realityplease

Not one of their better efforts. I like Molly Shannon - but most of the skits just weren't funny (to me) or well-crafted. I did like the cold open - JAJ does a great impression of Trump and I laughed at Trump comparing himself to Jesus (both put on trial, Trump being able to do an insurrection much faster than JC, "we both befriended sex workers," describing Jesus as a nepo baby, etc.) Also liked Bowen as Jafar on Weekend Update. He nailed his criticisms of "The Boy" (De Santis) & descriptions of Disneyland. Clever writing & a great character impression. A piece that worked for me in every sense. Bowen talks fast but he makes the most of his on-air time - and worth paying attention to him to take it all in.

Had some explaining to do! Because at the reunion itself (filmed, but not yet aired), Schwartz didn't disclose what he knew about the affair. But Schwartz NOW says, before the reunion filmed, he knew. That Sandoval & Raquel hooked up in Aug. & in love by Jan. Schwartz explained that he said nothing at the reunion because Sandoval promised Schwartz he was going to tell Ariana soon, or variously, after the reunion. But Sandoval kept stalling. And she wised up somehow in any case, because as Schwartz tells it, Ariana excoriated Sandoval AT the reunion. That made Schwartz look like a liar at the reunion & part of a cover-up. So he opted to come on Andy's clown show & fess up to what he knew & when & why he didn't tell Ariana and why he didn't say anything at the reunion. But really - couldn't break bro code? Too much of a wimp? The whole thing a production attempt to re-write history? Some or all of them didn't stick to the script? Whatever. When the dust settles, the show will go back to the same old plodding nothingness.

That divorce attorney move wasn't rocket science - it's not a rare tactic. (Tony Soprano pulled it on Carmella in "The Sopranos" & it wasn't unique even then.) As Logan said, if Shiv had asked him for divorce advice (rather than Tom who asked Logan), Logan would have told Shiv about that tactic. She was aware of it anyway & immediately recognized it as the move Logan pulled on her mother in their divorce. Shiv's just pissed that she was slower on the trigger than Tom. Besides, Tom says he wants an amicable divorce. If true, Shiv can simply ask Tom to waive the conflict as to one of the attorneys he previously contacted, and she can use that attorney. If he won't, there's many other competent high-end family law attorneys in New York. Tom should want Shiv to have competent representation. The divorce will be governed by their pre-nup anyway - and pretty cut & dried unless there's a novel provision in it. And a less savvy attorney might only prolong the process & cost BOTH of them more in time &/or fees to wrangle over what is otherwise apparent & resolvable. The myth of needing a "bulldog" attorney who operates on hot air & false bravado is a trope that often wastes time & money on histrionics. Usually more a matter of personality or reputation, than legal ability. A calm, prepared attorney who knows the facts & law & is an able negotiator often obtains a better result, faster, easier, with less emotional or financial cost. But still, the trope lingers on irrespective of the old adage: He who know the facts, pounds the facts. He who knows the law, pounds the law. He who knows neither the facts nor the law, pounds the table.

