"Dear Candace Cameron Bure ..."

Candace Cameron Bure (left in the above photo) - formerly of Full House -  has announced that she "thinks she has PTSD" after her stint on The View, and that she didn't expect to talk about politics, just light stuff.

I first thought to myself - erm - had she not seen The View before she agreed to come on it, and had no one told her she was specifically being hired to represent the conservative woman's viewpoint, to replace Elizabeth Hasselbeck?

That sounded hard to believe - HOWEVER - Raven-Symone (above right, in the photo)  - formerly of The Cosby Show - who is black, gay, and on the opposite side of politics - added further explanation and semi-support to Candace, stating that though she doesn't agree with Candace's political opinions, they are still very good friends - and then filled in the blanks left by Candace. 

She explained that what Candace meant is that both she and Candace were "catfished" by the producers, who sold them to come on the show by using the pitch of trying to change the face of the show and the show's reputation by hiring more positive people, hopefully to broaden their audience, and lighten it up, and make it less political - but they didn't.

She added that her time on the show was unnecessarily and extremely stressful, too - but she did NOT say she thought she "had PTSD" because of it.

Regardless, it wasn't Candace's political stance that irked me, nor the  tale of the producers lying to both Candace and Raven-Symone about their presented intent of changing to a more positive face of the show VS. their actual intent for the show during the Trump era.

That part, I totally believe  -  because the more fights that producers can instigate, especially on daytime or Reality TV, the better the ratings.

No, what irked me is the fact that as someone who has been officially diagnosed with PTSD by a licensed professional, I've noticed that over the past few years, people - especially women, right OR left in politics - tend to throw this diagnosis around lightly, without ever having been professionally diagnosed, and without educating themselves on what that really means.

It's not only socially irresponsible, but almost an unintentional insult -  or at least a minimization of -  how crippling it is, lifelong, for those of us with the full-blown disorder.


For starters, there's a difference between PTSS and PTSD - the last letter "S" in PTSS stands for "syndrome," and the "D" in PTSD stands for "disorder" - and the difference between the two is that with actual PTSD, the symptoms last longer, and more severely impact your ability to function overall, long-term.

In other words, the disorder impacts - and even limits - your ability to function, much more severely and for a much longer time.

PTSS is a temporary adjustment syndrome, much like grief (and often including it), temporarily affecting the nervous system and psychological well-being. 

With the short-term syndrome, the daily symptoms like nightmares, insomnia, hypervigilance, and fight-or-flight reactions eventually go away, usually within a year after being removed from the trauma, either on their own or with short-term therapy.

With the actual disorder, the symptoms do not just go away on their own and last much longer, because they've permanently affected the way your brain and neurological system react to stress (until you retrain your brain to new neural pathways that cope with stress differently, which takes practice).

Also, though not always the case, more often than not, people with the full-blown disorder didn't start on stable footing already  - and by that I do NOT mean they were born with a psychological, biological, or genetic disorder.

I mean they often didn't grow up with a stable, appropriately trusting, supportive, and/or safe environment, even to sometimes include childhood trauma -  then tack on some adult trauma(s), and you've got the full-blown disorder that doesn't go away without help and brain re-training.  

(This is why some soldiers' trauma symptoms can appear to pass more quickly versus others.)

Now - either way, syndrome or disorder, your nervous system will likely decide, on its own and without your consent (although your own stinkin' thinkin' can make it worse) to react or "trigger" lifelong, at least to some degree, when presented with a similar stimulus - just the same as a near-drowning victim might experience a full panic attack or fight-or-flight reaction when near water. 

The difference, however,  is how long the symptoms last, as well as how severely they impact your ability to function overall, on a daily basis, not just when presented with the stimulus. 

HOWEVER - I should also note, here, that "delayed response" to trauma has been clinically observed, sometimes even years later, and is even fairly common, particularly in people who handled their trauma by pretending the trauma didn't happen at all or refused to acknowledge it, considering it a weakness or out of misplaced shame (believing they brought the trauma on themselves, like rape or abuse).

In other words, though human reactions to trauma are similar, they're also very complex and can vary by individual - they can be temporary, long-term, and even delayed - which is why the reaction really needs a professional to sort out over time, using specific criterion, for which you have to meet the majority of points for, to be diagnosed with.

And it isn't the PTSD sufferer's fault or choice or "weakness" - in fact, some of the bravest soldiers in the world have PTSD.

It simply means the trauma was so prolonged or severe that it literally permanently changed the way our nervous systems react to  stress and changed our neural pathways of thinking and coping; thus, we have to re-train our brains to follow different, healthier pathways to cope with stress, lest our CNS system always remain aroused, always firing on all cylinders, constantly "hypervigilant" and in fight or flight mode.

Thus, even the symptoms of PTSD can lessen, over time, but it's  actually more about changing how we cope with our symptoms rather than making the symptoms go away completely - but it also helps lessen the symptoms the further we are permanently removed from the trauma stimulus, how safe we feel now, and how surrounded we are by an appropriate, healthy, loving support system now, as well as learning to retrain our brains into healthier, calmer pathways and better coping mechanisms through therapy, by intentional thought and deed, rather than allowing what our brains have been conditioned to believe are natural or autonomic (over)reaction.

And allow me to just add, here, that I mean the right kind of therapy, by educated and licensed clinicians, who stay updated and trained in the latest trauma techniques, are fairly healthy themselves, and who know what they're doing.

Trauma is a field that is actually a fairly new area of study, it's only been since the early 2000s that we began to study and better understand the affects of trauma on the brain, after the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And though we've made leaps and bounds since then, we still don't fully understand it - in fact, we're still learning something new about it, every year, after a plethora of studies on it as a hot study topic, especially now that we've been able to prove actual brain function and central nervous stimulation differences on SPECT scan images of people who have it.

So despite many therapists advertising they can treat trauma, unless they've been through training at one of the few national accredited trauma training centers in the country, they really shouldn't be.

However, some therapy is better than nothing, if the therapists in your area have not completed the full, formal training from a national center in trauma therapy specifically - which includes clocking a certain amount of supervision hours by a trained clinician - but then they should admit that upfront, rather than advertising they can treat PTSD.

Now, having said that, it irks me when wealthy, powerful, and/or famous people (or sometimes just work in a high-level position that people assume makes them stable or sane) - either have good commercial insurance that pays therapists top dollar, or instead they pay the therapist the full fee out of pocket, to avoid psychiatric or psychologic services from showing up on an insurance claim - seek therapists merely to further pat them on the back, tell them what they want to hear, and tell them they have PTSD over things like ... they parked in a handicapped parking space and somebody yelled at them for it.

The therapist should instead be gently-but-rightly confronting them about their behavior choices, but many therapists for the rich and famous don't, out of fear of losing the client and their income ;) 

In fact, I may to do a whole post on that subject soon - how much more the poor (and more women than men, actually) get diagnosed with chronic, severe, and mental illnesses with a social stigma VS. the wealthy -  particularly white men -  who instead are diagnosed with more mild, temporary, and "victim" conditions.  

