text:
\section*{Acknowledgements}

\input{Acknowledgements}

\end{document}

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}

The measurement of jets containing a $b$-hadron ($b$-jets) produced in proton--proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) provides an important test of perturbative quantum chromodynamics (pQCD). Calculations
of the $b$-quark production {cross section}\xspace have been performed at next-to-leading order of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ (NLO) in pQCD~\cite{Nason:1987xz,Nason:1989zy,Beenakker:1990maa,Frixione:1997ma}.
These calculations can be combined with different parton-shower and hadronisation models to generate simulated events which can be compared to data.

Cross sections for the production of a \bbbar pair have been measured previously at the Tevatron~\cite{Abe:1993sj,Abe:1993hr,Abbott:1999se,Abbott:2000iv},
and at the LHC by the ATLAS~\cite{STDM-2010-15,STDM-2011-40} and
CMS~\cite{CMS-BPH-10-010} collaborations.
These measurements agree with NLO predictions for
well-separated $b$-jets, although $b$-jets with large transverse momenta
in the central regions
are not well described by simulations~\cite{STDM-2010-15}.
The results in Ref.~\cite{STDM-2011-40} also agree with the NLO predictions;
though small deviations are present at large transverse momenta in events with a $b$-jet and light-flavour
jet (jet generated by a light quark).
The CMS measurement found that in the
phase-space region of small angular separation between the $b$-jets,
there are substantial differences between data and NLO
predictions, and among the NLO predictions themselves.

The lowest-order Feynman diagrams for \bbbar production are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bbproduction}.
They define different production mechanisms which are useful in understanding the behaviour of the \bbbar system. In
\emph{flavour creation} (FCR) both $b$-jets originate from the hard scatter: these jets tend to be the hardest in the event and are
predicted to have an approximate back-to-back configuration in the transverse plane. The \emph{gluon splitting} (GSP) production mechanism creates a pair
of $b$-jets that are  expected to have a small angular separation. The topology of \emph{flavour excitation} (FEX) is less distinctive,
but it tends to contain an additional parton, which reduces the angular separation between the $b$-jets.
The requirement of a minimum transverse momentum ($\pt$) of 270\,\GeV\ for the leading jet applied in this
analysis enhances the three-jet production mechanisms relative to the flavour creation mechanism, in comparison to the analyses of
Refs.~\cite{STDM-2010-15,STDM-2011-40,CMS-BPH-10-010}.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
  \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/Feyman.pdf}
    \caption{Lowest-order Feynman diagrams for \bbbar production.}
    \label{fig:bbproduction}
  \end{center}
\end{figure}

Different regions of the \bbbar phase space are probed via the six differential {cross sections}\xspace presented in this article.
For large values of the dijet invariant-mass, \ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace, the flavour
creation mechanism is expected to dominate, leading to final states with well-separated hard jets.
Events produced via gluon splitting or flavour excitation are concentrated at small \ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace. The opposite is expected for the \pt\footnote{The ATLAS
reference system has the origin at the nominal interaction point. The
$x$- and $y$-axes define the transverse plane, the azimuthal angle
$\phi$ is measured around the beam axis, $z$, and the polar angle
$\theta$ with respect to the $z$-axis. The pseudorapidity is defined
as $\eta =  -\ln\left[\tan\left(\theta/2\right)\right]$ and \pt is momentum transverse to $z$.} of the dijet
system, \ensuremath{p_{{\mathrm T},bb}}\xspace, where the  higher-\ensuremath{p_{{\mathrm T},bb}}\xspace regions are dominated by gluon-splitting production, and only the lower
values of \ensuremath{p_{{\mathrm T},bb}}\xspace have significant contributions from events produced
via flavour creation.
The azimuthal angle
between two $b$-jets, $\Delta\phi$, separates the different production
mechanisms more evenly. The angular distance between the two $b$-jets,
$\ensuremath{\Delta R}\xspace = \sqrt{(\Delta\phi)^2 + (\Delta\eta)^2}$,  is a variable often used
in analyses reconstructing heavy objects decaying into two
$b$-jets. The other two observables are the rapidity difference between the two $b$-jets,
$y^{*} = \frac{1}{2}|y_1 - y_2|$, where $y_{i}$ is the rapidity of
$b$-jet $i$, and the boost of the dijet system, $y_B =
\frac{1}{2}|y_1+y_2|$. The latter is
related to the momentum of the initial-state partons involved in the
hard scatter and it is therefore sensitive to the parton distribution functions (PDFs).

The measurement of the \bbbar dijet differential {cross sections}\xspace is performed
with the ATLAS detector, using proton--proton ($pp$) collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s} =
7$\,\TeV. The data were recorded in 2011 and correspond to an
integrated luminosity of  $\mathrm 4.2\, \text{fb}^{-1}$. The differential {cross sections}\xspace are defined as
\begin{equation}
\frac{{\mathrm d}\sigma\left(pp \to \bbbar + X\right)}{{\mathrm d}\mathcal{O}}
  = \frac{N_{\mathrm {\text{tag}}}f_{bb}\ \mathcal{U}}{\varepsilon\mathcal{L}\Delta \mathcal{O} },
\end{equation}
with $\mathcal{O}$ the dijet observable under investigation, $N_{\mathrm {tag}}$ the number of $b$-tagged jet pairs, $f_{bb}$ the purity of the
selected sample, $\varepsilon$ the selection efficiency, $\mathcal{L}$ the integrated luminosity and $\mathcal{U}$ the correction of the
measured distribution for detector effects, such as the jet energy resolution. The measurement ranges for the different variables are listed in Table~\ref{tab:fiducial}.