This show is boring the crap out of me. My attention wandered off many times. James is on my last nerve with his coked up (what else could it be?) ranting - very manic. Calm down, man. WWHL was more interesting. Schwartz is delusional - thinks his failed marriage, overall, was just great. Magical times, he said. Likely blindsided when Katie asked for a divorce. He can't be oblivious that Katie wanted more attention & moral support from him. But even knowing (he's not THAT clueless) he was just incapable or unwilling to provide it - either putting his needs (& others) first or he couldn't get behind the things she wanted supported. (Kind of like Jen & Bill on RHofNJ) To be real, Katie is a snotty judgmental bitch to others & NOT conflict avoidant (which he IS) and it's hard for him to support her when he thinks she's wrong or acting unkind. Her go-to response is honing in on a slight, wallowing in feelings of neglect, complaining he didn't put her first, & pouting - instead of figuring out how to be less needy & more independent of his conduct or seeing where her conduct is simply unsupportable. In return, oblivious or befuddled, he tries to placate her or throws up his hands. And she's left with the hurt unresolved. These two were never going to work - each unwilling to compromise or change. Both want the quasi-celebrity & $$$ of being on the show but should have gone their separate ways. They want to, but can't be great friends because she still wants attention & support - and if he didn't give it to her when married, he's not doing it now. Both stubborn & ignoring who the other person really is. It's a big world out there - move on. (As for that restaurant scene? Probably filmed at 3pm in an empty restaurant. A micro version of their marriage. She wants attention, he's dicking around with his phone.) Tom also explained what he apparently did not say at the reunion - the Scandoval hook up was in August - love by January - and tho Sandoval told Schwartz he intended to tell Ariana after the reunion - he didn't, she found out & ripped him a new one at the reunion. Sandoval currently is infatuated & addicted to Raquel & reeling due to the blow-back. I'm now officially bored with the affair also. The co-guest John Owen Lowe (Rob Lowe's son) tried to add a few pertinent comments, but dressed like a little skinny white pimp & that was very distracting.

And a buyer would accept that? Not if they're thinking about value. Sales price is usually based on price per sq. ft, neighborhood comparables, amenities, etc. (Not a number pulled out of one's butt - though it sure seems so at times on this show!) Pretty easy to search the home's past sales prices. A transfer tax tack-on would boost the price without any added value. Except the usual one - greed beyond what the market will bear. Sure, it could happen if the buyer wants that home at any cost - or has no idea of the home's true worth. But why would a buyer with open eyes willingly let a seller palm off to them a tax the SELLER is legally obligated to pay? So the seller can walk off with a 20-25% profit? or even 10% profit? Please. The buyer will want the seller to cut their profit (hefty or not) & pay the tax. No longer a seller's market here. No bidding wars. Few offers over ask. Price reductions - not increases. Buyers beginning to bargain harder. Homes unrealistically priced or over-improved or leased. The Spelling mansion at $155 mil.? Altman's $28 mil "bargain" in Bel Air sitting unsold for months. Inventory low - because if you can, why put a home on the market now instead of waiting for the tide to turn again? Sellers may try to put their tax burden off on the buyer & as with anything, some might succeed. But then, when the new buyers decide they want to sell - how likely they'll be able to tack yet another 4-5.5% onto the listing price to cover what they'll now need to pay in transfer tax on the subsequent sale? Not likely. If a 4-5.5% increase in price to cover the tax adds no apparent value to the home when bought - adding yet another 4-5.5% to cover the tax on the subsequent sale won't add value to the home either - but now, the price is up around 10% more due to mere transaction costs - though adding nothing to the home value. Doesn't fly.

Logan caught Hugo & Gerri laughing at Kerri's audition tape - but Logan's no idiot - he knows the tape was awful. His focus is on the GoJo deal. Kerri's anchor ambitions are just momentary distraction & the laughing just cause for annoyance. With the GoJo deal as his focus, Logan wants Roman to be his "fire-breather" in further negotiations with Mattson. (Though is Roman really "needed" or just "useful" to break up the Sib Alliance?) If Roman's there, than Logan doesn't need Gerri there. Especially because the focus of any renewed negotiation is only on dollars (& not legalities, so nothing for Gerri to opine about) & Logan's seen Roman "distracted" by Gerri before, so why risk it? Logan wants Roman to step up & stay focused. (Could backfire though. The more Logan sidelines Gerri, the more she might be inclined to cut ties & file a harassment lawsuit. Logan doesn't really know the details, depth or nature of the Roman/Gerri dealings. After the cruises debacle especially, a harassment suit is really bad optics & could sting. No one knows that better than Gerri.)