As a social work student, I read the few studies known to exist on this subject, witnessed it myself in my clinicals, and I have since typed hospital inpatient notes for 25 years, letting me know this study wasn't lying and should be revisited - and thus I have some very good examples to share of where the wealthy person received a mild diagnosis, and the poor person received the scarlet letter diagnosis, with the diagnoses being worse if the patient was female    - despite both patients exhibiting the exact same behaviors  ;)

Additionally, it's important to note that female clinicians were just as guilty of this socioeconomic (and sometimes gender) bias as men.

And they wonder why black people don't seek psychiatric/psychological treatment or therapy as much as white people do - gosh, it's a mystery, isn't it?

However - I do NOT think this is the case with Candace, or that she's a Karen - at least I don't think so  - she said just thinks she has PTSD - not that she had been officially diagnosed. 

Also Candace consistently appears to be a pretty down-to-earth, genuine person, and not a diva   - so I think it's the former reason - that she just doesn't know what that really means, and she didn't educate herself on PTSD before she said it :/

And to her credit, the reason Candace was chosen to represent the Christian conservative viewpoint, on The View is because she's a  better example of a sane Christian conservative woman than most of the televangelists and other cuckoo, loud-mouthed conservative women we see all over the news or in the pubic eye.  

Candace, on the other hand, is a better representative of your typical conservative woman, rather than what we see on the news and in politics - a very kind, reasonable, calm, articulate, and compassionate person, who believes in the compassion of Christ, and is not racist.

(For example, she famously cried and spoke out, just as much as liberals, against what happened to George Floyd.)

I don't always agree with her, no, not even usually, do I agree with her - but I do understand where she's coming from, at least. 

Having said that, on the negative side, make no mistake, she is a conservative, and thus comes across as rather naive and overly simplistic in her views and solutions, and as having lived in a sort of sheltered Christian bubble, with much to learn about what it's like to live in in America as a poor person, person of color, or without the perfect Christian family. 

(Hey, we all have much to learn about the experiences of others from less fortunate backgrounds in America - but some people more than others ;)

Thus, I wrote this to her elsewhere ...

Candace - I didn't see where you were diagnosed by a professional, and I wonder if you might be confusing PTSS and PTSD? 

PTSS is the short-term syndrome, and PTSD is the longer-term disorder, and it takes being diagnosed from a professional to tell the difference. 

I know that this diagnosis has become a pop-term, and yet still, we can't just self-diagnose and contribute to throwing these terms around lightly.   

My unsolicited advice would be first to seek a professional opinion on a diagnosis and educate yourself on these disorders, before announcing this to the public as fact. 

It may also be to your benefit to speak to people with that official diagnosis of PTSD (rather than PTSS) like soldiers and/or rape and domestic violence victims, whose symptoms don't dissipate as easily.  

Secondly, I know that you have a compassionate heart and are very sensitive, and a Christian like myself, so I don't want to minimize or invalidate your experience, but at the same time, just a little truth is good medicine; it can set us free/help heal - I also know that you appear live in a sort of naive Christian bubble and don't have a lot of experience with others' experiences outside of that and have much to learn from people that haven't been as lucky. 

And I do have to tell you/warn you, what you are saying will likely be construed as white privilege and white fragility, to be able to avoid the unpleasant when it suits you - and they may have a point?  

All the best,

 

Heads Up - In Case You Missed It Yesterday, Many Rakuten Stores Are Still at 10% Rebate/Cash Back

 

Yesterday, Rakuten had a surprise pre-holiday rebate of 10% to 15% cash back, on top of store sales for stores like Macy's, Saks Fifth Avenue, Bloomingdale's, Nike, Adidas, Under Armour, Backcountry, J.Crew, Lands End, The Gap, Coach, Aveda, Clinique, Lancome, Ulta and more.  

This higher percentage is usually reserved for Black Friday (the day after Thanksgiving), usually hovering around 2%.

Apparently, most of the stores extended the 10% today.

However, I note that Macy's and Bloomingdales are NOT still at 10% today - but Saks Fifth Avenue IS still at 10% today, and Macy's was at 2% this morning, but now is at 6%.

Also note that Adidas is the only one still at 15% cash back today.

Also note the Keurig was added today to 10%, not on board yesterday - HOWEVER - otherwise note that appliances and furniture rebates are mostly excluded.

Only Keurig and a few items at Overstock.com, so we'll have to probably have to wait until Black Friday for those.

Also, though Bed, Bath, and Beyond IS on Rakuten, it was only at 2% yesterday and today and not part of the deals.

Here's just a small example of stores who extended the 10%.

Lastly, note that Wayfair and Etsy are NOT part of the Rakuten program yet - BUT - many credit cards do have rebate programs for shopping with them - for example, my credit card did match Rakuten and gave cash back for  both yesterday.

Also, I noted that my credit card was offering 6% cash back for Bed, Bath, and Beyond, but Rakuten was still at 2% for them.

Also, when I did look at Amazon, after adding my credit card's shopping app, just under the Amazon price listed, it now shows a comparison price for that item elsewhere - and it gave me $5 just for the first time using it to check/compare an item to Wayfair, Etsy, and Bed, Bath and Beyond.

Take advantage of Rakuten and/or your credit card cash back rebates, folks, they're for real - you really do get a check or cash back on your card (or credit card credit) for the percentage back they advertise on everything you bought from these stores, even on sale, plus shipping is free if your purchase is over $50.

If you wait until Black Friday or later, you may not find the item in stock or the sizes  you need  ;)

(By the way, no - you cannot use two rebate programs at once - one will disable the other when you choose it ;)

This is the way that stores and credit card rebate programs have found to compete with Amazon, considering many vendors that sell at these stores also sell at Amazon and often for cheaper - in fact, my credit card openly says so lol (so needless to say, you won't see Amazon at Rakuten OR your credit card rebates.

Being that Monday is often my slower day with work, I totally took advantage of it yesterday, especially at Macy's and Nike (less stress to shop for in December and I can focus on the holiday decorating and baking and fun)!

Of course, it also helps that I'm in a better place financially than I ever have been and can do this early ;)

Many thanks to my boss, L, who introduced me to Rakuten a year ago!

Grrr - Vandalism: Was This Sports or Politically Motivated (or Both)?

 

So as part of my husband's birthday gifts in 2019, I bought the below decal, which he waited to put on our new car this year.  I looked for a long time, and had a really hard time finding one with the Detroit D in orange on blue background (Tigers colors), and this one was in the shape of Michigan, too - and he loved it.

Apparently, despite living in one of the nicest apartment communities in Lexington - which is kind of isolated and off by itself, not too close to town - some A-hole ripped it off his window, on Saturday night :/

We were heartbroken - and then pissed. 

As I've mentioned many times, we love most of our neighbors and vice versa, especially in this building, we're very like-minded,  and we look out for and help each other - which of course also helps to narrow down the suspects, you see ;)

So, the first consideration is the most unlikely - that someone actually liked it, thought it was cool, and wanted it for themselves - HOWEVER - that's extremely unlikely, both in our community and here in Kentucky, for two very different reasons lol.  

