I think it’s fair to say that SK has few illusions around the DPRK. But they’re also the ones who get a bit of leeway with this soft-diplomacy stuff. Because if there’s even the faintest smidgen of possibility that soft diplomacy can continue, SK should get the benefit in the form of reuniting families.

The establishment Republicans need to realize their party is dead. It is fully dead. Do not try to revive it. Vote with the Democrats in the next cycle to get us out of this racist, misogynist, embarrassing quagmire and then rename yourselves the Whigs or the Pennypinchers or the Moral Relativists or whatever and come…

SK gets to do what it wants in this situation. When a madman has your cousins captive, it’s okay for you to take the optimistic viewpoint and coddle the madman a bit with the hopes he won’t execute your aunt. It’s the rest of the fucking world and media I don’t get one bit.

Unfortunately we can’t leave the president out of it because the goddamn Republicans in Congress are shoring him up. I wish they’d just ditched him when they got their tax cuts, but nope, apparently we’re going to split the government right down the middle, fantastic.

I would find a card or flowers WAY more intrusive than a comment on social media

Any normal human being would have ignored SJP’s condolences or simply said ‘thanks’ and moved on.

Yes, I want to vomit. What the fuck is wrong with us. KJU is getting ridiculously positive coverage for a low-stakes publicity stunt at the same time as he’s actively threatening the US with nukes. Why the fuck are we falling for this. It’s SO FUCKING STUPID.

All of this fawning coverage is really appalling. Between Russia and North Korea, we’re doing a great job of making America look like fucking idiots. Screw around with our democracy? Sure, we won’t investigate and we’ll even rip ourselves apart! Threaten us with nukes? Hey, how about we go out of our minds with…

Um, your point? He offered a solution to a woman who had very, very few. He offered multiple solutions, once you realize he also followed up to get the birth parents treated and funded. You think this was a “give me your baby or go to jail” situation?

What a shitty way to spin this story.

Do your goddamn research. It says RIGHT IN THE POST that CNN has covered this story, and more extensively. Had you taken the three seconds to glance at that coverage before posting your scorching-hot take that a drug-addicted adoptee should grow up to turn on and scorn her adoptive parents, you’d see that the officer…

Are people unaware of what a peacock sounds like? It literally sounds like someone wailing “help”, or like a baby crying. And sometimes they scream:

I’m not going to tell you your approach is wrong, you’ve got different priorities. That’s fine. As I’ve made clear above, I think there’s value to making the internal financial models of companies reflect the true amount they’re willing to pay people without the weird quirks of pay imbalance within roles. I think that…

“Merit based” is just standard industry terminology for annual raise. Use the phrase “annual raise” if you don’t like the implication.

It’s not a keeping-up-with-the-Joneses thing, it’s making sure that the market actually pays you what has been assessed as your worth. If you leave that money on the table it doesn’t go to a teacher in the Bronx, it goes to the other people around your pay grade who are making more noise or back into the company…

When I told people I grew up in Boston they asked if my family had IRA members. Then they asked if I had tons of siblings. Then they asked if my family were disappointed I didn’t get into Harvard.

It’s not that you’re not being clear, you’re just having a different conversation. “Pay me what I’m worth” is a different fight than “That job isn’t worth what’s being paid”, and I don’t think they’re particularly natural fits for the same conversation.

Depends what internet circles you kick around in. If you’re a big political nerd, they notably went viral.

I think it’s unsustainable in an industry that’s done it for so long there’s not much more to wring out. It’s a practical consideration of finite resources, PAs already work for free, there’s not much more digging to do. And you’re mixing two different things with the Chastain case - the point of Chastain’s action was…

Slightly different circumstances in that Chastain was a producer and this is a one-off production. The reason I find the BBC example compelling is that it’s more tightly tethered to a budget (with the UK population as funders and account-takers). So looking at patterns, it appears the BBC realized that the only…