Keeping Up With the Kardashians

[KatesMom]

The problem, for me, at least, is that just being able to afford something or get someone else to pay for it doesn't mean it's even remotely necessary to have it or that there's not a better use for that money or those freebies. A number of years ago, Oprah had one of those giveaway shows where everyone in the audience was being honored for charitable work. A lot of the people who were interviewed afterwards said that they gave away the things they were given that they couldn't use or sold them and put the money back into the charities of their choice. As one woman said, " I don't need a Burberry bag. I'd rather give the money I can get for it to people who can really use it." I know Kris is now claiming Kim gives a lot of money to charity, but the last report I heard was that she gave $200,000 to charity in lieu of returning wedding gifts. That might seem like an extremely generous gift, if it hadn't been made public how extravagant her registry was or how much she spent on the wedding. Really, given how much she already has, why even bother to ask for wedding gifts? Why not just ask people to donate to charities instead?

If you're lucky enough to be able to make a fortune, especially when you make it for things as unrelated to real talents or skills as showing up at parties, I think you do--or should--have an obligation to think about what you can do with that fortune beyond buying another bauble for your own amusement. I like what Jack Lemmon said about success. If you're lucky enough to make it to the penthouse, you have a duty to send the elevator back down to help other people make it there too. The Kardashians seem more concerned about redecorating their own penthouse than about trying to help others move in as their neighbors.

Agree with this post 100% and it is why it irritates me too. Apparently the reason she gets to keep the ring (and the reports have been that she paid for it) is because there was a clause in the pre-nup that if they got married and divorced and if Kim wanted to keep the ring, then she needed to pay Kris for its value. As I understand it, it is valued around $2M. So let's think about this - she asks for a bunch of ridiculously expensive wedding gifts from people. They get divorced and she doesn't return them, but decides she will make a $200,000 donation to charity. At the same time, she is giving $2M to Kris, because she just has to keep this 20.5 carat diamond that she will look stupid every time she wears because it is her engagement ring for a wedding that went south in 72 days. And her family can't figure out why there is such a backlash against them right now? Really??

[Tilden]

Agree with this post 100% and it is why it irritates me too. Apparently the reason she gets to keep the ring (and the reports have been that she paid for it) is because there was a clause in the pre-nup that if they got married and divorced and if Kim wanted to keep the ring, then she needed to pay Kris for its value. As I understand it, it is valued around $2M. So let's think about this - she asks for a bunch of ridiculously expensive wedding gifts from people. They get divorced and she doesn't return them, but decides she will make a $200,000 donation to charity. At the same time, she is giving $2M to Kris, because she just has to keep this 20.5 carat diamond that she will look stupid every time she wears because it is her engagement ring for a wedding that went south in 72 days. And her family can't figure out why there is such a backlash against them right now? Really??

I wondered the same thing. Perhaps she's planning on having the stone reset into something else she can wear. But honestly, why? Is the stone that gorgeous? I'd think the memory attached to it, no matter what the resetting, would just be too painful. Unless she's planning on auctioning it off as the infamous Kim Kardashian wedding ring. Actually, if she could get someone to drop a wad on that and then donated the money--ALL of it--to charity, that might help her reputation more than anything else she's tried (though, of course, she'd still get to deduct for the donation, so it wouldn't cost her all that much, unless she really, really has a deep attachment to a ring she wore for 72 days).

Remember the ugly hats Beatrice and Eugenia wore to Kate and Will's wedding? One of them--Beatrice, I think--auctioned off her hat for a bundle and then donated it all to charity. She said as long as people were going to make fun of it, somebody who needed help might as well profit from it. I thought that was a pretty good attitude--turn a fashion mistake into something good and show that you don't take yourself too seriously in the process.

[captain]

There is no doubt in my mind they donate heavily to charity without public knowledge. But that being said if it is my money and I have more than I will ever need, why do I have to give to charities? I know it is the right thing to do, but then it is my money.

[Longhornfan]

Agree with this post 100% and it is why it irritates me too. Apparently the reason she gets to keep the ring (and the reports have been that she paid for it) is because there was a clause in the pre-nup that if they got married and divorced and if Kim wanted to keep the ring, then she needed to pay Kris for its value. As I understand it, it is valued around $2M. So let's think about this - she asks for a bunch of ridiculously expensive wedding gifts from people. They get divorced and she doesn't return them, but decides she will make a $200,000 donation to charity. At the same time, she is giving $2M to Kris, because she just has to keep this 20.5 carat diamond that she will look stupid every time she wears because it is her engagement ring for a wedding that went south in 72 days. And her family can't figure out why there is such a backlash against them right now? Really??