Meaning, we know most of our neighbors well, and that they wouldn't steal from us or vandalize us or anyone - in fact, we have  given keys to each other's apartments in case of emergency or vacation plant-watering.  The other very different reason from the first is that Kentucky people in general aren't fond of Detroit lol.

The second and most likely explanation is that Kentucky won their football game against LSU (Louisiana State University), who were the 2007 and 2019 national champions (and previously top-ranked), on Saturday night, which is a rarity for our football team to win at all, let alone against powerhouse SEC teams like Florida and LSU - and some drunken asshole beat his chest and then began ripping shit off cars that didn't match his Kentucky sports pride?

Yeah - we only won because LSU and Florida aren't very good, this year, and we are (for a change) - but we're not THAT good.

Don't forget, we play Georgia this weekend -  who IS that good and always has been (possibly better than ever, this year)  - thus, we'll likely get our arses kicked lol.

(Usually, only our basketball team wins, as Kentucky Basketball has, and continues to be, consistently in the top 5 elite college basketball teams in America, has been for decades -  but our football, well - sucks.)

Now, we heard drunken neighbors a few buildings over, screaming, yelling, chanting, late/early morning on Saturday night - but we did not expect someone to go around vandalizing people's cars.

Now, look - I went to UK, and though a basketball fan rather than a football fan, I get excited with wins, too - but I've never understood getting as crazy as our Kentucky Wildcats fans do.

I mean, our fans our legendary crazy, and winning isn't enough - because after a win, they have to secure their dominion over everybody else by jumping up and down on cars, setting things on fire, and pummeling the other fans into a bloody pulp in the street, after beating their chests, like insecure, immature, unevolved Neanderthals.

I just don't get it and never have.

In fact, even in basketball, though MSU and UK still both reign supreme in the college basketball world and are considered rivals, it's not like it once was - they're now mutually respectful, almost even supportive of one another (also North Carolina is in our good competition mix).

In fact, I think MSU and UK have actually bonded because of their hatred of the other two consistent legacies, Duke and Kansas,  for good reason - because they are either known for playing dirty and targeting players (Kansas) and/or faking injuries for fouls a lot (Duke), with especially Duke getting favored with ref calls, because people are afraid of Duke's Coach K lol.

All of this to say, I don't think this was a UK/MSU thing, because we weren't playing MSU, in football OR basketball, so this would just be yet another "UK won, we're better than everyone else, we're not happy just winning, we have to destroy everyone else, as well as vandalize and destroy property so secure our superiority -  it's our God-given constitutional right" moment.

No, it isn't your God-given constitutional right, actually - and I'm sorry you think your constitutional rights to health and safety are more important than anyone else's.

The third and less likely reason is perhaps it was slightly a political thing - perhaps even combined with Reason #2 of sports rivalry - because Kentucky is a particularly angry shade of red state, and  Kentucky Republicans/Trumpers hate Democrat-led Detroit and Gretchen-Whitmer-led Michigan - especially after the last election and COVID.

Also, possibly related to Reason #3 would be this little tidbit Mark told me about, which he forgot had also happened on Saturday ...

We have some friends/neighbors two buildings down - he's South African (white but liberal) and his wife is from China (also liberal) - and they also own a pug, which is how we became acquainted - yay!  

Mark was out walking Brookie, when the husband yelled down from his balcony that they were moving to Cleveland so that his wife, who is a doctor, could do her MD fellowship at Cleveland Clinic.

My husband congratulated them, then yelled up to them (who were on the balcony) - "Lucky!  You're getting the hell out of the South,  ESPECIALLY Kentucky - I wish I was!"

The people walking their dogs nearby apparently heard him and made mean faces at him.

I told him that was completely unnecessary to say so loud, and he was asking for trouble :/

He said he didn't care, as long as he and and the husband thought it was funny.

Then his decal went missing that night  ;)

As mentioned, we mostly have extremely cool neighbors, especially in this building, despite their politics (but most are Dems like us).

In fact, also as mentioned, we even give each other our keys to water our plants and watch our apartments when away, Democrat, Republican, or Independent, or just to have extra keys for the elderly in case of emergency (most of the elderly here are typically Republican, mind you, but not A-holes, and typically not very fond of Trump).

However, we also have just a few loud, obnoxious Trump assholes, in the neighborhood, too, that mostly all live in the same building, a few buildings over.  

In fact, the same building has loud parties about every other weekend, at which we have heard people screaming off their balconies about the superiority of Kentucky versus everyone else, as well as fights, and the police have been called more than once (we didn't call the police on them, I actually think one particular couple that gets drunk and loudly fights and kicks in doors called them on each other lol).  

In fact, that is the only building that has ever caused any trouble or had the police there, so we all just avoid them and focus on each other lol.

 

Thus, I have this to say to those few, outnumbered, loud, obnoxious, in-your-face, Trump assholes that live in that single building, in our community, and apparently think that Kentucky is better than any place else in the world, despite never having been anyplace else ...  

First of all, I went to UK and am a Kentucky (basketball) fan, myself, dumb asses.  

(However, I don't like football much, because it stops every two seconds, for too long, and I get bored - sorry.) 

In fact, I was likely a fan before at least two of you were ever even born. 

Secondly, Michigan is pretty effin far away from Louisiana and had nothing to do with that football game on Saturday. 

 

But even when MSU has won against Kentucky, (basketball  only, because they never play Kentucky in football), did my husband beat his chest, scream and yell until 4:30 in the morning, and then vandalize your all's shit? 

No, he did not. 

 

When you put Trump stickers, Infowars, anti-BLM, anti-mask, anti-vaxx, and confederate flag decals and bumper stickers all over your cars -  and then proceeded to parade around the parking lot in your pickup trucks, several times a day, with giant American, Confederate, and Trump flags flying from poles, which extended from your truck beds, shouting at us all to vote for Trump - did we display anything political on our home or cars or vandalize YOUR cars and homes, or even say anything back to you? 

No, we did not. 

 

At most we shook our heads or laughed at your cult-level idolatry and general foolishness. 

 

That is because we actually do believe in the right to freedom of speech (that isn't harassment, hate speech, or verbal abuse) and expression, as well as the right to peacefully assemble and protest - for everyone - not just those we agree with.  

 

Then when management asked that people clean off their balconies due to fire hazard, and that nothing be further hung off of balconies, to comply with community rules found in your lease - but you continued to hang your flags, signs, and banners off your balconies, draping down onto the patios of the people below you (despite the fact that not a single one of us Dems did so) - did we report you? 

No, we did not.  

 

At the very most, my husband was overheard voicing to a friend on his balcony that he wanted to move away from Kentucky as soon as possible - and he has every right to, in the same right to freedom of speech as you (and less loudly and belligerently, and never drunkenly).

