unicorn

I do find it interesting how infrequently the time of the incident is mentioned in news articles. Most articles do mention the prominent markings the vehicles had on their roofs and sides, but, you're right, I could find no mention of the time other than in the NYT article. Of course, knowing the time does not change the fact that this attack was inexcusable and criminal, and that it shows a malicious pattern. Knowing the time only explains why the markings weren't seen.

I saw this guest judge on RuPaul's Drag Race today. I thought he was rather handsome, but had never heard of him, so I looked him up on Wikipedia. I was really wowed. I'm guessing some of you have heard of him, Ronan Farrow. I mean this man sounds perfect, at least on paper: "...As a child, Farrow skipped grades in school and took courses with the Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins University. At age 11, he began his studies at Bard College at Simon's Rock, later transferring to Bard College for a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy. He graduated at age 15, the youngest to do so at that institution. He entered Yale Law School, from which he received a Juris Doctor in 2009. He later passed the New York State Bar examination. Selected as a Rhodes Scholar, Farrow earned a Doctor of Philosophy in political science from the University of Oxford, where he was a student of Magdalen College...". You'd think a man like that could have anyone he wanted to, but it looks as though he was with this obese comedian, Jon Lovett, for 10 years, and nearly married him. I was also surprised to learn he apparently lives in the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Maybe someone who knows NYC better than I do can educate me, but I always thought that wasn't such a great part of the island. It makes me think of a Bowery bum, but maybe my knowledge of NYC is hopelessly outdated. I find myself fascinated by this man, wondering why he lives where he does (if Wikipedia is correct), and why he was hooked up with whom he was: I mean no disrespect for Jon Lovett. I'm sure he's a wonderful man, and fun to be with. But the physiques don't compare. I think this may be Ronan's new beau:

Factually wrong.

No, but if it happened in Rostov-on-Don, Putin would have blamed Ukrainians. 😉

Here he is with his domestic partner of 10 years in Provincetown:

Extraordinarily buff Stephen Mark Lukas is performing in the male lead, as Nick Arnstein, in Funny Girl at the Ahmanson Theater in Los Angeles. https://www.instagram.com/smlukas/

I agree that option 2 isn't usually the wisest. However, it is the option chosen by a couple of my friends. In one case, he runs a network, and it would be very difficult to train someone to get all of his knowledge, so he is usually available for brief emergencies, even when on vacation. In another case, this friend runs a very lucrative business which nets him some $400,000 a year, so he also would rather answer the occasional phone call when on vacation, rather than try to train someone, which would cost him dearly. I would guess that for most people, option 1 is the most common and wisest. Before I could go on vacation, I would have to set my voice mail to the vacation group coverage system, and have my work e-mail send an automatic response message, such as "Unicorn will be unavailable until April 18 at 8 AM. If there are urgent matters, contact XYZ." Option 3 is another option some might follow, and doesn't even require much effort on the employee. Another example. There's a winery from which I often order wines. I received an e-mail on Tuesday from my usual wine consultant: "HURRY! OFFER ENDS THURSDAY, APRIL 4TH @ 11:59 PM To order please contact your personal Wine Consultant: P*** G*** | 707-***-**** | p***@***.com Questions? Ready to order? Give me a call. I'm here for you!" So I called, no one answered, and I left a message to call back with my number that morning. Receiving no response, I called again in 2 hours, left another message, and again called 3 more times that day. After receiving no response again the next morning, I called the main number, and asked "Is PG on vacation? I've tried calling 8 times and multiple unanswered messages." I got the response "I don't know. She works in another building." I asked if I could just give my order to her, and she said that she wasn't supposed to take orders from someone who already has a wine consultant, but that she would send PG an e-mail. I finally received a call as I was driving on the way to a theater performance, so my voice-mail picked up: "“Hi Unicorn this is P*** your wine consultant at *** I'm so sorry that we have not been able to get a hold of each other as you know I usually am very even to hold of but I am actually out of town but I can still take orders I would like to take your order I just need to know what you're looking for...". Even after specifically sending an e-mail (purportedly sent by her) and specifically requesting I call her (promptly), she couldn't be bothered to either let her colleagues know she was off and/or change her outgoing message to at least let her customers know? I called again the next day, and, no surprise, no pick-up. This behavior just represents rudeness in my view. I don't blame her for not wanting to work when she's on vacation, but then she should just be honest and say "I'm sorry, but I'm not available at this time. Please call my colleague at...".

