Live Real, Now

The no-pants guide to spending, saving, and thriving in the real world.

Search Results for: slow-carb-diet-how-to-avoid-going-bat-crazy/subscribe-by-email/first-3-things-to-do-in-the-new-year/financial-pet-peeve-fees-to-receive-paper-bank-statements/contact-me/what-happens-when-you-save

Nigella Lawson and the High Cost of divorce

Celebrities

Nigella Lawson Eats A Banana
Nigella Lawson Eats A Banana (Photo credit: Kaptain Kobold)

Heartache and heartbreak are hard enough to endure but imagine having to go through the loss of a relationship while the world looks on. Such is the high price of celebrity divorce and the latest victim is the beautiful and talented television chef, Nigella Lawson. Shocking photos of Nigella apparently being choked by her husband, Charles Saatchi, surfaced in the media following the June 9th dinner at Scott’s restaurant in Mayfair, London, where the incident occurred. Saatchi’s advisors urged him to humble himself and admit a public apology for the assault. Saatchi denied any wrongdoing, saying he never assaulted her and in fact, was actually removing mucous from his wife’s nose. Nigella was stunned by the admonition of “nose-picking” and his refusal to apologize. She left Saatchi and their family home in Chelsea.

The two sides continued to disagree about the pictures; Saatchi claiming it was just a “playful tiff” and Lawson hurt and humiliated by the public’s assumption of her as victim of domestic violence and her husband as her tormentor. Insult was added to injury on July 7th, when Saatchi announced his intent to divorce his wife in the media instead of directly to her. Lawson, who had been waiting for a public apology, was blind-sided by his cruel divorce announcement. Lawson and Saatchi have been married for 10 years; Saatchi has claimed that the couple had become “estranged” the last few years. Saatchi claims that he had no choice but to act publicly since his wife “failed to defend” him with a statement to the media. In fact, Lawson has remained silent at the advice of her publicist so as not to further affect their children. Lawson (53) and Saatchi (70) have three teenage children from previous marriages that they were raising together.In addition to the “he said, she said” controversy, Lawson and Saatchi will have to fight over $150 million in shared assets, including their $12 million Chelsea, West London home. Both brought substantial assets into the marriage. Charles Saatchi is worth $100 million from the high-profile, highly-successful New York advertising firm, Saatchi and Saatchi. Nigella Lawson is a celebrity chef, bestselling author and television star with a net worth of $15 million. By the time lawyers for both sides duke it out in court and attempt to untangle the shared assets, those net worths will be considerably less.But it’s not just a monetary cost to this celebrity divorce. Saatchi had grown increasingly resentful of his wife’s high-profile career that he helped established. It’s a common theme in celebrity couples; one partner becomes the higher earner or the more recognized celebrity and the other gets bit by that green-eyed monster, jealousy. In Nigella’s case, there is the public humiliation at the hands of someone she loves to endure. It seems that Saatchi is determined to do whatever he can to make her suffer in the media. And then there are the children; children always suffer in a divorce. It can be lessened when parents work together to keep it private and amicable. But it’s incredibly painful to have your lives dragged through the media. In this case, it is Nigella and Saatchi’s children that are paying the ultimate price.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Healthcare.gov: Is this failure a warning of what’s to come?

Politicians

English: President Barack Obama's signature on...
English: President Barack Obama’s signature on the health insurance reform bill at the White House, March 23, 2010. The President signed the bill with 22 different pens. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The official launch of online registration for government healthcare has been rife with disastrous glitches from the very beginning. This cataclysmic failure has spurred severe service outages across the country, and this chronically dysfunctional interface serves as foreshadowing for an epidemic of systematic organizational deficiencies. Healthcare.gov is only the first in a series of planned bureaucratic catastrophes.

Luckily, this informative overview exists to demystify the overly complex world of the medical legislation informally known as Obamacare. Being armed with the facts provided below can protect anyone during these times of economic uncertainty in which the destabilizing influence of expensive health treatments can suddenly arise.

The Internet Errors

The requirement of preemptive registration resulted in a complete system crash. The ability to input health data was also starkly limited. Security issues also seemed evident as certificates failed to show updated validations, and there was no indication of where confidential information would be stored.

Lack of Foresight and Oversight

The decision to mandate initial registration was a hastily made last-minute change that failed to consider the magnitude of public interest. This unfortunately coincided with a government shutdown, which left limited federal resources available to respond to claims of malfunctioning servers. The biggest mistake made by the Department of Health and Human Services was underestimating the massive influx of uninsured applicants.

To further complicate woes, a chief contractor behind the layout of healthcare.gov is expected to testify that additional time and money could not have salvaged the doomed enlistment effort. His official testimony will shed light on administrative laziness, and the legislative committee is expected to issue serious reprimands, but nothing will recompense the thousands of individuals deprived access to healthcare registration on the date promised to them years in advance. These problems were completely avoidable, but the team in place refused to promptly pay attention.

Proposed Solutions

The Obama Administration has conveniently remained mum on the topic of minor adjustments to the healthcare law, but Congressional Democrats have proposed implementing small delays to the overall roll-out. The dates for enforcing the individual mandate have become a focal point of discussions to modify Obamacare. Because citizens were not given feasible access to the online enrollment system, it would be unconstitutional to levy fines for their lack of registration.