 

Also, his decal was NOT political, or even about basketball or football  - it just represented his home town of Detroit and the Detroit Tigers baseball team.  

 

But now, " ya' dun pissed us off " - and as I said, I went to UK, and I am half-redneck myself - so you want to get down into Kentucky crazy? 

Let's dance - because I don't like to stoop down into Kentucky crazy with you, but I do know how it works - happy to meet you there, should you persist and find yourself unable to keep your hands to yourself, ever again.

(Message to be continued below ...) 

 

As an aside, Detroit crazy is different from Kentucky crazy, which my husband has finally come to understand.  

In Detroit, it's direct - you simply ask the other person to step outside and knock the shit out of each other, and when it's over, maybe even have a beer together - or not - there's also the possibility, depending on the affront, that you could find that one of the two have disappeared, likely under ice in Lake Michigan, in the Detroit River, or wherever Jimmy Hoffa went - gulp.

In Kentucky, on the other hand, it's passive aggressive - meaning they smile in your face, and then do crazy, vindictive shit behind your back, when you're not looking - so that you look like the crazy asshole if you say anything about it.

Now, this can range from something as small as vandalizing your car or home - to using the good ole boy/girl social network to smear your reputation and/or get you fired, or filing a civil suit that's not over the real issue at all, rather something frivolous just to intimidate you.

The next level is either using "mountain code kinship" to manipulate their Eastern Kentucky relatives and/or literally hiring some impoverished Eastern Kentucky rednecks to harass and bully you in real life (plus nowadays  impersonate you on social media and cyberbully you), threaten you, beat you up, and even drug you up with OxyContin and try to frame you for a crime.

Then last, but certainly not least, if all else fails - hiring one of those impoverished, crazy-ass-rednecks from Eastern Kentucky to kill your dog or your horse and/or burn your house down, as a last resort.

(I wish I was kidding - the latter method of dealing with conflict is extremely popular in Eastern Kentucky.)

They call this passive-aggressive, smile-in-your-face-but-activate-the -good-ole-boy-network-and/or-a-crazy-ass-Eastern-Kentucky-redneck-to-do-your-dirty-work method the "Kentucky Colonel" way or the "Southern Gentleman/Belle" way.

I call it the "Chicken Shit" and  "Coward" way :)

Now, the problem with that is that I'm not the passive-aggressive, vandalizing, vindictive, violent, pet-killing, arsonist type lol -  nor am I a reputation-smearer and bully.

I'm too direct for that passive-aggressive, behind-the-back, cowardly BS - so my particular brand of crazy and Kentucky crazy don't mix well.  

This means that though I have social anxiety, and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and many chances, the right to have bad days, and will always try diplomacy first - BUT - if someone gives me, and especially the people I care about, too much shit for too long, or crosses a line, I will start giving it right back (verbally) - only 10 times harder,  more articulately, and with pinpoint-accurate aim  - but always directly to them, instead of behind backs -  I will verbally chew them up and spit them out, right out in front of God and everybody.

Then, having said my piece, I'm done, I walk away, while they're left sucking their thumb and running home crying to their momma and their little wolf pack, trying to play the innocent victim and calling me crazy -  which I have finally learned to take as a compliment, considering the sources ;)  

This, you see, is why I mostly don't fit in here, in central Kentucky, with both Dave Chappelle and Trevor Noah having described Lexington as "The land of charming racism" and passive-aggressive Southerners. ;)

HOWEVER, I certainly have been the target of that level of Kentucky crazy, and I know how it works, the kinds of things they resort to -  and though it took me long enough, I finally learned how to deal with people like this. 

Mostly ghosting them is effective - they simply hate it if you don't react at all and don't let them have the satisfaction of letting them have feel like they have power over you.

HOWEVER again -  I've also learned to report them immediately, once they've crossed the line and taken their "freedom of speech/expression" way too far, don't wait, imagining they'll calm down, because they won't.

They'll retaliate for reporting them, of course, which you are also wise to simply ignore, until they do something so over the top and criminal that even their good ole boys and girls distance themselves from them lol.

So now hear this - this incident has been reported to management and community security, and we're in excellent standing with both, they even ask our opinions on certain matters - AND - we're also very good friends with a few high-level cops at LFUCG.


Now - I'm getting another decal AND a Ring camera, which will be on my balcony, with approval from management.

So feel free to continue to act like a damn fool, shouting about the superiority of Trump, Kentucky, and UK sports, and against masks and vaccines, at all hours of the night, and parade around parking lots with Trump and confederate flags -  that's your American right (and to hell with everyone else's?)

But should you EVER remove, vandalize, or touch anything of ours, ever again - here's your one and only warning ...

The video will be shown to management, and good luck to you then - because as mentioned, we've lived here almost 5 years and are in excellent standing with management, maintenance, and the courtesy cop - and all three have asked our opinions on many things.  We're never late on our rent, never had a single problem or complaint, and are very well liked by management and most of our neighbors and vice versa. 

 

Also, as mentioned, we're good friends with some high-level cops at LFUCG.

 

So good luck finding a legal argument that allows you to continue live here instead of result in an immediate eviction based on the strictest terms of your lease -  PLUS  -our friends at LFUCG will arrest you, faster than you can say "Make America Great Again" or  "Kentucky Pride" or even "Go Cats" - I guarantee it  :). 

PS - More (Hilarious) Insights on Gilded Age Society from The Vanderbilt book by Anderson Cooper/Katherine Howe

 

(Edited - content added)

One of the things I'm loving about this book is it's written from the perspective of two people who clearly think the New York Society BS, especially during the gilded age, is/was exactly that - complete BS lol.

So here's my synopsis of how the NY social scene happened, according to Anderson Cooper (Gloria Vanderbilt's son) and historian/historical fiction author, Katherine Howe. 

So after the Civil War, America was struggling for its own identity, but also a way to unify.

So what does famous gilded-age NYC socialite, Caroline Schermerhorn Astor (Knickerbocker family descendent, wife of William Backhouse Astor, mother of John Jacob Astor IV, the NY real estate and hotel heir, who died on the Titanic) decide to do?

Caroline finds herself a well-connected gentleman "walker" named Ward McCallister,  and the two of them create a "branding" strategy for America, literally creating a NYC social register called "The 400,"  which still exists  in some form today. 

What's a "walker?"

A walker is an affable male party cohost and planner that you're not married to, who also doesn't work and lives off his family's money, and helps make all the party arrangements and invitation lists - he's your party planner and cohost.

The reason a "walker" was required was supposedly because the husband was "off working" and it was viewed as inappropriate for a woman to host coed parties alone -  so the woman needed a chaperone for her "safety."  

Wink wink, nudge nudge -  since the rules for entrance to the 400 club were already that you couldn't work and had to be three generations removed from the moneymaker - and was actually  code speak for the husband actually living with his mistress or kept woman/women, since most married for money/social status, in the gilded age.

