realityplease

Yep. They fled all over, even hundreds of years ago & even Asia has tiny communities here & there. (Pearl S. Buck's book Peony describes one in China.) If Erin's family followed the tradition of naming babies after dead relatives, maybe there was an Esther or Ezra or who knows who that she was named after.

Not so odd. There have been Jews in Ireland since at least the 1500's. A Jewish man was elected mayor in County Cork in 1556. There was a Jewish Lord Mayor of Dublin elected in 1886, who died before he took office. Also, Lord Mayor of Dublin in 1956, Robert Briscoe was Jewish. As was Briscoe's son, Lord Mayor of Dublin in 1988. U.S. President John F. Kennedy met with Robert Briscoe in 1962. (My grandmother mentioned this a lot, she was so proud! Like Adam Sandler's Hannakah song, she knew Jew, not a Jew.) Yogi Berra, known for malapropisms, found out there was a Jewish Lord Mayor of Dublin & said, "Only in America! The Jewish families in Ireland came mostly from Lithuania, the Pale of Russia, Germany - to escape pogroms, forced military service, or for better educational or job opportunities then denied to Jews. After getting there, many stayed. That Erin is an Erin is not so odd. Though her immediate family (or dad) hails from Israel, who knows where her family originated. And even without any connection to Ireland, assimilated names are common today. More so than biblical names like Rachel, Deborah or Sarah.

At least Erika didn't lie about getting the diamond earrings back now that the appellate court has granted her appeal. The appellate court sent the matter back to the bankruptcy court for a specific determination about whether Tom paid for the earrings with money taken out of pilfered client money. (Appears he did. If so, she won't get them back.) She also mentioned that she recently reached out to & met with some of the Tom's victims. If so, seems her lawyers - finally - got her under control - forcing her to think about the optics - and to stop boasting or over-stating events. She seemed more truthful about recent contacts with Tom as well - stating that some of his days are better than others. Waxes & wanes, as dementia does. (More in line with the expert, a specialist in malingerers, who has deemed Tom competent to stand trial.) But weight loss from menopause??? Said no woman ever! Not with that gaunt Ozempic face & body. LIAR!

She's presented him as a businessman, angel investor & movie producer (of movies I've never heard of or seen but you can't go by me!) who has his own money. But you never know how wide a gap there is between what he has & what she has. Maybe the inequality is too great - a pre-nup would be too convoluted or she doesn't want to split her after-marriage earnings with him. I'm not buying that it's just that she wants to emulate Goldie Hawn.

Or listen to her. Don't know which is worse - the timbre & speed of that non-stop voice - or that she will pontificate (without stopping for a breath or to let anyone else get a word in edgewise) on ANY subject because she is convinced that she knows it all about everything.

This show is just so stupid. We're supposed to believe that Aidan - dumped by Carrie before - cheated on by Carrie - is back for more punishment - like a big dumb puppy. After all, Mr. Big died. It's not that Big became lesser in Carrie's estimation or Aidan became more. Or Carrie saw the error of her ways in choosing Big over Aidan. No, given a choice, she wanted Big, she always wanted Big over him. Only now, Aidan is alive and Big's not. Aidan is supposed to be okay with what would be inevitable, even understandable - that Carrie will always compare him to Big. He can live with that? According to these writers, he's freaked by her same apartment & memories there. But will be fine living up to her memories of someone else - the one she really wanted & eventually snagged back in the day - now gone, but not diminished. So RUN Aidan, RUN. You're only back because the writers are too lazy to come up with a new character. As written, Aidan & Carrie were so ill-suited. How is that going to change? Maybe she won't cheat on him again. She's older & the dating pool smaller. Maybe she'll appreciate him more - though written as a stay-at-home guy while she wanted to be out. They just didn't mesh. This is NOT going to be good, no matter how the writers try to cram this down. Just as no one bought Miranda with Che. The writers agenda isn't matching the viewers - there's a lot of nostalgia viewing going on - and disappointment that it's not really clicking. The fun, humor, humanity is gone.

Thanks for the article! The writers & MK certainly see more magic between Aidan & Carrier than I do -- to me, they're the most ill-suited couple - back then and now. I never wanted them to end up together. Not thrilled to see him back now. Lazy writers - most definitely. All the fun, humor, & freshness has gone out of the show. Supplanted by the wholly implausible, the stupid, the irritating. When I got to the part in the article where the author referred to Aidan's long-ago "unfair ultimatum" that Carrie marry him - that resulted in their finally ending things - Well, I just don't get it. Unfair?!?!? She cheated on him - wore his ring on a dumb string - let him buy the apartment next door & rehab her apartment. For what? How long was he supposed to wait around while she hoped for Mr. Big to man-up? And now he's supposed to face her inevitable comparison to Big? She's only "available" because Big died, not because Big became lesser in her estimation & Aidan greater. This is just so stupid.