Painful watching the "kids" play at being wheeler-dealers. Posturing to each other - but what in the heck are they doing?? Logan summed it up: He loves them - but they are NOT serious people!!! Connor seems clear-headed - that dumb political bid aside. He just wants to get his cut of Waystar & run. Knows he never had his Dad's love - says he doesn't need it. Knows he'll never be in charge of the family empire - doesn't care. He'll never be sure about Willa - and knows it. Shiv knows they over-promised on the Pierce deal (& has not the slightest idea about what to with Pierce if they get it) but she's thrilled they got one over on Logan by getting the deal. And got the satisfaction of knowing that Logan long wanted it & was pissed it got away from him. Shiv wants to be the toughest negotiator in the room, but she (like Tom) just copies Logan's playbook. Ken was warned by Mattson that Mattson won't be squeezed for more money - but doesn't disclose that to the sibs & still tries to steer them to put the squeeze on Mattson - why? Either he really wants that extra $100 million & thinks it's there - or just wants to screw with Dad - or really hasn't the faintest idea of what to do with Pierce (despite his posturing) & wants that to go away too. Rome also knows Mattson will walk if squeezed - but instead of sticking with the sibs, goes off to speak with Logan. So what happens to the portion he's supposed to kick in toward Pierce if Roman becomes his Dad's "fire-breather"? And if he admits he's "not Pierce" & joins Logan, how can he have any relationship with the sibs going forward? Logan did the smallest mea culpa possible to try to get the siblings to do what he wants. Playing pieces on a chess board. He was on fire in the ATN room with the troops - but subdued when he needed to be with the sibs. (And a ghost in the decision about Kerri's anchor test.) I don't see any of the siblings able to access emotions, or look at optics, or make decisions in that same calculated way. It's what makes Logan a powerhouse. Gerri's on the outs, but not going without a fight. The others (Tom, Frank, Hugo) are more "Yes-men" & limited. She hasn't gotten this far by getting played or not having a move up her sleeve. So many balls in the air -- love this! Each one is so true to their character. Hard to see how it can all be reconciled without some one or two being big losers.

I'm not crying for them. We ALL pay taxes on income. Without their business expense write-offs. For reunions & certain Bravo-driven events, Bravo pays for hair/makeup. Kyle claims to do her own make-up & own PR. (And probably has TMZ & Page Six on speed-dial.) Erika once claimed to spend $40k a mo. on hair/makeup but scaled back after Tom no longer shifted millions into EJ Global. If she has PR, they're certainly non-existent or doing a really horrible job. If an agent is needed - assuming use is justified for more than the yearly Bravo contract - then that's for securing OTHER appearances & gigs - for which the RHs earn over & above the Bravo salary. Same for lawyers after negotiating the single Bravo contract - and both - business expense tax write offs - though actual payment still owed. Also betting husbands & children get paid for appearances on the show as well. As I said above, I'm not crying for them or worrying about how they're paying for their designer purchases or making rent/mortgages.

Depends on what you think is "that much." I've read (& can't remember where) that Bravo pays Erika $600,000 a yr, most of the others $500,000 a yr & Denise was contracted at $1 mil or more (creating immediate jealousy among the others.) I'd say half a mil or more paid steadily to a bunch of mostly idiotic, cackling, screaming, drinking, semi-illiterate middle-aged "actresses" is quite a bit - in addition to whatever they haul in for endorsements, appearances, or side gigs or the opportunity for free advertising of any products they want to hawk or husbands' businesses they want to tout.