Sometimes the walker was the woman's lover, but not necessarily - because as we know, only men were allowed affairs socially (and actually common practice, even encouraged, since marriage was a social-networking arrangement), women couldn't, shunned first by other women if they did - so daring was the woman who made her lover her social walker - and in fact, as we also know -  many "walkers" in the gilded age were married for social status, but were actually gay - so the walker was actually their gay best friend party-planner lol.

Though we don't know that Ward was gay for certain, we know that it was strongly suspected - because though he supposedly had an "invalid" wife, no one ever met her, saw her, and she never attended the parties, and they had no children, and though he flirted much with women, and preferred their company, he had no known affairs -  so who knows?

Now - the supposed up side of this "branding" plan was it was a semi-effort to unify the country after the civil war, create an American identity, and bind new and old money together in unity.

The bad side, however, of course, is obvious - its main intent was creating an elite class of wealthy layabouts  and snobs, whether new or old money, who had nothing to do but spend money they didn't make themselves and party, and look down on and gossip about everyone else. 

There are many rules, but in order to be included in the 400 list, the 4 basic rules for admission to "The 400" that struck me most (as determined only by Caroline and Ward) were:

1) You must be at least 3 generations removed from the person that made the family fortune - meaning the members, male or female, could not work - relying only on family fortune.

(No, I'm not kidding.) 

 

2)  You had to be able to trace your roots to Old Wealthy Europe - but only certain parts of it. 

 

Prior income level now didn't matter, because the goal was to unify old and new money into one "better" social class and regiment society (with them on top, of course). 

But old money, of course, automatically included you in the 400, who often still snubbed the nouveau riche, especially if they were still actively working.  

However, when I say Old Europe, I mean English, French, German, Dutch, Danish, or Belgian. (Norwegian countries too - IF they could trace to royalty or old aristocracy.)

Italians (unless you could prove Venetian heritage), Irish, Scottish (with rare old-money/royal exception like Ward McAllister), Asian, Eastern European, Cuban, Haitian, Caribbean, Latin American, Middle Eastern, and especially African, need not apply - because they would never even be considered - even if royalty or of Spanish or French royal or Aristocratic descent - your dark skin and country of birth precluded you from acceptance regardless. 

Russia, like Spain and Portugal, were on the fence - it depended on if you could trace your roots to actual royalty or not - but of course not if you were Jewish and from Russia or Eastern Europe, you need not apply, either :/ 

 

(Once again, and still - not kidding).  

 

 

3) Having a million dollars during the gilded age was not enough to enter the 400, despite being today's equivalent of around 3 million - it was considered minimum "poverty level" and only gained you entrance into the 400 if you were old money that had lost it.  If you were new money and just had a million, you likely wouldn't get in, and even if you did, it meant you observed from the periphery, rather than guided the social scene. 

 

4) You were expected travel to Europe, especially France, and literally rip out architectural pieces such as fireplace mantels and tapestries from manors and palaces that were abandoned or falling into disrepair - often without paying the owning family for them - then put them in your brand-new NYC or Newport home, and call them your own, whether they were your family's or not. 

 

So basically, they literally stole from/ripped off European culture, by raiding manors and palaces falling into disrepair due to money issues -  sometimes displaying them in their homes in a mish-mash style and gauche way, especially by European standards (which is when we Americans initially got the reputation for being both overly extravagant and tacky) - and called it their own - thus contributing to the term "robber barons." 

So much for creating a unique American identity?  

Well, I guess they did, in the end - because if the American identity is wealthy people appropriating other people's cultural innovations and calling them our own, whether we are related to them in some way or not  - then they succeeded ;) lol

 

Also, to keep her choke hold control over the NY social scene, when receiving guests, she'd stand in front of this colossal and imposing picture of herself, to make herself appear larger than she was and in total control lol.

Hmm.  If anyone ever needed a swift kick in the backside, rather than thanks, it was Caroline Astor. 

Because she's responsible for the rigid, often nonsensically snobby, nearly social-caste system we Americans still foolishly cling to. 

I'd be happy to have done that, but Lord knows I never would've been invited to her party and wouldn't have wanted to be lol.  

In fact, I wonder if you had money and lived in New York, the best way gain Mrs. Astor's approval may have been to not care if you had her approval - and make it very clear in your social circles that you thought she, and her endless competition, social scheming, and manipulations, were beneath you - if not in wealth and social class, then definitely in character and integrity.

Then it would be she clamoring for your acceptance, rather than vice versa, especially if you had more money lol.

I mean, why did anyone listen to are care what some lazy, glorified Mean Girl said -  who earned nothing by her own merit, already being born into American aristocracy and marrying well - anyway?

Actually, I don't know who was worse - Caroline Astor, or her later rival and successor, Alva Smith Vanderbilt (wife of William Vanderbilt the II, mother of Duchess Consuelo Vanderbilt Spencer-Churchill Balsan) - but we'll get to her in a second.

First, we need to talk about how the Vanderbilts were initially excluded from the 400, despite $1 of every American $20 belonging to Cornelius Vanderbilt, at the time, and the Vanderbilts being the richest family in the country.

It wasn't only because they were nouveau riche, but also because the Commodore Cornelius himself was the moneymaker (and remember you must be at least third generation removed from the moneymaker to belong), but because he was considered coarse and ill-mannered, and barely literate.

His son, second-generation William or "Billy" was well liked, but doubled the family fortune, also a moneymaker - so he was also excluded from the 400.

BUT - then this happened. 

So the original New York Opera was held at the Academy of Music on 14th Street and only old money could attend. 

 This wasn't an actual rule and intentional exclusion so much as there were no boxes or seats that didn't already belong to those old-money families.  

In fact, Billy once offered $30,000 (which was close to 100K in today's money) for a box, but was denied, because it went to the former box owner's heirs.

So what does Billy do?

He builds his own opera house - now known as the Metropolitan Opera ("The Met," as we Americans call it), in its original location on Broadway in Manhattan (before it moved to its current location of the Lincoln Center in 1966) ...

... three times the size of the AOM, in height, length and width - lol. 

It was so grand, gilded, and lavish, it made the AOM look like a shabby shed - PLUS - there were more boxes available than at the AOM (about 40 compared to 10) to whomever could afford to pay for them (Billy bought 10 - two for himself and 8 for each of his heirs). 

He also paid the biggest sum for performers and symphonies to perform there, and after a time, the AOM closed and the old-money set were forced to join the new-money set at The Met. 

LOL - this makes me laugh, for some reason - until I realized the Vanderbilts became just as snobby and exclusive as the people that had been snobs to them :/

This took longer than you might think, though, because the one thing Billy forgot to do, when building this grand spectacle was - the acoustics.  They were, indeed, better at the AOM - but today, The Met at its current location has one of the best acoustical stages in the world.

After this, Billy was now invited to a few 400 parties, but still not included on  "The 400."

Now, in comes the third generation, who owns controlling shares, but doesn't really work - Billy's son, William Vanderbilt II, and his wife, Alva Smith Vanderbilt - so it's a matter of observation time by Caroline before they're accepted into the 400.

