left would very much like to violently suppress us, they wish that the cultural revolution could happen here and voices that violate their safe spaces could be permanently silenced. I believe they would happily hold us responsible for our own extermination just as they blame Israelis for failing to allow themselves to be killed by the Arabs in Gaza and roundly blamed Pam Geller and Robert Spencer for the terror attack in Garland targeting them for death.

The only reason why they can’t and the reason they can’t is the 2nd Amendment. You can’t exterminate an armed populace unless you are willing to die and while the abandonment of Christianity and disbelief in hell makes justifying mass murder easier, the abandonment of the belief in an afterlife also disincentives being willing to die to kill an enemy.

A generation ago such member of the left were the fringe of the fringe, now they are an integral part of the Democrat party

Any conservative who willingly disarms himself is a fool.

The real Irony? Twelve Years ago before I was blogging here I wrote a long letter to Instapundit concerning Hadita that Glenn put up at a post, it concluded thus

The real danger is that we who support the war will reach the point that we say “we might as well be taken as wolves then as sheep”. At that point the left can celebrate that they have made our military and those who support it the people they claim we are. Once that happens however any compunction about respecting them will be gone, and remember one side is armed and one is not.

That is a fate that I don’t wish on any of us.

In twelve years the left has gone from demonizing our military and those who support it to demonizing conservatives, Christians and any person who has a different opinion, in short the average american. This is preciously what I warned against and is why I’ve gone from warning the left about the dangers of demonizing us to suggesting that we arm ourselves against them.

I foresee a day where a leftist mechanic “accidentally” fail to fix a conservative customer’s brake line, a leftist paramedic failing to give the proper treatment to a person in a Trump 2020 tee shirt and a leftist surgeon letting a Trump voter die on the operating table all on the grounds that they are “Nazi’s” and thus deserving of their fate, and once people on the right decide that this is a possibility then the glue that keeps this country from a violent confrontation will be wear away very quickly.

On the bright side not only is there still time to reverse this trend, but the Stacy McCain/ Amanda Marcotte Math suggests that the problem might solve itself in a generation or two, if we can last that long.

Update: That didn’t take long to prove my point:

In one respect this was a better result than the folks at that place serving her. I for one would not trust them cooking food for me and mine.

Update 2: Does nobody get this point?

As some of you might I have a “day” job that covers the bills since the finances of the blog have been a tad weaker than in the past. At said job the majority of the workforce was born outside the United States and English is not their first language.

With Immigration a huge issue these days I thought I’d take advantage of this situation. Last Thanksgiving I spoke to several people asking them what they were thankful for, and now over the past two months I’ve been arranging audio interviews with various people who have come here.

The subjects vary based on the people but there are several general questions that I ask about both their home countries about coming to America and the circumstances that caused them to come, what they expected, what they saw, etc etc etc.

Today I am posting the first two (technically three) of these interviews for your viewing pleasure. The first is with Philippe from Haiti. he is 70 year old former member of the Boston Teachers union who came to the US in the 70’s. He sat for two audio interviews that loaded consecutively onto a single youtube file.

Of the interviews I’ve conducted so far Philippe is the most political in nature and he is anxious to follow-up so don’t be surprised if we have another half hour or more in the future.

My second interview was with Hanna from Iraq. You might remember her from this Thanksgiving video:

That gave you a hint of what was coming and believe me you’ll find the story of a girl who started out in a land where she was basically property to being a “lead” at an American company at age 23 fascinating.

I have one more interview in the bank with another young man named Alvin from El Salvador and am scheduled to conduct another with a middle-aged woman named Maria from the Dominican Republic but be aware I’m not confining these interviews to my co-workers. I’ll be speaking to an immigrant from England living in New Hampshire and am actively seeking out others from various countries to get their perspective on life in America.

My plan is to conduct 2-4 of these done per month and upload them first to youtube and then put them out here at the blog. I hope to build a large library of people from as many countries as I can to get a feel of how and why people come and what their perception of America was and is. Occasionally a translator will be necessary but I’m less worried about the logistics as I am getting the information and the various perspectives from different people, different cultures and different backgrounds.

I hope you find this work interesting and informative. I suspect it won’t be as sensational as what the MSM is feeding you, but it will have the virtue of being unrehearsed and unspun, which is why it will likely not have anywhere near the reach.


if you think this site in general and this project in particular is worth supporting please consider kicking in here:



Or even better subscribing.