Why? 1st, the obvious: The voters passed it. 2nd: High-earners pay more in many arenas. There's higher tax rates on higher income. Earn more, pay a higher %. (Yes, there's loopholes, but theoretically that's the basis for income tax.) So why not a high end real estate sale transfer tax? It's not a unique theory or basis for taxation. 3d: CA & L.A. don't have "plenty of funds" for low income housing. Whether, as you say, a result of doing a poor job or not, the funds aren't there. Deficits looming. Voters approved this new limited transfer tax to fund what needs to be done. I don't feel the rich owe me anything & I won't be living in the low income housing they'll help fund. But if they live or merely buy here, like everyone else, they bear some responsibility for L.A.'s problems. Not buy, cash out, & run. Homeless encampments aren't on their streets - they're on the streets of the lower & middle class - and growing. Low income housing won't be built in their neighborhoods. High end buyers can easily ignore problems others cannot. So if a solution to the homeless/housing problem, even AFTER the new transfer tax, reduces their profit to still very favorable terms (say, a $15-18 mil. profit on that $28 mil. home Altman was pushing) but keeps the homeless/low income away from THEM, believe me, they'll still buy those showplace or investment homes here & happily pay to live in their protected bubbles. Altman's not really advocating for his high end clients. He's whining because HE'LL need to pay the tax on his pricey home if he chooses to sell & move to his Newport home. HE'S the one who'll pay a tax on the home he bought for his folks if they choose to follow him to Newport. His own interests/ego will always come before his clients or the public.

No. The tax was passed in L.A., NOT in California as a whole. And only for sales OVER $5 million. NO current $600,000k home will appreciate to over $5 million in the near-future because no current $600,000 home (below median here) could possibly be located in any area that will permit THAT much appreciation - no matter how much razed/rebuilt or improved. Remember, only 4% of ALL sales in L.A. are over $5 mil. & subject to the new tax. The tax is to build housing for L.A.'s huge (& growing) homeless & to create low income housing, of which there's little. It falls on high-wealth (many non-local foreign buyers, out-of-state buyers, Northern CA tech czars - or celebrity or high net worth individuals.) They swoop into L.A. (in particular Malibu, B.Hills, Bel Air), buy high-end properties, then boost prices into the stratosphere on re-sale to others of their ilk for quick multi-million profits. Many don't live here year-round or invest in, boost, or contribute to L.A. in any other way - even if they do so in their hometowns or home countries. Many are multi-property owners, serial flippers, investors. Yes, it's not a crime to be wealthy. But it's also not a crime to take a cut of the obscene profits on the sale of a single home. Deemed a better solution than raising the now relatively modest property taxes on ALL property owners. (That would trickle down to raise already high rents.) Money must be raised. Who do you pinch? Those who won't feel it or those who will be hurt? The wealthy investor/seller who pays 4 to 5.5% on each re-sale & anticipated a 25% profit in 5 yrs or less but must now (boo-hoo) shave profits to 10-20%, still a pretty good return in the investment world. For them, it's just the re-adjusted cost of doing business. Yes, the churners of the market (driven by the Altmans of our world) who feast off sellers for hundreds of thousands in commissions on each sale - moan & groan. Chicken Little. But why?? Because listing prices will drop or be diminishing returns for the seller? (Lowering commissions.) Because a sellers' closing tax hit could cause resentment of the agent's equally large % commission? (Causing more to seek a cut.) More work adjusting seller expectations? Instead of the sky falling, home sales in this rarified category will no doubt go on as before - the economy & dipping home prices more of a factor than this tax.

When people look back at various time frames, they usually only look at their own unique circumstances, not at the market as a whole. Back in the '80's (40 years ago), interest rates (& mortgages) were in the double digits. Same as today, foreign money, inherited wealth, high echelon CEOs or entertainment folks had the means to buy, trade up, or pay cash. Same as today, those starting out didn't have the needed down payments, couldn't afford or qualify for the mortgage. In L.A., $1 million homes didn't magically appreciate into $10 million homes, even over a period of 40 years. (Even today, only 4% of homes sales in L.A. are over $5 million.) Don't let Altman fool you. His $28 million listing was only $5 million in 2015. To increase prices like that, you need it to be in a very desirable location AND to have totally rebuilt it, added on to it, or very extensively remodeled it. Many "real middle class people" DID & DO own homes here. They just don't own them in Beverly Hills or Bel Air. They necessarily buy more affordable options in less affluent neighborhoods. Maybe no view. Maybe not coastal. Maybe they started with an older fixer or smaller home on a smaller lot. Maybe put in sweat equity. And if bought/sold at the right time (because there were several steep ups & steep downs over these 40 years) or their personal fortunes improved, they might have traded up over time. Not likely done as 20-somethings. The benefits of buying vs. renting - that's a whole other subject. Some folks have champagne taste on a beer pocket. Not realistic about what they can afford. Want to live in a great place, instead of living more modestly & saving. Spending on rent doesn't build equity - but buy the wrong property at the wrong time & you can lose, not build, equity. Some lack the means, others the grit, to save for a down payment. It can be an investment, as well as a place to live. Or it can be a money pit. Some leave L.A. for more "affordable" options - some love the new location & never return. Others come back because they got the home they wanted but find it's not worth different weather, different lifestyle, different job markets. Shows like this - they show the house porn, the high life & high end. Some real. Some phony. Can't judge the entire market on this program.