Caroline continued to snub them, however, until Alva outwitted her - and eventually succeeded her at having a choke-hold on NY society and snobbery.

You see, Alva was a former Southern Belle from Mobile, Alabama, who often bragged about abusing slave children as a child, and forced her daughter, Consuelo, into marrying the Duke of Marlborough, in a large-dowry-in-exchange-noble title scheme, in order to save his ancestral home, because he had no money left

That is because remember, the UK started a national-level income tax over 100 years before we did, in 1799, which began to increase for nobility over time - but we didn't have a federal income tax in America until 1909, and when we did, it broke many gilded age families even before the depression.

Awww, poor things - now rich power abusers couldn't spend millions on a single party anymore and they might have to work - don't you feel sorry for them? ;)

(Despite this event being the equivalent of an American royal wedding, at the time, sensitive and shy Consuelo cried all the way up until the day of her wedding, before, during, and after the ceremony, after being forced into this wedding instead of marrying the man she loved, but eventually divorced him, because he was a tremendous A-hole, who was never around, and only grew meaner towards her when she became more popular than he was, in his own country, due to her  legendary charitable giving and compassion - but that's another story - slightly reminding you of Princess Diana :()

Regardless, Alva set her sights upon not just being included in the 400, now - but usurping control over it from Caroline Astor.

So - at the time, there was a strict social rule that you did not invite anyone to a party that had never "called" on you.

Being "called upon" did not mean an actual visit with the person - in fact, it often meant you simply dropped by the hostess's house during receiving hours, had your footman deliver your calling card with the  hostess's butler, and then promptly just left lol.  

So what Alva did was decide to hold the most expensive party yet, but after the typical social season for parties was over, after Easter, so there would be no competition (and changing the official party season until later, ending with hers with a bang) - and to casually drop hints about it to create a buzz, then formally announce it in the NYT, so that people would wonder aloud if they would receive an invitation or not. 

At this time, Caroline Astor's oldest daughter, Carrie, had just debuted and Caroline was looking for a suitable husband for her, which often happened at such parties.

When asked whether Caroline Astor would be attending, Alva replied, "Oh, I can't invite the Astors, because Caroline has never called on me."

What may have been otherwise considered shocking, actually worked - because Alva was being socially correct to the letter - the social rules were you couldn't invite anyone to your party that had never called on you - and the rule was created by Caroline herself.

So what was Caroline to do?

Leave her debut daughter out in the cold at the biggest party of the year, missing one of the biggest opportunities to find her a suitable husband,  or  actually have to "step beneath" herself to actually "call upon" Alva Vanderbilt?

It was a brilliant social chess move by Alva - and so soon afterwards, Caroline Astor's carriage was reported outside of Alva's Vanderbilt's house, with Caroline's footman carrying her calling card to Alva's butler lol ;)

Oh, but it didn't end there - Alva took it all the way - because remember, again, she didn't want to just be accepted into the 400, she wanted to take over Caroline's social empire - the woman lived for competition with other women.

So what does Alva do? 

Not only does she spend the equivalent of $6.5 million of today's dollars on this masquerade party, but she: 

1)  Received guests in the same way as Caroline, with a large foreboding portrait of herself behind her.

2) Found out what costume Caroline was going to wear - and wore the same type of costume - only even more elaborate and bejeweled lol.  In other words, both Caroline and Alva came as Venetian princesses, but Alva, who was not at all attractive, but just as intelligent as Caroline, if not more so - still managed to outshine the pretty Caroline Astor by wearing Katherine the Great's pearls and spending more money on the costume ...

And here they are, photographs taken from that famous (or infamous) multi-million dollar Alva-Vanderbilt party, Caroline and Alva now both dressed as Venetian princesses - only Alva's costume contained even more jewels (including strings of evenly sized pearls on her bodice, extremely rare and valuable before culturing, that had belonged to Katherine the Great), several taxidermied doves on her hands to look as though she was feeding them, and partially bared her arms. 

Alva's Venetian Princess Costume                             Caroline's Venetian Princess costume

LOL!

Thus, Caroline Astor's Queen of New York status began to fade, and Alva began to take the reins.

Whew, how exhausting all of those machinations must have been, can you imagine?

And how absurd - because what's it all for, what's left of it?

Nothing.

Meanwhile, on the same day Alva spends a record amount on this party (the equivalent of $6.5 million today) - the Diamond Coal Mine collapsed in Illinois, killing dozens of men, who could no longer support their wives and children and had no benefits, couldn't even pay for their own funerals, and had to rely on charity - to which the 400 donated a whopping sum total of ... $1,720 dollars :/

I'm left thinking, "What a bunch of a-holes, clearly bored, not having enough to do because they don't work, such that they have to create social manipulations and games to amuse themselves."

"I can't believe our entire culture is based on a bunch of selfish, wasteful, greedy, power-abusing thieves and snobs, who never worked a single day of their lives,  and instead, lived off their family fortunes, as well as our backs as labor, wasting all of it - why are we supposed to respect them again?"

"And more importantly, why do we work ourselves to death and comply with their whining about having to pay taxes, and even entertain their shaming about people needing public assistance -  when to this day, those who didn't lose it after federal income tax of 1909 or during the depression - many just live off that money or the shares from the companies (later corporations) that  their grandparents, great parents, great-great grandparents, or great-great-great grandparents started, and whom we work for, even during pandemics (they pretend don't exist) -  and many even received  entrance, and even degrees, from ivy league colleges based on  their family name and privilege  alone, rather than merit?"

Sigh.

The good news is, Anderson Cooper (a Vanderbilt) and Katherine Howe apparently agreed with me about these people lol?

Ah well, the times, they are a changing - we hope?

_______________________________

PPS - I knew, before reading this book, that Alma was a suffragette, which I found completely at odds with not only her above overly competitive social antics with other women, and basically selling her daughter for a noble title, but also at odds with her proudly abusive racism and belief in slave-holding from her Southern belle days.

Then I read the next chapter on Alva.

Alva was a manipulative, abusive, demanding, power-hungry control freak and racist, yes - but as pieces of her own memoirs emerge, we come to understand that she was, above all - lonely - as well as pissed that women had to "pretend" to be passive and enjoy doing whatever tasks men didn't want to do for themselves - BUT - she blamed women themselves for it, more than men, for cow-towing to it. 

She was also a highly intelligent woman, disallowed to study at college or work, embarrassed by her husband's numerous affairs, all the while trying to maintain the appearance of perfect propriety (which was the sole job of any high-society woman of the gilded age).

She paints a very sad picture of woman who missed the initial affections of her husband, and really wanted his friendship, his conversation, the connection - but this simply wasn't done at the time, because asking a woman's opinion or input on anything was, considered by men, the equivalent to "asking for advice from a professorial butterfly,"

Worse, one of her husband's dalliances was with was her best friend, Consuelo Yzaga -  for whom she named her first-born daughter - but then no one really has a best friend in high society, which she already knew, but had hoped for, anyway.