It looks as though you didn't look very hard. I just googled "Time of World Central Kitchen attack" and immediately came up with the time: 10:09 PM. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/05/world/middleeast/israel-military-world-central-kitchen-strike.html#:~:text=According to the military%2C Israeli,arrived in Gaza by sea. "...According to the military, Israeli forces began striking the World Central Kitchen convoy at 10:09 p.m. on Monday, as the vehicles made their way along Gaza’s coast. The attack killed six foreign nationals and a Palestinian, all of whom had handled the food aid that had arrived in Gaza by sea...". The article continues: "...The seven aid workers had arrived in northern Gaza earlier on Monday to help deliver more than 100 tons of food aid, according to World Central Kitchen. Their trucks left around 9 p.m. and headed south for the group’s warehouse, according to the Israeli military. Along the coastal road, the trucks met with cars who joined their convoy, according to the military. Shortly after, a gunman appeared to fire a single round from the roof of one of the trucks, according to Maj. Gen. Yoav Har-Even, a reserve officer who oversees the military’s investigations into potential cases of wartime misconduct. The drone operator and his commanding officers were unaware that the cars were part of the approved humanitarian convoy and wrongly assumed they were carrying armed Palestinians, the Israeli officials said. Asked why the soldiers were out of the loop, General Har-Even said that certain officers had not seen the coordination documentation. “No excuses,” Gen. Har-Even said, describing the communications failure...". I think almost everyone would agree that the errors were inexcusable, as even the IDF agrees. The errors were inexcusable and should result in serious consequences (i.e. serious prison time) for those responsible, as well as civil financial compensation to the families of those who were murdered in the attack. That being said, if I were a leader from World Central Kitchen, I would probably try to ensure that future convoys moved during daylight hours so that the prominent markings on their roofs and sides of vehicles could be clearly visible.

I heard this on NBC Nightly News. They didn't state a specific time, just said that it was at night.

I share the outrage. The US should hold all aid to Israel unless an election within 60 days is announced, and also the US should let it be known that if they re-elect BN, not to expect any more aid. The only concession I would give the IDF is that the convoy, while clearly marked, was, as I understand it, moving at night. I'm not sure how necessary it was to have the convoy move at night. That being said, this is not a sufficient excuse. Enough is enough.

About a month ago, I wrote about the wedding planner who had a strict "Don't call me, I'll call you" policy, in which she wouldn't answer the phone at any time under any circumstances. A couple of weeks ago, I received a letter from an insurance carrier (Liberty Mutual), where they explained they were no longer offering Umbrella Coverage in California, so I needed to find a new policy. The letter suggested I call my insurance agent, which I did (he didn't reach out to me himself). I called his office (which has multiple agents), and left a voice mail on the Monday of last week, requesting we discuss the matter. When I hadn't heard from him by Friday, I called another insurance agent, who called me the next business day (Monday, 3 days ago). He found a new policy for me. The original agent (with whom I still have auto insurance) finally called back on Tuesday, more than a week after I left him a message, saying he hadn't answered my VM because he was on vacation. There was nothing on his outgoing message about his being out. I feel pretty miffed about the original agent's treatment. I felt there were multiple options with which he could have availed himself prior to taking off on vacation. (1) He could have requested colleagues check his VM while he was gone, (2) He could have checked his messages once a day himself, or, most simply, (3) He could have changed the outgoing message prior to leaving stating something on the lines of "I'll be out of town until April 1st, and will not be checking my messages before then. If there are any urgent matters, please call my colleague Fred Smith at extension 123 for assistance." Is it just me, or was he being rude and inconsiderate? Before I retired, I always had to make arrangements for coverage before I went on vacation. We all took turns covering for each other. How are things where you are? Is the new standard for business now "It's your good fortune if we decide to assist you!"? Although the new agent didn't suggest it, I'm thinking of asking him to change my auto policy to a new company just to send a message. Or am I just "not with the times"?

The man with the cap doesn't have a typical underwear model build--a bit of a paunch. I'm not into public sex myself. I prefer privacy.

Who needs a death penalty when you can just murder in cold blood...

Of course, Macron himself ain't anything to sneeze at, either:

It's such a tragic waste for a handsome man to be straight. Women care little about a man's good looks. They're far more concerned with how successful he is. I remember some years back hiring an exceptionally handsome bi man. When he went to gay bars, he said that men immediately flocked to him like bees to honey. When he went into straight bars, he'd have to make a move on the women, then one of the first things they'd ask him was what he did for a living (they'd take off if they didn't like the answer). Of course, a man who's both handsome and successful can have his pick of either sex. But there's little advantage for a straight man to be handsome. So sad for a handsome man to be straight. 😭

What is that supposed to mean?

My mother used to say to avoid motorcycles unless I wanted my legacy to be that of an organ donor. You may be a great driver, but can't control all of the assholes who are out there on the road.

Well, the police at the vehicle where she was being held certainly didn't intervene while the accused was being brutally murdered.

Oh, I get it now. Jane Lynch....

The Weakest Link?