My take on Tom is that he's just smart enough to oversee/delegate day-to-day operations in the sphere to which he's assigned, just smart enough for Logan to use as a conduit for information from & to the "rats," just smart enough to pick a side (Logan's) even if it means ratting out his own wife in order to be on the winning side of the GoJo merger. But will Tom be smart enough to keep his position after the buyout/merger? At Waystar, he's failed upwards so long as he's backed Logan - who knows after the buy-out? Because Tom's not great when he's on the spot. He's wasn't smart when bumbling before the govt. committee investigating Cruises. He's not smart enough to know Logan's "if we're good, we're good" is far from "heartening" & promises nothing as to any future time when they're not aligned or "good." He wasn't smart enough to see, before it actually happened, that Shiv would always boost herself (& not him) though she might "save" him if in a situation with no loss to herself. He wasn't smart enough to know his marriage was doomed (if not prior) than the moment he ratted out his wife & her brothers. He's not smart enough to know that indulging his joy in feeling power over Greg might not be worth the risk of being sunk by Greg's naivety & blundering. Not smart enough to see that to Logan, you're only as good as your last performance. Tom's offer to fall on his sword over the cruises debacle, or tip him off to the kids trying to stop the merger, might not be enough to buy Logan's protection over his entire career if a time comes when it's more expedient to Logan to cut Tom out. Tom acts out of instinct. Rat them out first, see the consequence (a failed marriage) -- & only belatedly, ask Logan how it impacts him with Logan if he & Shiv split. He's not strategic or cunning. He doesn't plan. He reacts to situations - and his reactions only involve chirping in Logan's ear or trying to keep Logan happy. That's only smart so long as Logan stays on top.

Oh, I don't know - maybe stop making yourself the maven of absolutely everything & stop making mean, nasty comments about other people -- to which other people respond negatively??? And maybe stop putting your tween daughter alongside you on some of your "reviews" and "comments" because it might expose her to mean comments as well? You know, like maybe stop grooming her to be a fame-whore (oh, excuse me, "influencer") like yourself & protect your child from the public somewhat??

Supposedly, Trump & Daniels "met" at a Lake Tahoe celebrity golfing tournament. Daniels was at a booth set up by the porn movie company that she worked with, handing out merchandise with the company's logo or some such. She says Trump sought her out at the booth. They later met up to party. (Sex, yes, but no indication of sex for money.) And met a few times after that. The money Daniels received was hush money (in the run-up to the 2016 election) to zip her lip about the affair. (Trump was married to Melania at the time.) Lawyer Cohen paid her the money, Trump reimbursed Cohen. Trump wrote it off on his taxes as a business expense - that's where it gets legally dicey. After the panelists conflated being a porn star with being a prostitute, Bill tried to explain that Daniels is a porn movie star - not a prostitute. Where Bill stepped into the muck - & did a quick retreat & subject-change - was when he tried to explain that the difference between the two is that porn stars love sex, but prostitutes do it for the money. Bill was trying to dispel the notion that porn film stars are prostitutes - possibly standing up for porn stars he met at Hef's place or elsewhere. Surely, there's hay to be made over Bill's over-generalization of the motivations of either (Porn stars "love" sex? C'mon Bill, it's called acting) or whether there's overlap in some cases - and certainly NO ONE wants to hear about Bill's personal experience. I think Bill realized this as soon as his comment emerged from his lips - prompting the quick retreat and subject change.