She really thinks a lot of herself, doesn't she! Doesn't want to marry this yutz - but sure flaunts that ginormous "engagement" ring. She spent this week blasting Meghan & Harry as "grifters" though sportscaster & podcaster Bill Simmons beat her to that widely repeated assessment weeks ago when Spotify dumped them, it's getting a bit tired. Claims they botched their royal exit (as if she knows squat about dealing with the royal family) and maintains that "everything they do is wrong." She may not be wrong in her assessment - we certainly snark about that here - but she's doing it publicly & it's coming from a woman with a canceled talk show, numerous failed products spanning the gamut from clothes to food products, a far from enduring author of a few so-so books, & hostess or participant in a slew of failed tv shows. As she says, "Pot meet kettle." Ask her & she'll tell you she's a "thought leader." But all she does is try to stay relevant by latching onto others' doings - like the Sussexes, Jenners, Kardashians - while completely lacking introspection about herself or her failures. This week she whined because TJ Maxx sold her a pair of fake Manolo shoes & when she discovered they weren't real, wouldn't give her anything more than her money back. Because she demanded MORE. (Doesn't she always?) Boo-hoo, that's a real tragedy. That one - all mouth & ego & ambition - without real feelings for others or self-awareness about herself.

Except for people in the HR Dept, unless we were part of the management affected by the hires & had input, & sometimes not even then, we were not privy to information about the totality of who had interviewed nor learn the particular reasons why any one person was selected over another. So I'm not sure how anyone not involved in the hiring would have "heard" or know if someone wasn't hired for any particular reason. And if they had "heard," that would seem rather indiscreet of the hiring folks, at very least. Few rejected applicants are told of the specific reasons they weren't selected so they might not know either - they just don't hear back or just don't get the job. Holding up paychecks or threatened firings are not okay. But that's far different than parking rules. We only discussed a space reserved for the boss. Don't see how a reserved boss' space shows a company is bureaucratic or poorly run. It just means certain positions come with certain perks. That's pretty universal. Advancement has its rewards. Sometimes minor, like parking spots, sometimes major, like salary. As for respect, it is usually earned (though you can have respect for the position & not the person.) Sometimes we have to work with or for people we don't respect. And if the people, rules, or firm culture just aren't worth it or mesh with our goals, can leave.

If a large organization -good chance the initial interviewer isn't even the person for whom you're actually going to work & maybe that person isn't picky. But you'll never know because the one sifting through many applicants can use whatever criteria they want to weed out the unqualified, the lax, the lazy, the crazy, those who aren't team players, the complainers, the slow learners, & those with entitled attitudes. And on even teeny-tiny seemingly inconsequential things rejections can be based. It's not being picky about a thermostat or open doors, per se. It's about giving a professional vibe to your presentation, where ever it takes place. Attention to detail. Not hard to position a laptop so the thermostat doesn't show. Sit closer or slant the screen or angle your head or body to block it. Not hard to fully close closet doors. (Or if you really can't adjust for whatever it is, just start off by thanking them for the opportunity to interview by Zoom (or whatever) & that your options are limited for a quiet interview space & you hope x, y or z won't be distractions - and move on.) Maybe it matters not at all for a dead-end job - but if there's room to advance, you want them to see from the get-go that you're alert. And not that person who can't be bothered to close a closet (if a clue to them that you won't close drawers or cabinets at work or have a lax or "whatever" attitude.) They have so little to go on - the tiniest things can leave impressions or clues - good or bad. Do you seem detail-oriented & will present well to supervisors or clients (if client-facing) - or one who doesn't even know what the considerations are, or if you know, don't care? As for the owner's parking space, I don't see how that leads to a red flag about not allowing room for workers' opinions or that it's the owners' way or the highway. That owner is running a business that provides the means for others to earn a salary. Respect that. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether employee opinions are respected or considered. It simply means, I'm boss so I get a designated spot. In big & small office buildings there are often reserved parking spots for bosses, supervisors, managers or whoever. It doesn't stink. That's life. And a lesson - you want a reserved spot - earn it.

