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/travel-expenses-why-i-splurge/subscribe-by-email/573/INGDirect/shaving-for-real/budget-lesson-part-1/first-3-things-to-do-in-the-new-year

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

Obama Signals Change by Appointing Janet Yellen to Run the Federal Reserve

Business, Politicians

Rethinking Macro Policy II: First Steps and Ea...
Rethinking Macro Policy II: First Steps and Early Lessons (Photo credit: International Monetary Fund)

President Barack Obama just announced that he is nominating Janet Yellen to run the Federal Reserve. The announcement heralded one of the most significant decisions in his presidency. Yellen is currently the Vice Chairwoman of the Fed, so her succession would be a natural progression. The White House struggled with the selection, and the joint press conference with Obama and Yellen capped off a contentious deliberation. Ultimately, the new nominee’s reign could signal a series of unexpected changes.

Not the First Choice

Previously, Obama has demonstrated a tendency to be extremely loyal to his inside circle. This practice of favoritism was intended to extend to the Federal Reserve. The president’s primary candidate was Lawrence Summers, who has been a close political ally. Unfortunately, members of Obama’s Democratic Party derailed Summers’ chances by demanding a liberal nominee. After being undermined by his own establishment, Obama had no choice but to pick a Democrat.

Likelihood of Confirmation

The Senate chamber has a Democratic majority, and this coalition has vocalized widespread support for Yellen. Although her initial selection required a little extra luck and patience, she appears to be on the fasttrack to confirmation. Republicans have voiced concerns about her economic philosophy, but they will be powerless to obstruct her path to leadership.

First Chairwoman

The announcement was immediately considered to be a major symbolic victory for womens’ rights across the country. Yellen will be the first woman to operate this crucial organization. This is another convenient boost for Obama’s progressive agenda, especially since his second term cabinet has been unusually lacking in female members.

First Democrat in Decades

For some incongruous reason, the last two Democratic Commanders in Chief both nominated Republicans to head the Fed. Obama reinstated Ben Bernanke, and Bill Clinton appointed Alan Greenspan before him. By finally choosing a Democrat, Obama can help his party reclaim governmental economics. As a result, Yellen will be expected to switch ideological course on a variety of monetary issues. Still, liberals hoping for a grand overhaul will be sorely disappointed.

Financial Consequences

Because she spent her tenure serving under Ben Bernanke, the transition of leadership is expected to be conducted in a seamless fashion. This means that there will not be instantaneous transformations; instead, Yellen is expected to subtly shift the direction of countless economic debates. It will be done is a slow moving manner that remains undetected by the general public. Under the radar, she is expected to facilitate mild increases in inflation to effectively combat unemployment. She also appears more inclined to regulate big banking industries. At least from the start, Yellen will only be making minor adjustments.

Pristine Qualifications

This pragmatic economist has earned doctoral honors from Yale, and she was a professor at Harvard. She had successful experiences operating the Fed in California, and her tenure witnessed a substantial economic turnaround for the region. Now, she has navigated a tenuous stimulus recovery for the entire nation. She will only expand these efforts when she ascends to the top.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Book Review: Turning Pro

Book Review

I’ve got a big to-read pile.   It’s got approximately 200 physical books and 400 ebooks on it.

I may have a problem.

I’ve also been going through a massive decluttering/organizing phase.   It must be a phase because I’ve never been so dedicated to cleaning out my stuff before.

The combination is interesting for me.   I can’t throw out the books because they’re books.   Books aren’t for the garbage, they are for reading, savoring, sharing.   Gotta read ’em.

Since I want to organize and declutter, the books need to be read before they can be moved to my “already read this” bookshelves with their 2500 new brothers and sisters.

Did I mention I may have a problem?

My solution is simple.  I put a book I’ve been meaning to read in my upstairs reading room.  I put another book I’ve been meaning to read in my downstairs reading room.   Depending on where I am when the…err…need to read comes upon me, I’ve got a book that isn’t my current fiction read ready to go.   I just have to make sure the book doesn’t fall into the sink.   (If you’re slow, this means my reading rooms are what other people call bathrooms.)   Other people bring their smartphones into the reading room, but I’m trying to better myself.   Facebook isn’t going to do that for me.   And yes, this means I’m currently reading 4 books at once.  (Reading room #1, reading room #2, kindle[fiction], kindle[non-fiction])

The first book in the series is Turning Pro by Steven Pressfield.

Hated it.

That was easy.

Now, I like Pressfield’s fiction.  Gates of Fire was one of the coolest takes on one the most bad-ass battles in recorded history.   It’s good.

I’m not a fan of his non-fiction, though.  Turning Pro is all about how to “Tap your inner power and create your life’s work.”   Wonderful!  I want that.

The problem is that he forgot to include that part.   The entire book can be summarized as “Drop everything and make your work happen.  You can do it! (cue hippie-woo-feelings).  If you don’t succeed, it’s your fault.  Go flip a burger.”   It’s all true enough, but hardly worthy of the time spent writing a book.   I’m glad I got it free.

Read Gates of Fire instead.

 

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