She decided the only way to feel accomplished and less powerless,  as a woman, was to work within the system and manipulate it to get what she wanted - marry well to get the things that she wanted, and insist the same for her daughter - incredibly still imagining herself a "pioneer" when it came to women.

Now - the manner in which she did so was appalling -  but the sad truth about women, which many men don't understand, is that both men and women share this single commonality, if nothing else - we all need a sense of accomplishment, male OR female - in other words, the need for a sense of accomplishment is not gender-specific.

However, in the gilded age, there was simply no legal way for women to fulfil that human need for sense of accomplishment, other than child-rearing and being a proper societal hostess to the letter. 

Thus, in the gilded age, in both America and Britain - the only way women could legally attain a sense of accomplishment for themselves (and feel less powerless) was to manipulate the social constraints if the "proper" social system to gain social power  - and make the always-straying high-society husbands pay, for their extramarital activities (which was common social practice for men, but a scarlet letter for women)  - quite literally - meaning with actual money.

That is the socioeconomic system that we created in America (and Britain) - aren't we proud? :/

Because let us not forget, by this same time period, even though the Gilded Age society pined for everything French - at the same time, they did not follow French progressive ideas on women; instead, they followed British social convention.

Because by that time, even though the French still didn't allow women the right to vote, they did legally allow women to attend university alongside men  - i.e., the 1909 Nobel Prize winner in Physics was awarded to Madame Curie. 

In America, we did things the other way around - women were first allowed the right to vote in 1920, then allowed to attend university along with men (which many women didn't take advantage of until the 1930s).  

In France, however, though women had been allowed attend university alongside men for decades, they still weren't legally given the right to vote until 1944.

In other words, though France conceded women had brains long before we Americans and British did, they were still just as terrified  that we women might actually use them, when it came to having a voice on issues affecting our everyday lives lol

However, Alva took the truth in this situation too far - because in her strange way of thinking, the reason she hated/blamed women for their own mistreatment by men - AND black people -  is because she believed both actually had a choice in being treated as possessions - that they "allowed" themselves to be owned and mistreated, continued to cater to white male ideas of what a woman or a black person should be, and continued to "pretend" to be passive and what the white male wanted, instead of showing their own will and personality, and refused to ever buck the system.

Erm - I'm pretty sure women and people of color did NOT have a choice or there'd be hell to pay, which in all likelihood, in its best scenario would end in an all-expense-paid, one-way trip to the local insane asylum for women, if they tried to buck the system (like Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt's first wife, Sophia), and that's if they're lucky - because worst-case scenario was beating and death for both women AND people of color.

Which Alma knew very well  - but somehow still convinced herself that she was a pioneer that had "bucked the system "and refused to allow herself to be owned - rather than reality, which was she didn't buck the system at all, she just used it/manipulated it - because she absolutely did allow herself to be initially owned by both her 1st husband and social society - she simply manipulated the situation to her advantage, the same as many other woman did, during that time ;) 

After her very high profile divorce in which she was the first woman to win and gain money from after initiating (questionably her goal in marrying a Vanderbilt the whole time) -  and having married off her daughter for prestige and money, she now poured herself into the suffragette movement full throttle - in her mind, paving a way out of the future generations having to do the same as she did, as she forced her daughter to do.

Bottom line, I still think she was a power-hungry, racist tyrant - but then so were men, especially at the time (robber barons?) - but I also feel just a tiny bit of empathy for her (which quickly fades when one realizes how much she enjoyed  and abused power when she attained it, and how much rabid competition with other women she enjoyed).

I don't think we should applaud Alva as a suffragette, no, despite her imagining herself to be, especially since she was so incredibly competitive with other women and abusively racist (and those things simply are incompatible with being a true suffragette).

And though we may have a little more empathy for her, confined by gender rules at the time  - we cannot forget that her definition of equality for women meant that women should be allowed to to behave in the same power-abusing, ruthless way she had witnessed in the worst of men, at the time - instead of realizing that humans - male OR female - shouldn't be behaving, or treating other human beings, in this way. 

Well, I do think we at least better understand her, in the end. 

Sting and Shaggy, NPR's Tiny Desk Concert - "Englishman (and Jamaican) in New York"

 

My husband just sent me this - I can't believe I'd never seen it!  

(Because he knows that Sting is one of my imaginary co-husbands lol.)

This is awesome, it made me so happy today! :)

And the addition of Shaggy's Jamaican rap and lyrics are brilliant!

(In fact, they made a whole album together called "44/876.")

The original song, however, is found on one of my all-time favorite album's, Sting's solo project, "Nothing Like the Sun,"  where he delved into the fusion of reggae and jazz with rock even more than The Police did.

(I had the cassette tape, when it first came out in 1987, I wore it out lol.)

__________________________

PS - My husband just wrote back and said he'd never heard of this before.  

So ... I'm going to assume he meant NPR's Tiny Desk Concert series, which is  hard enough to believe he hadn't heard of, because it's been around for years (and I've played youtube videos from them, whether he realizes it or not) - because if instead he means he'd never heard this song in its original format, or of the second Sting album it's originally from, then that would be dang near blasphemy and an unforgiveable sin ;) lol

(Just kidding - as I said in the below post, I don't idolize/celebrity worship anyone, but I do respect Sting's talent and have since I was a teenager.)

Actually, he can be forgiven for not hearing much music from 1985 to the early-to-mid-90s, because he was an Army ranger and mostly out of the country until then -  in other words, he left during the height of hair bands, and came back just as grunge was starting to wane, and rap was at full-throttle momentum (which he loves) - so I've had to introduce him to that bit of music that he missed, during that time, to complete that gap in his American music education and evolution, poor thing :/

BTW, Guns N'Roses was a "yay," but most grunge rock was a "nay" - so sayeth Mark, according to his taste, with the exception of two Smashing Pumpkins songs ("Tonight, Tonight" and "1979.")

He likes alt-rock, which began before he left - just not the Seattle grunge sound, I guess.

But apparently, I left off a few bands during my introduction of music during this period - because my brother-in-law, who lives in LA, sent him a picture of jogging behind Dave Grohl, with a text that jokingly said, "Get out of the way, Dave" -  and Mark had no idea of who that was. 

(I can't show you the private pic sent, of course, but this is Dave Grohl).

Whups - so I had covered Nirvana (where Dave was the drummer), but focused more on Kurt Cobain, I guess - but completely forgot to cover The Foo Fighters (where Dave was lead guitarist).

I think it's because even though I think Dave is multitalented, an icon even -  I'm not a big Foo Fighters fan - they are aren't in my top all-time favorite bands, even for the 90s, even in Grunge.  

(That would be Dave's first band, when he was the drummer, Nirvana -  Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins, The Cranberries, The Stone Temple Pilots, Garbage, Veruca Salt, Soundgarden, Green Day etc. -  pretty much in that order).

I just thought the Foo Fighters sounded too ... mainstream pop, to me, and still do?  

(Green Day is borderline generic, too, but I liked some of their jams.)