This is just my opinion. From what little I have seen of the Kardashians, I would have to surmise that all of the "girls" take their cues from the mother, Kris Jenner. In other words, they were raised with just one goal in mind, and that is to become famous. Money is usually a by-product that comes along with becoming famous, which seems very important to Kris J. I even saw a clip on Entertainment Tonight that showed Kim K as a teenager, and she said back then that one day she was going to be famous. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

So, I totally agree that the Kardashians just don't get it. In fact, right after Kim announced that she had filed for divorce, the whole family started acting like they were the victims when the backlash started. And, in my opinion, it has been just one bad P/R move after another for Kim. The last move by Kim to fly to Minnesota was just a headscratcher for. If she had done this without the paps there to film this, it might have been somewhat believable. With all the money that Kim has, she could have flown on a private plane, arranged to be picked up at the airport in Minnesota by a private limo company, been driven to Kris H's home without the paps being alerted, but instead she made a very public display of herself and made it easy for the paps to take photographs of her looking distraught.....in an attempt to repair her image. Everything that she does seems to be calculated. Nothing that she has done since announcing her filing for divorce has seemed to be the least bit sincere.

[Tilden]

There is no doubt in my mind they donate heavily to charity without public knowledge. But that being said if it is my money and I have more than I will ever need, why do I have to give to charities? I know it is the right thing to do, but then it is my money.

You're right. It's your money and you can do anything you want to with it. But once Kim chose to spend a hellacious amount of money on a wedding in tough economic times, she also made the choice to live with how that would be viewed by others. Except, apparently she doesn't feel she should be exempt from that. Sorry, but when you live extravagantly, you have to be willing to overlook the criticism of others. You can't expect that everyone is just going to agree with your choices or not question whether your funds couldn't be better spent elsewhere. Nor can you expect that a $200,000 donation you can deduct is going to make everyone think it's just fine that you kept wedding gifts paid for by someone else or that you spent millions on a wedding for a marriage that lasted 72 days.

I'm glad you have faith that they're donating heavily to charity anonymously. It certainly would be the first thing they've ever done anonymously. And really, if Kris and Kim think their celebrity is so valuable and that their fans are so devoted to them, why don't they make very public what charities have their substantial support? It might help those charities more if Kim were in their ads or PSAs, if, as Kris thinks, they have legions willing to do their bidding. Personally, I'm less inclined to buy anything with the Kardashian name attached to it, because of the attitude they've been displaying.

Oh, and as to why you should have to give to charities if you have more money than you'll ever need, you've answered your own question: If you know it's the right thing to do, aren't you responsible for doing what you believe to be right?

[Imperfect1]

There is no doubt in my mind they donate heavily to charity without public knowledge. But that being said if it is my money and I have more than I will ever need, why do I have to give to charities? I know it is the right thing to do, but then it is my money.

Yes, if it's your money, then legally you are not obligated to give any of it to charities. But there's a much bigger issue here, and that is: ethically and morally, what would be the good, and generous, and kind, and gracious, and perhaps even loving thing to do? And what do we want to teach our children? That we should hoard what we have and not care about anyone else, or that if more people looked at things from an ethical and moral perspective, they would be (IMO) better and happier people, and we would have a much better world to live in.

[MHcarrollton]

I am so sickened by these uber rich people that want to be in the spotlight being mad that we may not always give them praise. They put their whole lives in front of a camera, and than reap the benefits of it, but than complain when it goes wrong. We have a right to an opinion that we want, and my opinion is these are the type of people that make me sick to my stomach. I work with children in bad economic situations, and my husband sees families being ripped apart daily by the economy and than this nonsense is all over the news. They pay more for their stupid shoes than some people have to budget their whole expenses with.

I also despise the fact that famous people complain about being complained about, and I also hate when people act like them being in the top percentile of moneymakers does not give them an obligation to help. I am sorry but any decent human being with that much money that cannot have charity on their minds somehow is just a disgusting person. I get that it is their money, but what a lousy person to live so lavishly while people are struggling so much.

[captain]

I have never said she does not deserve the backlash she is getting. I personally think the entire wedding was a scam and even the Humphries clan was involved in it. IF I lost my brains and put my life out for the public to observe, then I deserve any and all comments, good or bad.

[Bearcata]

There is a great skit on NBC.com about the Kardashians, too funny.

[Lizard]

Their mother in marketing her new book said that she got caught cheating in year 12 and that is why Robert Kardashian divorced her. I think she was doing much earlier on. That is when he took some time to do something about it, had her followed......that is why the children call her Chris. Everyone around them new. We didn't. We thought they were being the worst kids ever. I guess they are not.