The draft ended in '73. In late '60s-early '70's, males needed student deferments to avoid the draft. But well before, many high schools pushed students into 1 of two tracks: college track OR vocational track. ABILITY &/or school performance or timing circumscribed the choice - more than draft avoidance. The Vietnam draft was merely a consequence. You could WANT to go to college to avoid the draft - but if you didn't have the grades to be accepted, it wasn't a viable choice. Enter college in '67 or '68 & graduate in '71 or '72, and you'd STILL be subject to the draft when done. Not sure if the number of male attendees dropped in the 80's or 90's. If it did, maybe it was a function of more women applicants accepted - changing percentages but not total numbers of applicants. Rising costs affect both. For public schools back in the day - tuition wasn't the issue it is today. Certainly more burdensome by the '80's, but in the '60's-'70's, tuition at private state schools was a few hundred dollars a semester & scholarships, work/study available. (Of course, aspire to Harvard, an out-of-state or private school, the costs soared & out of reach for many - then as now.) If without the means to pay or work your way through, no matter where, it's always been a tough haul. And then, many were less willing to take on debt of any kind as opposed to present day easier credit, maxed credit cards, & the taking on of huge debt without guarantee of a job at the end of the road. (Or unable to get credit. Back in the '60's & 70's, women often couldn't get credit or credit cards at all or needed the signature of a husband or father.) Back in the '60-70's, many middle class parents pushed sons into college to get a degree in order to be upwardly mobile - & pushed daughters into college for an "MRS. degree" to land a husband along with a teaching credential or some such, though, yes, there were exceptions. But a trope at that time was that women shouldn't be encouraged to excel in college because with grading on a curve, some guy might get poor grades & lose his draft deferment. Ridiculous, yes, but a notion circulated at the time. And happening even as, conversely, some college depts made efforts to recruit more women away from education & into other disciplines. (And that had an effect. In those days, there were 5 to 10% women in law schools - whereas by the mid-80's, it was 50/50.) Top disciplines have always been competitive & more women competing these days than ever before. Men may drop out for the military or workforce -- but so might women drop out because of childcare or workforce or military. They BOTH have rent/food payments to make & may need to pay for public transportation or car payments. If as Galloway says, men are failing downwards fastest, maybe it's because "weaker" male applicants are being pushed out to permit more equality or opportunity for "better" female applicants. The days of being accepted or succeeding just because you're male (or white or whatever defining characteristic is under scrutiny) is no longer a given. If the playing field needs to be leveled - so be it - so long as everyone who wants a fair shot gets a fair shot. But the landscape of who wants "in" has changed. Galloway wants to light a fire under young men to get in the game. He wants to advocate for men. Sees a need for more male role models. More power to him. But if that's his only cure, it's likely not enough to be a solution & doesn't get to the root of the problem.

True in 2015, still true today! Apparently in Whit's case, once a "dilettante buffoon," always a dilettante buffoon. This is what happens when you have pots of inherited money - but no direction, interests or developed skill - and no interest in putting in the effort to obtain them.

Thanks for the article buttersister! The rich are greedy - I guess we always knew that. But now we're to believe that sale of a $5 million home will be stymied or unprofitable due to a $200,000 transfer tax or $400,000 on a $10 million home. The profit depends on the seller's equity & what they bought the home for - where is it promised that property owners should expect 25% profits or more on the sale of a single home? Instead of multi-millions in profit, the seller gets $200,000 less? Cry me a river. The seller pays more than that in agent commissions, but Altman's not grousing about that! Listing prices here ZOOMED in recent years. Per Zillow, that $28 million property was last sold in 2015 for $5 million. Money was no doubt spent to overhaul it, but while a transfer tax of $1,540,000 sounds hefty, there's still many, many MILLIONS to be made on this one sale. Altman thinks EVERYONE (all homeowners) should pay the tax, not just the rich. Sorry - this tax on the rich was specifically passed because only the upper 4% of home sales will be subject to it. Altman wants to make the big bucks - but wants EVERYONE, not just the rich to whom he caters, to pay for the homeowner greed & overinflated expectations he caused. Too bad.