Those $750,000 diamond earrings that Erika fought bitterly to hang onto but were snapped up by Ronald Reynolds' wife at the bankruptcy trustee's auction for $250,000 are still being fought over! The appellate court heard Erika's appeal & ordered the matter back to the bankruptcy court for presentation of evidence on whether money used to pay for the earrings was pilfered from Tom's client trust account. The appellate court decided there was an insufficient showing in the court below of the source of the funds used by Tom to purchase the earrings. It's not a win (yet) for Erika. Though she may be crowing about it, the earrings are not back in her greedy hands. Depends on the proof now to be shown in the bankruptcy court. If adequate proof is shown, the earrings will remain with Reynolds. If not. . . Ball is in the trustee's court.

I just ran across it - You put it in the "And Just Like That" forum, and the thread is "Cast & Crew - OK, Seriously, No Kim Catrall?" You wrote it on January 29 of this year - You placed the review in a spoiler. Good review by the way. Movie sounded like a real dog.

In a competitive market, best to be flexible. The interviewer's in the power seat. They don't need to "learn to cope for an hour" or ignore distractions. They don't need to learn or do anything. The pressure's always on the applicant to be as perfect as can be so the applicant is seen in the best light. Not one who shows the interviewer - screw it, this'll be good enough. (Unless the applicant has major skills or talent that no one else can match for a job no one else is qualified to take, attention to every detail is required.) If the job requires attention to detail, not bothering to close background doors or aim the camera or put on a background blocker to make the presentation space bland & eliminate distraction, puts you below someone who paid attention to those details. They get the job & you don't. Why? Not based on skills. Based on something more important to working with others - attitude and attention to detail. When there are multiple applicants it's the tiny things that push one applicant over another. If you're bothering to apply for the job, bother to ensure that you get it.

Thank you for the video! As usual, Bethenny's non-stop burbling drove me nuts (as did her constant hair flipping & paper shuffling - tho somewhat excusable here because of her apparent nerves.) Despite Bethenny making it hard to get a word in edgewise, Jill held her own & seemed quite composed & able to get her points made. Seems a reconciliation is in the works. Though Jill seemed to want it more genuinely than Bethenny who will be looking to monetize it in some way. So Bethenny's now saying that Andy told her to marry Jason. Trying in hindsight to blame Andy for her bad decision? Not buying it. Because seeing how it played out on film at the time, Bethenny was extremely anxious to get married & have a baby. Her loudly ticking clock was drowning out the dialogue. Jason happened onto the scene, she was tired of looking, & he was willing - so Jason it was. Or whoever she could've nailed down at that very moment. (Especially after the lst Jason (with kids) went running for the hills & no one was taking up the gauntlet.) Bethenny certainly didn't need Andy to give her a push. Just as he doesn't deserve the blame for her screwed up marriage & endless divorce.

I could be way off base, but I sense: 1. Some fear of making the "wrong" choice (thus, avoiding getting fully into dating & trying things out with someone who might not be perfect "on paper" or have all the "right" answers on first meeting) - yet having the fear of being left out or behind as friends & family pair off, 2. Some expectation that by being part of a twosome you'll be happier, get more attention, or considered more "normal" than being single. (Which isn't always the case. You're basically the same person single or coupled. Sometimes being a couple doesn't improve, but rather, drags down your finances should they lose a job or make a career change. Sometimes they're not an equal "half" when interests diverge or independent of yours or they're better able to get their needs met as yours go begging. Sometimes their need for breathing space may not mesh with yours. Any of this can result in being more lonely as part of a couple than when alone. Two is not always better than one. Depends on how the two handle their needs or communicate.) 3. Some ambivalence about having children. (Maybe because you're not thinking of it as having a child with a particular person & what that would be like - as opposed to having children as an abstract idea.) Seems you're kind of putting the cart before the horse. Thinking of dating as some amorphous idea as opposing to seeing what it's like to be with a particular person - and THEN giving it time before thinking about how your lives mesh or whether children play into it or not. I get that you're put off by being a weirdo magnet. It happens to lots of us. Lots of weirdos around. So turn them down - and on to the next opportunity. But stepping away & doing what - waiting? - How will that change your life? Because it does seems as if you want to, at very least, add a partner into the mix. Which may or may not happen - it's not always entirely on you but a mixture of luck, circumstance, opportunity, timing. So optimize what you can to meet someone - without getting too in your head & overthinking your wants or needs until there's another person in the equation - because if & when you fall in love - you'll find your definite ideas about lots of wants & needs may change or expand - much to your surprise. And if you never find "the one" or "the one for right now" - well, be happy that you tried - and accepted or even chose the life you made for yourself given what options you had - with no or less regret over past choices made. The very best of luck to you.

