Live Real, Now

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

Search Results for: three-alternatives-to-a-budget/budget-lesson-part-5/debt-burnout/subscribe-by-email/budget-lesson-part-2/573/budget-lesson-part-3/budget4/payday-loans-suck/first-3-things-to-do-in-the-new-year/5-life-altering-lessons-i-learned-from-my-debt

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

Making the Most from Your Home Theatre with Window Treatments

Misc

Home theater projection screen displaying a hi...
Home theater projection screen displaying a high-definition television image (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Once upon a time home theatres were only reserved for the rich and famous – the equipment and rooms necessary were just far too expensive for your Average Joe. Now, the landscape has changed and with projectors and all of the other core essentials being more affordable, home theatres are more popular than ever before.

Rather than pointing you in the direction of the latest equipment, we’re instead going to talk about another way that you can boost your home cinema experience. The windows in this room can make or break your movies, even though they are often left until the very end of a project. However, make a bad choice in this this regard and the whole expense associated with your home cinema will have been for nothing.

Your window treatment decisions should mainly revolve around your viewing preferences and the type of room that your system is located in. If we start with the latter, if your home cinema happens to be basking in glorious sunlight for most of the day, it goes without saying that you’re going to suffer from the dreaded screen glare. Right in the middle of the best scene in the film, you’ll be hit with a glare that means “part two” will have to follow the day after.

In the above instances, new blind technology is your best friend. Turn to something like a solar shade to eradicate the beaming rays that blind your screen and tune into your movie without any disruption at all.

The above solution assumes that you actually want a bit of natural daylight streaming into your home theatre. Of course, some people might not want to rely on this.

It’s these instances where a more traditional treatment enters the picture, like a blackout blind. As the name suggests, these are able to eradicate all natural light that would otherwise be flowing into the building, to leave your room blanketed in darkness. In other words, your home cinema has just mimicked the setting of the traditional high-street cinema. It doesn’t get much better than that, does it?

Depending on the type of room that your system is based in, there are other options. For example, a lot of people decide to install their home cinemas in the basement, completely out of the way from the rest of the house. In these instances, where the room temperature tends to drop, it might be worth considering a blind that can retain some of the room’s thermal efficiency. Insulated shades are one of the best choices and do exactly as their name suggests.

Already, the window treatment options for your home cinema are starting to become endless. As you’ve probably been able to see, this is a room which relies heavily on its blinds or curtains and making the wrong choice can ruin your whole viewing experience. Just ask yourself what you actually want from the room, and what the room requires. Answer these two points and your home cinema will be the real deal.

 

Colorado Insurance Laws: Do you have the Right Coverage?

Finance

Car insurance is mandatory in Colorado. Colorado law on car insurance changed in 2003 when the state changed to a fault-based system from a no-fault system. Even more requirements were added in 2009 for drivers, namely, a mandatory $5,000 in medical payments coverage.

Many of the other changes made to Colorado car insurance requirements were made to help prevent claim abuses and reduce the cost of insurance premiums for drivers in the city. The ‘tort’ or fault-based system requires that fault must be established before a claim is paid by an insurance company.

According to data released by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the average cost of auto insurance in Colorado was $777. This is way below the national average of $841 and far below the most expensive state, New Jersey, which had an average expenditure of $1,254 in annual premiums.

Colorado Insurance requirements

The state requires all drivers to have liability coverage at the least. This ensures that the other party and their property will be compensated in an accident that is your fault. According to insurance-comparison site, CoverHound, the minimum coverage for car insurance in Colorado should include:

  • Bodily injury coverage of $25,000 for each person involved in the accident
  • Bodily injury coverage of at least $50,000 for each accident the motorist is involved in
  • Property damage coverage of $15,000 for each accident

Additional car insurance

Having insurance coverage meeting the minimum requirements of the law in Colorado will save you from being arrested for inadequate insurance. However, your insurance may not provide you with adequate coverage in case of an accident. Therefore, it’s important to consider the following car insurance options.

  1. Uninsured/Underinsured motorist coverage

While car insurance is a mandatory in Colorado, several drivers still drive without auto insurance. Figures released by the Insurance Research Council estimate that 16.2 percent of motorists in the state are uninsured. This is slightly above the 12.6 percent national average. The scary thing about not having this coverage is you never know when you’re going to get in an accident, let alone an accident with someone who’s underinsured, or uninsured altogether. As you can probably guess, if someone isn’t willing to pay an insurance premium to protect their financial means, they probably don’t have much financial means to protect in the first place, thus leaving you destitute in the event of an accident, regardless of fault. Bottom line: uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage protects your expenses in this situation.

  1. Medical Payments Coverage

Due to the aforementioned legislation passed in 2009, insurance providers are required to offer motorists $5,000 in med pay coverage as part of their insurance coverage. This is offered as part of every car insurance policy, and can be adjusted in $1,000 increments. You however, have the choice of opting out, but you have to send a rejection form. You can also choose to up your coverage to as much as $100,000.

  1. Collision coverage

Liability coverage ensures that the other party’s expenses are covered in the event you cause an accident, but what about damage to your own car? Collision coverage takes care of any damages to your car regardless of who’s at fault. The insurance also covers you for damage caused by hitting other objects with your car, such as a tree, or streetlight.

  1. Comprehensive cover

This ensures that you are covered for any damage that is caused to your car that doesn’t involve a collision (e.g. fire, falling objects, flood and hail). It also provides cover for the loss of your car through theft and other perils such as explosions.

If you purchase your car through a loan, your lender may require you to take out a comprehensive coverage policy. You can choose to have a higher deductible in order to reduce the cost of your premium.

Cost of violations

There are various penalties set by the state to ensure that motorists have adequate insurance. You may be penalized for failing to provide evidence of insurance or for purchasing inadequate insurance. Some of the penalties and fines include:

  • A minimum fine of $500 for violations
  • The addition of 4 points to your driver’s license
  • The suspension of your license for up to 8 months
  • Community service

It is important to understand your state laws and your own financial situation when choosing insurance. Your policy should not only meet state law requirements but your personal requirements as well. If it doesn’t, then what’s the point of having it in the first place?

This is a guest post.

Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-05-22

Misc

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