Choose a Subscription level


Or buying my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer

Either way it’s most appreciated.

 

By John Ruberry

Admiral Theater billboard outside of Chicago

Stormy Daniels was in Chicago last week, taking her clothes off and dancing for 15 minutes. Yep, a quarter of an hour, that was, at least on Thursday, the duration of her show.

Although I was off work on Thursday and the Admiral, an old vaudeville house that has been a strip club for decades, is just 10 miles from my home, I wasn’t there. Tickets to her show were pretty cheap, $30-$50. Compare that to the usual $25 entrance fee to the strip club, plus a one-drink minimum for a non-alcoholic beer which will set you back another eight bucks.

I assume the owners of the Admiral had to pay Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, a hefty fee for her appearances. If so, they had to make back their money elsewhere, so a photo meet-and-greet was organized–$20 bucks a pic–which ignited a spat that led to the Admiral’s owner, Sam Cecola, cancelling her Friday and Saturday night gigs.

Oh, in case you’ve been living under a rock for the last six months, Daniels claims to have had sex with Donald Trump twelve years ago. Trump’s former lawyer, the embattled Michael Cohen, paid $130,000 to Daniels to keep quiet about it.

The dispute, according to the Chicago Reader, was not limited to Daniels’ objection to the photo ops. Keep in mind, this is a person who has sex, often unprotected, with men and women, and sometimes both at the same time, on camera. The Admiral also wanted Daniels to mimic Marilyn Monroe’s “Happy Birthday Mr. President” routine she offered to John F. Kennedy in 1962. Thursday was Trump’s 72nd birthday. She declined, another woman lip-synched Marilyn. Cecola says Daniels was an hour late for Thursday’s show, she demanded a bigger cut from that photo receiving line, and she didn’t rehearse her act. The porn actress also was perturbed by the presence of a Trump impersonator hired by the Admiral.

Sheesh, it’s only because of her claims about the real Trump that so many people, including myself of course, are paying attention to her.

By Friday afternoon Cecola and Daniels–metaphorically speaking, of course–kissed and made up. The shows were back on.

As you know, I didn’t attend any of the Daniels performances, but I’ve been to the Admiral a few times. (A blogger’s life brings me to many surprising places.). What kind of place is it? Muscular bouncers are everywhere and there is a no-touch policy in regards to the strippers–they prefer to be called dancers of course–although the last time I was there a friend of mine paid $100 for a booth dance. VIP rooms are even more. But table dances are just $10.

Blogger at Chicago’s Trump Tower

The seedy side of the Admiral, in what the Chicago Tribune Morgan Greene called “a wide ranging interview” with Daniels about the Chicago dust up and her life as a mainstream celebrity, was not covered, nor was the content of her porn movies. Anyone who makes the president look bad must be taken seriously by the Trump-hating media. Greene says that Stormy isn’t interested in politics but a quick Google search uncovers that in 2010 she was briefly a Republican candidate for the US Senate seat then held by incumbent David Vitter of Louisiana, who once was a client of an escort service. Hey Greene, it’s called research.

At 39, Daniels doesn’t have much time left to cash in on her notoriety. If she doesn’t squirrel away her money, she might be on the washed-up celebrity bartender circuit in a few years and collecting money from photo meet-and-greets. Men wearing Trump wigs will be welcome, I am sure.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court (thankfully) ruled in favor of Jack Phillips, the baker who declined to be forced to bake and decorate a custom cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding. The ruling was based almost completely on the documented religious hostility of the members of the Civil Rights Commission, and thus there is concern that in the future the Court would allow government to force bakers and other service providers to support same-sex weddings over their religious objections as long as the bureaucrats pretended to be neutral to the baker’s religious views.

There are a few fig leaves in the decision that an optimist could take as good news, such as Justice Kennedy saying “the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression,” and that “government has no role in deciding or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience based objection is legitimate or illegitimate.” And at least he conceded that “a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion.”

The path to the case, if not necessarily the decision, in Masterpiece Cakeshop, is an easy one to follow.  It started back in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas, which found a constitutional right to Liberty as exemplified by homosexual sodomy in that particular case (although Justice Kennedy, in his majority opinion explicitly refused to declare that homosexual sodomy itself is a constitutional right). Justice Scalia correctly predicted the path in his dissenting opinion, noting that the decision “leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.”