The Foreboding Warning

If politicians cannot even tackle basic website programming, then they should not be trusted to manage the well-being of millions of Americans. Partisan divisions have made two factions that are fully noncoalescent, which means all future fixes will be the result of an incomplete compromise between two warring parties. Real health concerns have been forgotten by the incessant squabbling of politicians in their ivory towers. This means that every new initiative will only cause further societal strife and struggle. Members of Congress have expanded the breadth of their authority without grasping the technological realm. As a consequence, these politicians will continue overextending the limits of their power, and the public will be left to pick up the pieces.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Homeland: What does it cost to make a hit TV show?

Celebrities

HomelandWhen you are producing your own TV show, you can do whatever you want to cut costs. However, you must realize that making a hit TV show is something that is very expensive to do. You must pay your actors handsomely because they are usually Hollywood A-listers, but your actors are only the beginning of the payroll.

You have a very large staff that works on the show to make sure everything works. If you have ever watched the credits at the end of a TV episode, you know that there are many people working on the show. You must remember that every single person on the credits was paid a salary to work on the episode. You must now imagine looking at your balance sheet and deciding how to pay all these people for each episode.

There are many people who wonder why their TV shows do not look as well produced as others. This is something that is left up solely to money. Homeland has Showtime behind them, and Showtime can afford to pay for the exotic locations and all the effects that are needed. However, there are other shows that have to shoot on a much smaller budget. They use a smaller amount of locations, and they use a smaller amount of effects. This does not hurt the show in all cases, but a lack of money would make a show like Homeland impossible.

When Hollywood was equal parts television and movies, Homeland would have become a movie because of the budget. The budget that is spent on just one episode of this show could be used to make a decent movie. In today’s Hollywood, there are many TV shows that would have been movies 20 or 30 years ago.

When you watch Homeland, you need to remember that there is a ton of money behind every episode. You may not like every episode, but you must remember that the producers and studio paid handsomely to have that episode produced. The money that fuels Hollywood today is off the charts, and we must respect that when every new episode come on the television.

Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-05-22

Misc

Link Roundup

Misc

Wrestling season is finally over.    Q1 is always such a busy time in my house.   Now, spring has sprung and it’s time to start enjoying the weather.

On to the links.

Finance:

Here’s an intro guide to settling IRS debts.

Only someone who’s never had to deal with the full default process could think this was a good idea.  The Department of Education outsources its collections for a reason.  Eliminating private lenders will raise the students’ costs and eliminate options for troubled debtors.  Yes, I worked in the industry for several years.

The Guide to Buying Glasses Online.   I currently have 6 pairs of glasses that cost me  a grand total of $150, with no loss in quality.

PenFed:  Credit cards done right.

Not finance:

This is the coolest picture I’ve seen this year.  Space pics for under $1000.  NASA could take lessons, I think.

I miss the days when napping was possible.

38 Random Acts of Robyn. I’m thinking about incorporating this as a 30 day project.

Lawdog has a great idea to fix the problems with our legislature.  It’s a beautiful Constitutional Amendment.  If they have to play by the rules they set, the might start setting better rules.

“Only excepting such limited protection as offered by Article One, Section Six, Congress is hereby prohibited from exempting its Members from each, any, and all effects, duties or obligations rendered upon any citizen, or citizens, by any Law, Tax, or other action passed by Congress.”

Charity is Selfish

Finance, Life

I try to give 10% of my income to charity.   I don’t succeed every year, but I do try.

I don’t give because I’m generous.  I give because I’m selfish.

If you give to charity, you are too.

I’m not talking about people who give to charity strictly for the tax deduction, though that is selfish too.   I’m referring specifically to the people who give to charity out of the goodness of their hearts.

If I give a thousand dollars worth of clothes to a homeless shelter, I get a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that I helped people stay warm.

If I send $100 to the Red Cross for whatever terrible disaster happened shortly before I made the donation, it makes me feel good to have contributed to saving those lives.

The put-the-inner-city-kids-on-a-horse thing we do?  Makes me happy to get those kids into a positive situation.

Donating blood?  Yay, me!  I’m saving lives!

While it’s nice to help other people, that’s not the ultimate reason I’m doing it.  I do it because it makes me feel good about myself to help other people, particularly people who–for whatever reason–can’t help themselves.

That’s the basis of altruism.   It’s not about helping others, it’s about feeling good about helping others.

The truly selfish, the evil dogooders, are the ones who want to raise taxes to give it away as “charity”.   They get to feel like they are doing something and helping others while not actually contributing themselves and, at the same time, stealing that warm fuzzy feeling from the people who are providing the money to start with.

Evil.

Charity has to be done at  a personal, local level or the benefits to the giver are eliminated while the benefits to the receiver are lessened.  Bureaucracy doesn’t create efficiency.

For the record, if it’s taken by force, by tax, it isn’t charity.  Charity cannot be forced.   Forcing charity is, at best, a fraudulent way for petty politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and activists to feel they have power over others.

Again, evil.

Enhanced by Zemanta