To blend in, I sat at the $10 craps table and started to lose the magazine‘smoney with dispatch. I mean, I had to sit at a table so a Borgata Babe would give me a drink and I could check her out?er, I mean, interview her about the ethical implications of the new weight policy. It‘samazing how quickly a reporter‘sexpense budget disappears when he‘scovering a vital story about the workplace rules for America‘scocktail waitresses (cha-ching!) in a casino (cha-ching, cha-ching!) —Gersh Kuntzman —Babes Up in Arms (MSNBC/Newsweek)

Shouldn’t there be a period outside that last closing parenthesis?

The real reason I blogged this, besides the good writing, was on page two of the article:

Employers can hire or fire whomever they want to hire or fire. If I run a company and don’t want an office filled with thin people or people who like papaya, I don’t have to hire such distasteful folk. In fact, I don’t even have to hire blacks, women, Catholics, senior citizens, Native Americans or any member of the established “protected classes” – so long as my reason for not hiring them is not because they are black, female, Catholic, old or Native American.

Of course, this is a column, not a legal document or a peer-reviewed scholarly article. But Kuntzman’s realization underscores the point I made about weblogs and the workplace: weblogs are just the latest way that people can get themselves in trouble.