The next step in the chain was United States v. Windsor in 2012, which ruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts both pointed out that this Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion would inevitably lead to the Court declaring same-sex “marriage” to be a constitutional right, which of course it did in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 (also authored by Kennedy). This is where Justice Thomas presciently predicted that the decision “threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.” And here we are.

A lot of the analysis of Masterpiece Cakeshop centered around whether baking a custom wedding cake counted as “speech” for the purposes of the Free Speech clause of the first amendment. And was Phillips really discriminating against the gay couple when he offered to sell them anything else in the store, or to create a cake for any other occasion? The answer is obviously “no” and therein, I think, lies the solution to this conundrum.

As I have said before, no one has a right to force someone else to provide a good or service. If Phillips had refused to sell a pre-baked cake to the gay couple, that would have been discriminatory since he had already invested his time and talent to create the cake and it was already available for purchase by the general public. This would be the same as if a gay couple tried to by a photo print from a studio where the photographer was displaying his images for sale. But in either case, the gay couple does not have the right to force the baker or photographer to participate in a gay wedding if the vendor’s religious beliefs prevent him from doing so. So the government could not force the photographer to attend the ceremony, document the event and then produce the images, all of which require him to devote his time and talent to an event that violates his religious views.

This rule would also apply to the Arlene’s Flowers v. State of Washington case currently being petitioned to the Supreme Court.

If Mrs. Stutzman had refused to sell a floral arrangement available to the general public to a gay customer, she would be guilty of discrimination. But she had sold flowers to the gay couple – whom she considered friends – for years without a problem. It was only when she refused to be forced to design the flowers for their wedding, which involves not only creativity on her part, but also the nuts and bolts of getting the flowers to the ceremony and arranging them there, that she supposedly discriminated against them. Clearly, this is an infringement on her first amendment rights to free expression and freedom of religion.

Justice Kennedy’s reasoning in all of these cases seems to be rooted in the infamous “Sweet Mystery of Life” passage from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which he wrote “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”  As Justice Scalia correctly pointed out, this is “the passage that ate the rule of law,” but is nonetheless central to Justice Kennedy’s jurisprudence. A person’s religious views, by definition, define his or her “own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Why is a religious person’s liberty, which is expressly guaranteed by the Constitution, worth less than a gay person’s?

Don’t forget to hit DaTipJar!
Or better yet, subscribe!

Example of a five second reckless eyeballing at a workplace.

by baldilocks

This definitely isn’t about camping out in the lane or picking up food off the floor and eating it.

Netflix has reportedly banned workers from looking at each other for more than five seconds as part of its new anti-harassment rules.

The new policy also bans the company’s film crews from asking their colleagues for their phone numbers, according to an article in the Sun.

“Senior staff went to a harassment meeting to learn what is and isn’t appropriate,” an on-set runner told the Sun. “Looking at anyone longer than five seconds is considered creepy.”

“You mustn’t ask for someone’s number unless they have given permission for it to be distributed,” the source continued. “And if you see any unwanted behaviour, report it immediately.”

Other new rules include: “Don’t give lingering hugs or touch anyone for a lengthy period of time,” “Don’t ask out a colleague more than once if they have said no,” “Steer clear of a colleague once they have said they are not interested in you,” and “Don’t flirt.” The rules also encourage employees to “Shout ‘Stop, don’t do that again!’ if a colleague has been inappropriate.” (…)

Netflix hasn’t confirmed or denied the new rules, but did release a statement to the Independent, saying: “We’re proud of the anti-harassment training we offer to our productions. We want every Netflix production to be a safe and respectful working environment. We believe the resources we offer empower people on our sets to speak up, and shouldn’t be trivialized.”

Back in the day, the “five second rule” was called reckless eyeballing.

Honestly, who can blame Netflix for trying to save themselves some potential sexual harassment settlement money?

People have long used the workplace as a playground. I’m not judging this, but if an employer wants its employees to minimize the playing of grab*ss and get those DVDs in the mail, I can’t judge that either.

If you ask me, Netflix sounds like a good candidate for automation.

Now about that Obama contract, Netflix …

Never mind, I don’t have an account.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar for his new not-GoDaddy host!

Or hit Juliette’s!