I mean, I like pop, too, and I still I sing along, and laughed at their hilarious videos - it's just that other than Dave on guitar, the music itself is ... kind of generic and nothing special?

(Sorry Dave).

I mean, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and Smashing Pumpkins, they each have a very distinctive sound, even though all still recognizable as within the grunge  category - you know immediately who the band is, after the first few chords. 

Current Good Reads: "Vanderbilt: The Rise and Fall of An American Dynasty" - Anderson Cooper, and "Where the Crawdads Sing" - Delia Owens

(Edited for typos ;)

 

"Inequality is as dear to the American heart as liberty itself" 

~  William Dean Howells, as quoted in the Introduction to this book, by journalist (and Vanderbilt descendant),  Anderson Cooper, and coauthor, historian and historic novelist, Katherine Howe. 

Ain't that the unfortunate and politically inconvenient American truth? 

So I just received this book (and the one below from Amazon) yesterday, and just begun to read.  I chose to begin with this one first, having been released just on the heels of us having visited the Biltmore Estate for our anniversary - and I can't put it down.  

Let me start by saying that it's not their wealth (and the loss of it)  that interests me, because I'm definitely not a "royalty" watcher, nor a idolizer, of anyone - especially not the wealthy set.

It's actually the humanization of them that interests me - not the fall from grace perspective, but the myth-buster aspect;  the fact that underneath it all, we are all the same - unique, maybe -  but still  all too human, and thus fraught with the same frailty and foibles as everyone else, in the end.

Though biographies had been written before on them, it's an interesting take from an actual Vanderbilt, though Anderson has always made it clear that he identifies more with the Cooper side of his family, from rural Mississippi, instead of the Vanderbilts - with almost a hint of shame of his Vanderbilt side. 

As he has said in interviews about the books, he met them as a child, but avoided them.  He viewed them as lay-abouts and snobs, who never worked for a living, though his father, born on a small farm in Mississippi, taught him to work from an early age and the value of human beings -  not value in a monetary sense, but value in a human-connectivity sense.

In fact, he had to teach his mother, Gloria, how to open a bank account and a savings account (because there was nothing left of the family fortune, she made her money through fashion design and art - with the Vanderbilt name attached, of course;) 

However -  then his son was born - and as Anderson Cooper puts it in the prologue: 

"When my son was born, what will I tell him about them?  What do I hope he learns from the lives they led, the choices they made?  In order to answer those questions, I began researching these people I had avoided for so long  This family.  My family."

The Vanderbilt story somehow manages to be both unique and also, deeply, universally American. It is a saga of wealth and success and individualism, but as it turns out, those aren't necessarily the universal goods our culture likes to believe they are.  

A few central myths appear again and again in American's popular imagination; that success is available to anyone who is willing to work hard, and that success is worthier of celebration if it is achieved without help. 

(As if any success were truly achieved alone; even the "self-made" Commodore got a crucial early loan from his mother when he was sixteen.)

We still catch ourselves subscribing to this Horatio Algeresque celebration of entrepreneurship, of individualism, and, by extension, of wealth. 

We somehow, simultaneously, believe that we are all the same, all created equal, and yet we secretly suspect that the rich are somehow more special, that they have something figured out that the rest of us don't know.  

We see this embedded assumption play out every day in our modern celebrity culture and in our politics.

In writing this book, my coauthor, Katherine Howe, and I wanted to explore how some of the Vanderbilts - people with personalities and weaknesses and foibles, who found themselves living the ultimate American myth - actually felt as their lives were unfolding.  The personal stories we recount focus on a few individuals rather than on the grand sweep of the Vanderbilts' business empire or the expansion of railroads into the wilderness.

Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt founded a dynasty that would rule the Gilded Age, and his rise was dizzying.  He possessed a genius and a mania for making money, but his obsession with material wealth would border on the pathological, and the pathology born of that wealth would go on to infect each successive generation in different ways. 

 A family story about wealth and triumph becomes, in some respects, a story about sadness and isolation.  But it's also a story of unexpected poignancy and truth that shifts our understanding and expectations about this name "Vanderbilt" that we imagine we already know. 

The Vanderbilts were the original new-money arrivistes who burst on the scene, used their wealth to buy prestige and respectability, and churned through their fortune not in the cause of making lasting change, but on massive outlets for conspicuous consumption.  Vanderbilt millions bought palatial houses, astonishing yachts, cars in the hundreds, and jewels both magnificent and rare.

But under the buckets of ink spilled on their exploits by newspapers and behind the magnificent, and temporary, marble walls constructed of the Commodore's money, unfolded private lives both messy and insecure, nuanced and complicated, sometimes irredeemable, but always fascinating.  

This is the story of the extraordinary rise and epic fall of the Vanderbilt dynasty.  This is the story of the greatest American fortune ever squandered."

Well said, and I've often said the same - that whether public assistance or private assistance, no one is self-made - somebody helped you to be where you are -  if not your parents or grandparents, then by nothing more than giving you your first job or chance, or even public assistance - and there's no shame in that.

I could only add to his intro, as example,  perhaps to ask the descendants of slaves whether hard work was enough to succeed in America :/

Thus far, it appears that in researching his family, though he tries to empathize with all, he has clearly chosen favorites and essentially damned others to hell lol - and they're not who you think they would be.

For example, definitely not a fan of the Commodore, whom he describes using such adjectives as "ruthless," "pitiless," "avaricious," "narcissistic," and "attention-seeking," as well as having a pathological obsession with money and material possessions.

He sounds just like Tru ... well, never mind ;) 

In fact, the only redeeming thing I've read about the Commodore thus far is that he bought one home on the same block as the old money, Washington Square (before there was 5th Avenue or Park Avenue, there was Washington Square) and continued to live there, despite being shunned his entire life by the old-moneyites who refused to accept him because he was "nouveau-riche/new money."

This makes me laugh, but at the same time, disturbs me to discover this same person treated others just as worthless as the old-money set had treated him :/

It reminds me of the religiously persecuted coming to America for refuge, then promptly proceeded to religious persecute others, it makes no sense.

Regardless, Anderson clearly does not respect any of the people that flaunted their wealth or were obsessed with buying respect - but instead,  those that at least attempted to use their wealth to help not just themselves and their own family, but lives of others :)

And just in case you're thinking, "Well, Anderson certainly received help, he was a Vanderbilt," that's the point - that we all received help, no one is self-made, including Commodore Cornelius - it's what you do with it that matters and pass it forward.

Plus the fortune was gone by the time his mother reached adulthood, so there was none left, and he also states his personal battle was trying to make a name for himself and gain respect that was separate from the Vanderbilt identity.

Bravo, Anderson, both well said and done - and a good read thus far :)

Btw, I'm simultaneously reading "Where the Crawdads Sing" by Delia Owens, about North Carolina (the author herself living in the Blue Ridge Mountains today, but only read the first two pages after first reading more of Anderson's book, and it was midnight - but it's already drawing me in for more :)

I often do this, read a couple of books at the same time, because it depends on my mood, fiction or non-fiction, that day ;)