If you'd met your person in high school, maybe by 30 or 40 or 50, you'd have "outgrown" them, or grown apart, or they or you met another, or want different things out of life than you wanted in high school, or who knows what myriad of things drives couples apart -- and getting divorced. Many do. So you'd still be having to ask, "Why is dating so hard?" Nothing's guaranteed - at any time. "My person" sometimes turns into "someone I don't know anymore" or "someone I can't live with anymore," or "someone else's person." Life is long (hopefully) and lots of things happen.

In the eye of the beholder. I saw Bethenny start out as a single, childless woman struggling to keep up with wealthier "friends" (ultimate utility for sure, hoping they'd give her entree to a higher social circle) & striving, & failing, to find a niche as a cook, baker, reality star, whatever. She wanted a child & instant relationship (her desperation driving away several men) & found Jason. She talked herself into tolerating his low-key non-striving life & family but hit lightning in a bottle (literally) with Skinnygirl. With attention, money, & pregnancy achieved, she no longer had use for or appreciated Jason. By the time their serialized "honeymoon" aired, the bloom was off the rose. She'd turned their home into her office with a gaggle of assistants camped out there. She'd turned their life upside down with her ill-fated poorly received talk show. Soon things with Jason ended, the divorce battle longer than the marriage. As she had cut herself off from her mother, Bethenny cut the father (Jason) off from his child (Bryn). Bethenny had to be in total control even at her child's expense. She's spun like a top on dozens of failed ventures. Food products, clothes, anything striking her fancy. Thinking of herself as a businesswoman par excellence because one idea had hit gold, she attempted a number of spin-off products that failed to catch on & her TV shows failed. But still believing herself to be the maven of everything, she spouts opinions on everything, and as "barnacle" Bethenny, latches onto those in the limelight (Harry & Meghan, the Kardashians, etc.) to spout opinions about them, when she, on her own, can't draw attention. Used to see her as a bright, quick wit. But saw how she used & belittled people. Where are her true friends among those discarded when no longer useful? (Like Carole Radziwell, initially sought for her Radziwell/Kennedy cachet, & discarded when that wasn't enough.) Now tone-deaf B's in Europe, flaunting conspicuous consumption ($20k Chanel birdcage purses, etc) while the entertainment industry is hobbled by strikes. So, yes, we've seen her major life moments. Sad displays to obtain, or flaunt wealth, to obtain or buy influence, to use & discard people. If Skinnygirl had never happened, would she have been better off? Because she doesn't seem happy now. With or without - always frantic - always driven to obtain or show off more. Never enough validation.

One daughter each. Hadn't noticed. Interesting! As the saying goes, "A son is a son until he takes him a wife, but a daughter's a daughter for the rest of her life." Not sure how true that is - but when I was the caregiver for my two elderly parents, I sure ran across more daughters being the caregivers for elderly parents than the sons, or doing more for them, or more attuned to their needs. Sure, there were exceptions - but mostly, the daughters got the brunt. With the housewives, this group of daughters sure landed some attention seeking & demanding mothers! Sure won't be easy for them as these women age. As for daughters being easier to relate to or becoming friends with daughters - sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes only after the teen years pass. Had lots of friends at loggerheads with their moms throughout their teens - even those who eventually bonded & were close as adults, though some never did. But at least for a time, some blamed their moms or took out everything & anything on their moms - while largely giving the dad a pass. Guess it varies greatly & depends on the temperament of the individuals too. You don't always get the perfect child or the perfect parent - or the reaction or interaction you expect - though the expectation may be there.

L.A.'s first getting into summer weather & heat, but in some parts of L.A. this year, morning temps are more typical than in prior years where summer started to blast in May or June. Meaning during the typical "May Gray"' & "June Gloom" and was the case even through last week, the days start out very overcast & around 58-60 degrees - even though the temps will rise into the 70's or 80's by the afternoon. If they were snapped in early morning, it wouldn't be unusual (as they seem to be) to wear a sweatshirt or hoodie over a tanktop or t-shirt.

That diagnosis was for the initial State Bar proceeding that was convened to take away Tom's bar license. At that time, over objection, the state bar court judge accepted that doctor as an expert & accepted the diagnosis. Tom's brother was appointed as Tom's conservator. Ultimately, Tom was disbarred. These new current competency hearings are even more significant. They arise out of the two criminal indictments (one filed in Los Angeles federal court and another in an Illinois federal court.) They concern whether Tom is able to stand trial - essentially, whether he is able to testify & to participate in his own defense. The government expert, an psychiatric expert in dementia & in malingering, after examination & testing, has found that Tom IS competent. Tom reportedly retained not one but two doctors (at taxpayer expense, as are his court-appointed counsel since he is bankrupt) and they will no doubt testify that he is not competent. And the judge will have to decide. I believe the hearing on this issue is around August 3 or so.

