Naturally the horrible murders in the Philippines dwarfs anything else in this post--the enormity of the evil is staggering. But to deal with what my mind can wrap itself around, does anyone else remember when companies--even magazine companies--had sufficient humanity to wait until after the holidays to do layoffs? Now the objective is just to get 'em off the expense side before the new budget kicks in. I always wonder how the executioner executives can watch or read A Christmas Carol unironically.
@TheBusinessGuy: I would argue that it is still before the holidays. After what date would you no longer lay people off? November 1? Labor Day? Yeah, laying someone off on December 15 is kinda prickish, but lets get a handle on extending the holidays t0 over 15% of the year.
On the bright side, at least they were laid off before they did their shopping. In a way, it's probably better than being laid off on January 10. Not that being laid off anytime doesn't suck.
@Pesti-Esti: I think laying someone off two days before Thanksgiving is dickish. What should be the cutoff? In the old days, it was usually November 1.
They shouldn't get to keep any money from this--it should go to pay back all the resources used to extricate them from their own stupidity, and then the rest should be divided amongst all of us who had to listen to all the BS about them and by them while waiting for the weather report or some other far more important bit of news. They should also have to go do some anonymous community service while meditating on their unsuitability as "reporters." #eunalee
@Novaload: No kidding. For months, they denied crossing the border. When they were freed, they used euphemisms like "touched the border". You can't be a little bit pregnant. You broke the law. Live with it. #eunalee
@Novaload: And what were the people these lovely ladies were 'reporting" on going to do when the story ran?
I'm sure Harriet Tubman would have loved to read media accounts of her railroad while she was still shuttling people through it... #eunalee
@OldSpinDoc: Indeed. The local 'contacts' were reportedly begging them not to go further toward the border; and their translator and others said the Korean equivalent of Sod it! and vanished--all concerned for their safety after the Clueless Chicks 15 minutes were over. The Clueless Chicks were not, of course, concerned about them. #eunalee
It was strange during their imprisonment how they would flash her picture on the news and it's always that weird myspace-y picture. I mean, couldn't the family provide a more normal picture? #eunalee
because you are not as interesting as your circumstances, no matter what Oprah says.
PREACH!!! PREACH IT!!
I think this simple truth is at the very core of why Gawker exists: Because some people take themselves way too seriously (ie: famous for doing nothing) which make them ripe for the snarking.
Dudes, doesn't the Lings realize that there's a HUGE fascination regarding what the hell is going on behind borders in North Korea. (Hell, wasn't that why they were there to begin with?) Why do I care about the beauty of Ling Sisterhood(tm) when i could get a firsthand account of Dear Leader battshittery with bonus Clinton on Air Fuck One action? #eunalee
@rudi_freude:
While a variation on the "Ya-Ya Sisterhood" (The Ling-Ling Sisterhood) could be mistaken for a film about Dick Nixon's relationship to a couple of pandas.
Remember that publicity stunt last year, when that seemingly self-promoting French guy scaled the NYT's building? He was actually French special forces attempting a daring daytime rescue of the NYT's business model. Did it work?
Pardon this cynic point that I think has to be made in the midst of this bittersweet news, but....
Why is it that the New York Times or other newspapers have no problem suspending the publication of a story that is in the public's interest when it involves their own staff, while they have numerous times published information that puts troops lives in danger or scuttles missions that might benefit the US and its allies?
Case in point is the news story in, I believe, the Washington Post after 9/11 that pointed out intelligence forces had picked up bin Laden's satellite phone signal. About three days later that signal went dead, never to be picked up again, striking a blow for efforts to find him.
Andrew, please add an update stating that a British commando was sacrificed during this rescue mission (a death that was noted with one sentence in the NYT article).
1) Mr. Farrell does not hold US citizenship - he holds British and Irish citizenships
2) It was not a "US special forces operation" - it was a UK special forces operation supported by Afghan troops. No US troops were involved.
Dear NY Times reporters: I understand that it is important to you to get the most accurate story possible, and that your job sometimes leads you into danger. But, given this recent trend, I'm asking you to reevaluate your security precautions.
"As the three men sped toward the village, they discussed what to do if stopped by militants along the way."
This might be something to consider before going out on your own in the middle of a country at war.
@Adah: Indeed, U.S. forces offer training stateside to civilians planning to enter these combat zones in the course of their work. (This training, held at military installations such as Fort Bragg, can be highly accurate and typically includes a surprise "kidnapping" by U.S. military personnel dressed, acting, and speaking as local hostile parties would.) Does anyone know if this training is mandatory, or if it is offered by other allied forces?
@Adah: And now the New York Daily News is reporting that "authorities had warned journalists that the area near the tanker strike was Taliban-controlled and dangerous."
So, a commando is uselessly dead because these two journalists took a miscalculated risk (and waited to discuss their exit plan until they were on their way).
11/24/09
11/24/09
On the bright side, at least they were laid off before they did their shopping. In a way, it's probably better than being laid off on January 10. Not that being laid off anytime doesn't suck.
11/24/09
#tips
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
#tips
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
I'm sure Harriet Tubman would have loved to read media accounts of her railroad while she was still shuttling people through it... #eunalee
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
PREACH!!! PREACH IT!!
I think this simple truth is at the very core of why Gawker exists: Because some people take themselves way too seriously (ie: famous for doing nothing) which make them ripe for the snarking.
Dudes, doesn't the Lings realize that there's a HUGE fascination regarding what the hell is going on behind borders in North Korea. (Hell, wasn't that why they were there to begin with?) Why do I care about the beauty of Ling Sisterhood(tm) when i could get a firsthand account of Dear Leader battshittery with bonus Clinton on Air Fuck One action? #eunalee
11/13/09
11/13/09
While a variation on the "Ya-Ya Sisterhood" (The Ling-Ling Sisterhood) could be mistaken for a film about Dick Nixon's relationship to a couple of pandas.
11/13/09
Wait, what? Did they capture Carrie Prejean now? #eunalee
11/13/09
11/13/09
China 0 #eunalee
10/13/09
10/13/09
09/10/09
Krakauer's book about Pat Tillman is a definite bestseller. NFL player. Hero. Cover-up.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
Why is it that the New York Times or other newspapers have no problem suspending the publication of a story that is in the public's interest when it involves their own staff, while they have numerous times published information that puts troops lives in danger or scuttles missions that might benefit the US and its allies?
Case in point is the news story in, I believe, the Washington Post after 9/11 that pointed out intelligence forces had picked up bin Laden's satellite phone signal. About three days later that signal went dead, never to be picked up again, striking a blow for efforts to find him.
Just sayin'.
09/09/09
09/09/09
"Who dares, wins."
R.I.P.
09/09/09
09/09/09
"Mr. Farrell, who holds dual Irish-British citizenship, said he heard more British voices and shouted, 'British hostage!'"
R.I.P., Mr. Munadi.
09/09/09
2) It was not a "US special forces operation" - it was a UK special forces operation supported by Afghan troops. No US troops were involved.
09/09/09
"As the three men sped toward the village, they discussed what to do if stopped by militants along the way."
This might be something to consider before going out on your own in the middle of a country at war.
-Adah
09/09/09
09/09/09
So, a commando is uselessly dead because these two journalists took a miscalculated risk (and waited to discuss their exit plan until they were on their way).