Congratulations - All the best to him!

As to "I'll take that as a yes," why overthink it? I wasn't limiting it to the courtroom/deposition scenario or only to lawyers. Could be used any time when gathering information from anybody. I've been around plenty of folks in their 90's - born 1925 or so, therefore, alive & aware in the 30's. They used the phrase -usually with a knowing look & to nail someone down (an evasive child, grand-kid, teenager or anyone) when they caught them not wanting to admit to something & met their question with silence. Wasn't alive back in the 30's & don't know if these folks used the phrase as far back as that -- or picked it up later. Guessing you weren't either. Many things escape people's notice (or the world begins the day they were born) & things pop out at them later as odd -- when it's just something whose genesis they never noted before. It's not like he said, "Groovy!"

It's a lawyer thing. Silence & gestures are not picked up by a reporter (whether it's a court reporter in court or reporter at a deposition.) Reporters only put down what is actually said. So a careful lawyer wants ALL responses voiced for the record. Lawyers are used to saying, "That's a yes?" to get the witness/deponent to say "Yes" clearly on the record. (Where it can be used as evidence, for impeachment, on appeal, whatever.) After a time, it's almost reflexive, whether speaking in court, at a deposition, or just in conversation with a witness. Maybe anachronistic for regular folks at the time - maybe not if you're a lawyer or judge. You get silence in response, or something mumbled, and it's on the lawyer to get a clear response on the record.

Bankrate put out an article that said if you have an annual salary of $150,00 (described as an "above average" salary in the U.S.), realistically, you can afford a $500,000 home. What that will buy varies by area. (L.A.'s median in Dec. 2022 being $800,000,) More proof (as if common sense isn't enough) that Altman's described 4-bdr, 4,000 sq. ft. home costing $5 million is ludicrously out of reach of the "working middle-class" though he claims THESE are the folks to be hurt by the new 4%-5.5% mansion transfer tax on homes over $5 mil. Altman ignores his role in creating a problem. On this show, he repeatedly touted new overbuilt properties that boosted square footage (& therefore, price) in the Bird Streets & elsewhere. He crowed about getting the highest prices. But the market only stretches so far. What goes up, also comes down. After reaping the benefits of his showmanship, he's grousing that high-flying property owners are burdened with a tax to help fund public housing & renter protections -- only because it won't put money in HIS pocket. Not content to be a pig, he wants to be a HOG.

Thought bubble for Ally: Insecure ninny James is annoying with all the touching, playing & public declarations. And he's still drinking! Yes, being on-camera is great - but can I stand this much longer? Maybe I need to find a better Tarot reader.

Wow! That picture's really scary. Scarier is why anyone in their right mind could think someone that looks like THAT would know a "winning" concealer from a loser. For some reason, Bethenny decided she's a make-up maven. She's not. Lately, she's scrounging around the bottom of the barrel for content. Recently "Barnacle" Bethenny latched onto Anna Wintour's failure to invite the Kardashians to the Met Gala for a Page 6 comment that Wintour has "squeezed that lemon" & now discarding the Kardashians. So now Bethenny is an expert on Wintour, the Met Gala &/or the Kardashians. Like the old saying, "Those who can, do - those who can't teach." She'll opine about anything & since not getting attention for her own doings, she's desperately latching onto other people - even those whose deeds have NOTHING to do with HER.

I thought in a prior episode we saw an arm (I don't know who it was - went by too fast) that reached into the evidence box & slipped a card into Brooks' wallet. And now it seems that card bore the number of the home where the catatonic woman resides. I like that there's lots going on at once - with various loose ends that don't make sense - until they do! But I can't read or double task while this show is on - I've gotta pay attention!