The announcement seems a bit odd - they're living in the same home together, but nevertheless, seem very intent on establishing a date of separation - whether or not divorce follows slowly, quickly, or not at all. There HAS to be some legal component to this - either to protect Kyle's half of community property assets from a potential judgment (against Mauricio in one or more lawsuits pending against him?) or ______? There are articles about Kyle (not Mauricio, but Kyle) taking out a $5 million loan (cash-out?) against their home even though it purportedly still has a hefty mortgage in place. There's a lot more to this story than they're letting on at this time. Possibly on the personal side, but most definitely on the financial side.

In CarolinaGirl702's defense, there ARE pics coming out of that Hamptons party that show Tom Brady attended - as did Kim & Kylie. (And Beyonce & JayZ, Affleck & JLo & many other celebs.) Haven't seen them together in pics, though. There's an E! online story from May, 2023, with rumors of a Tom/Kim relationship. Says Kim had contacted Tom (with whom she has mutual friends & connections) because she was thinking of purchasing property in the Bahamas - where Tom has a vacation home. He claims he set her up with several folks to assist her search & she came over for dinner - but he denied to E! any relationship. At around the same time as the dating rumors cropped up (perhaps at Mama Kris's doing - put it out to the universe & it will happen?), Kimmy put out a statement that she loves her single status, has a lot going on with businesses, law studies, & role on American Horror Story (plug, plug!) & happy happy. Though it sure depends on the day she's asked - because she also said around that time that she cries herself to sleep at night because she's overwhelmed with 4 kids (despite nannies, staff, household help, etc. & what have you.) But, of course, not crying because she's aging & alone. Wouldn't put it past Kimmycakes to have tried a ploy to rev something up with the newly single Tom. Apparently, didn't work. Or whatever happened - or didn't - or happening or isn't - kept close to the vest.

Interesting! But I don't think she picks relationships based on political leanings. If a relationship with Tom Brady (or anyone) serves to enhance her status as part of a "power couple," she'd do it in a hot minute without regard to their politics. She HAS been a Trump supporter when it serves her purposes - she met with Trump a few times when he was in the White House - ostensibly with respect to prison reform & when seeking pardons for various inmates she was seeking to free. She's said in interviews that she has Democratic leanings about certain issues but also Republican leanings about taxes & money. She'll support whomever best suits her own self-interest or particular goals - financial or otherwise. Don't think ANY guy's politics would be an impediment for old Kimmy if the money, fame or self-interest lines up for her.

It's not really 35 miles - that's the calculation from downtown L.A. straight to the heart of O.C. But from Beverly Hills or the westside of L.A. (where Heather & Terry live or commute from), it's 53 miles and 2 hours one way - and could be even more to go from Beverly Hills to anywhere outside of the heart of O.C. (such as coastal areas like Laguna or Newport Beach). That's because the route is on the 405 freeway (a main north-south State highway) a route that is almost always clogged or stop-and-go for some portion during rush hours, or realistically, at any time night or day. Numerous traffic jams, accidents, slowdowns around the LAX & John Wayne airports, mattresses in the road, what have you. If Terry expects to commute 4-5 hours a day, that's going to get old very quickly (even with a driver.) My guess is that his practice in O.C. will be limited to a day or two a week, or he'll stay down in O.C. for a couple of days at a time. Or he'll move his practice up to Beverly Hills with Paul Nassif for most of the week. Or he'll semi-retire but continue with Botched or whatever else he's doing. A commute from the westside or Beverly Hills to O.C. full-time is not really do-able & more grueling than it looks by just looking at the numbers. And won't leave him much family time. Heather thinks she's dealing with an "empty nest," & yet there's still two kids at home. Pretty dismissive of them! Not sure what their school situation is - but seems Heather's recent yen to get back to her career doesn't match her "pedigree" or their needs.

Well, there was stuff going on. Unfortunately, not interesting stuff. Just kinda weird stuff - a little torture of the "creative" guy, some sex in front of the group, some drinking, some drugs & bong gurgling, a squat-looking Tedros strutting around & shooting orders, Joss squeezing out some tears, some dazed out hangers-on, & some awful music. D spying for Chaim but not being around for everything (like the torture) so maybe she was too busy catching dinner? (Yes, I'll spy on them but don't expect me to miss dinner!) Oh yeah, and Leila gets a squirt gun to the face. Supposed to be edgy but really just boring. Thank goodness there's only one more episode. This is killing brain cells for every minute of viewing.