Indeed, all companies may want the same bandwidth/speed/versatility, but they cannot have it. Just as we all may want to drive Ferraris, but we all cannot afford it. Or we may all want to drive in the fast lane, but some of us are driving 18-wheelers and shouldn’t ever be clogging up the fast lane with our slow-moving heft.

Each company pays for what it can afford and providers deliver service based on payment/demand to servers. But Net Neutrality would require providers give the same speed to EVERY site. Which isn’t explained through a chicken sandwich and a Whopper. They are both equally small and unfilling.

Let’s frame it another way.

If Burger King wanted to give an accurate representation of Net Neutrality, they would price all items on their menu the same, regardless of size or quantity. It’s not so much food speed as it is value, demand, and competition. Wendy’s, Carl’s Jr., and the meat goo they call McDonald’s all continually lower their prices to better values, attracting more customers. Neutrality would give the government the power to say, “Hey, all chicken sandwiches shall be $5.00, regardless of quality”. What would self-righteous Burger King do then? Add even less real chicken to their chicken sandwiches = less quality internet.

College students strapped with debt who can’t afford the $5.00 chicken? They go away, starve to death, and die in the school library. Along with the small companies who want a smaller-speed internet/bandwidth plan but have to pay the same (neutral) amount as all the big corporations.

Burger King missed the mark on this one. Just as they themselves haven’t been missed. I forgot they still existed. Thus the desperate advertising plea on political issues.

The #MeToo movement has been a positive good.

It has encouraged women to speak out about men who have abused them and degraded them. It has encouraged men to think twice before engaging in such brutal behavior. But the #MeToo movement wasn’t just about stopping sexual assault and abuse: it was about female dignity. It was about women not being treated as sex objects, and men treating women as fully-rounded human beings.

So last night’s Grammys was rather off the mark.


Yes, it included moving speeches about #MeToo and #TimesUp. Yes, several performers spoke openly about fighting sexual abuse. Then they trotted out Hillary Clinton to read from Fire and Fury — a book that’s been used to accuse Nikki Haley, without evidence, of sleeping her way to the top of the Trump administration, and a reader who just last week was accused of leaving an alleged sexual abuser in place at her campaign. They trotted out DJ Khaled to scream his own name and then, like Joel Grey in Cabaret, usher Rihanna onto the stage, wearing a skimpy outfit and warbling, “Don’t you wanna see me naked, naked, naked,” followed by her pelvic thrusting among female backup dancers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnCPFmX4nDc


If this is female empowerment, then teenage boys are now the biggest fans of female empowerment in modern history.

Men should always treat women with care and dignity. But women should also treat themselves with dignity, and avoid making themselves into stereotypical sexualized cutouts for the pleasure of men. And let’s be frank: a huge percentage of pop songs are male masturbation material masquerading as female empowerment. There’s a reason female pop stars dress provocatively in their music videos, and it’s not because they’re just “more comfortable” that way. Here, for example, is what Rihanna wears when she’s out on the town:


Weirdly, she doesn’t dress for herself the same way she does when she goes onstage.

Now, it’s a free country. Rihanna can dress how she wants. She’s free to turn a buck how she sees fit. And nothing Rihanna wears justifies men sexually abusing or assaulting her, of course. But dignity is about more than how you deserve to be treated. It’s about you treating yourself as more than a plaything for men, or finding value in men viewing you as a sex object. If #MeToo wants to promote women's dignity, they should be telling girls to find dignity in themselves, rather than pandering to men's sexual tastes while screaming "FEMINISM."

Luis Gutierrez, the illegal alien-loving congressman from Illinois, appeared to be triggered during President Trump’s soaring rhetoric during the State of the Union address and fled the House chamber.

Trump praised the Capitol building, calling it a monument to the American people.

As applause broke out, so did chants of “USA! USA! USA!”

Gutierrez left his seat as several Democrats patted him on the arm as he retreated to a safe space.

People don’t go to strip clubs for food.

That’s a point that labor lawyer LaDonna Lusher makes when explaining why a group of strippers from the Richmond area may well win a civil complaint filed against some of the city’s largest and most well known adult clubs.

The case, filed in the U.S. District Court in Richmond mid-January, claims William “Billy” Pyliaris and the clubs he owns -- Candy Bar, Club Rouge, Daddy Rabbits, Paper Moon and Pure Pleasure -- have a history of ignoring federal labor laws and forcing dancers to tip out normally untipped employees. Additionally, the club’s use of “house fees,” which charge dancers for the use of the stage violates state law, the claim states.

A partner at Virginia and Ambinder, Lusher is representing Hannah Cramer and other dancers in the class action suit. The lawyer says the Richmond case is not dissimilar from other strip club labor cases she and her firm have fought and won.

“Often times these clubs classify entertainers as independent contractors but there’ve been a lot of successful suits that have found the entertainers are really employees,” she says. “The business couldn’t survive without them."

While the court document fails to list a financial amount sought in damages, exotic dancers have a history of winning big payouts. One challenge against a New York club led to $10 million for the dancers after many years of litigation.

“The courts are very sympathetic to these claims, the law is completely on the side of the claimants and they are disasters for the clubs,” says Gary Edinger, a Florida-based lawyer who represents strip clubs up and down the East Coast, more often for First Amendment claims but also in these labor disputes.

In an email, Edinger explains that courts put the burden on club owners, not performers, to prove labor claims are false – which can create problems for an industry that has a history of skirting paperwork in exchange for financial gain. Edinger also points to the irony of dancers seeking W-2 employment status. His many years working in and around strip clubs have shown many performers prefer the “flexibility in work hours and the very respectable income that comes with being an independent contractor.”

Depending on the location and the kind of club, he says, “regular performers may be making between $30,000 and six figures.”

But if the dancers elect to become employees after suits like this, it can drastically impact their income between taxes taken out and how much tip income they claim.

For some dancers, that might not be the best long-term decision.

One woman familiar with the financial gain is Nia Burks. A retired dancer, she spent a decade in and out of Richmond clubs and earned the money to prove it. But she also saw wage abuse, among other abuses, first-hand. At the time, not having paperwork to file worked out in her favor, she says, but she “needed a lot of money really bad and it was a great resource for cash.”

Looking back, she says there are bigger problems in the industry than unfair wages. “The older I got, the more I was able to recognize what exploitation and abuse was,” she says, noting that she left a changed person.

But lawyer Lusher thinks that holding club owners accountable can lead to broader improvements for the quality of work in the industry.

“Getting these clubs to comply with the law and getting [performers] the wages they are due … that helps rectify the situation,” she said. “Is it going to rectify all of the issues they are facing? No. … [But] if they realize there’s going to be consequences to them breaking the law, they’ll be less likely to break other laws.”

Attempts to reach Pyliaris or any of the clubs for comment were not returned by press time, however all of their Facebook pages were updated with images containing the words “hourly wages + tips” days after the civil suit was filed.

I shouldn’t say this but I’m going to, because it’s just so god damn funny. I’ve figured out how to monetize social justice warriors...I’m driving the social justice activists in Canada mad because, if they let me speak, then I get to speak. And then more people support me on Patreon. It’s like, “god damn capitalist, he’s making more money off of this ideological warfare. Let’s go protest him.” So they protest me. And that goes up on YouTube. And my Patreon account goes WAY up.

Mere days after being announced as the first hijab-wearing model for L’Oreal Paris’s international hair campaign, Amena Khan has stepped down from her role after “anti-Israel” tweets were uncovered from her Twitter timeline.

L’Oreal: Because You’re Not Worth It.