\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
  \vspace{0.5cm}
    \begin{tabular}{c c}
    \hline
    \hline
      Variable & Range \\
      \hline
      \ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace & 50--1000\,\GeV \\
      \ensuremath{p_{{\mathrm T},bb}}\xspace & 0--400\,\GeV \\
      \ensuremath{\Delta \phi}\xspace & 0--$\pi$ \\
      \ensuremath{\Delta R}\xspace & 0.4--4.0 \\
      $y_B$ & 0--2.5 \\
      $y^*$ & 0--1.7 \\
      \hline
      \hline
    \end{tabular}
    \caption{Ranges of the variables of the measured differential cross sections.}
    \label{tab:fiducial}
\end{table}

\section{ATLAS detector}
\label{sec:detector}

The ATLAS detector~\cite{PERF-2007-01}
consists of an inner tracking system, immersed in a 2\,T axial magnetic field,
surrounded by electromagnetic calorimeters, hadronic calorimeters and a muon spectrometer.

The inner detector has full coverage in $\phi$ and covers the pseudorapidity range $|\eta| < 2.5$. The inner detector consists of
silicon pixel and microstrip detectors, surrounded by a transition radiation tracker (up to $|\eta| = 2.0$). The electromagnetic
calorimeter is a lead--liquid argon sampling calorimeter covering $|\eta| < 3.2$. Hadron calorimetry in the central pseudorapidity region
($|\eta| < 1.7$) is provided by a scintillator-tile calorimeter using steel as the absorber material. The  hadronic end-cap
calorimeter uses liquid argon with copper absorber plates and extends up to $|\eta| = 3.2$. Additional forward calorimeters
extend the coverage to $|\eta| < 4.9$. The outer region of the detector is formed by a muon spectrometer that
uses a toroidal magnetic field with a bending power of 1.5--5.5\,Tm in the barrel and 1.0--7.5\,Tm in the end-caps.
The muon spectrometer provides trigger information for muons up to $|\eta| = 2.4$ and momentum measurements in the bending plane up to $|\eta| = 2.7$.

The trigger system uses three consecutive  levels to record a selection of interesting events. The level-1 trigger (L1) is
based on custom-built hardware that processes the data with a fixed latency of 2.5\,${\mathrm\mu}$s. The second level and the
event filter, collectively referred to as the high-level trigger (HLT), are software-based triggers.

The jet triggers at L1 use information about the energy deposits in the electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters using trigger towers with a
granularity of $\Delta\phi \times \Delta\eta = 0.1 \times 0.1$. Jet identification is based on the transverse energy deposited
in a sliding window of $4\times 4$ or $8\times 8$ trigger towers. The HLT further refines the selection, making use of finer-granularity
detector information and using reconstruction software close to that used by physics analyses. Due to the high rate of jet production,
only a predetermined fraction of events that pass the jet triggers are
recorded. The factor by which the number of events that pass a trigger
is reduced is known as the {\textit{prescale}}.

\section{Simulated dataset}

To investigate efficiencies and model the data, simulated dijet events produced by the {\sc Pythia~6.4}\xspace~\cite{Sjostrand:2006za}  Monte Carlo (MC)
event generator are used. {\sc Pythia~6.4}\xspace implements matrix elements at leading order (LO) in $\alpha_{\rm s}$ for 2$\to$2 processes,
a \pt-ordered parton shower with
leading-logarithm accuracy and multi-parton interactions to simulate the underlying event. The hadronisation is described
using the Lund string model~\cite{Andersson:1983ia}. Events are generated with the
MRST LO**~\cite{Sherstnev:2008dm} PDFs and a set of parameters tuned to ATLAS data,
AUET2B-LO**~\cite{ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-009}. At this stage, all generated particles with a lifetime greater than 30\,ps are
collectively referred to as the \textit{particle-level}
event. \textit{Detector-level} events are produced by passing the
particle-level events through a full simulation~\cite{SOFT-2010-01}
of the ATLAS detector based on GEANT4~\cite{Agostinelli:2002hh}.
The effect of multiple $pp$ interactions in the same or nearby bunch crossings (pile-up)
is included in all MC simulations. Events in MC simulation are reweighted,
in order to match the distribution of the number of multiple $pp$ interaction distributions to that observed in the data.
During the 2011 data-taking period, the number of $pp$ collisions per bunch crossing varied between
0.5 and 24~\cite{DAPR-2011-01}.
The resulting simulated events are digitised to model the detector responses, and then reconstructed using the same software as for data processing.

\section{Jet selection}

Jets are reconstructed from energy clusters in the calorimeter using the anti-$k_t$\xspace~\cite{Cacciari:2008gp,Cacciari:2005hq} algorithm
as implemented in the FastJet package~\cite{Cacciari:2011ma}, with jet radius parameter $R=0.4$. Jet energy is corrected to the
hadronic energy scale~\cite{PERF-2012-01}, which on average adjusts the reconstructed
jet energy to the true energy.
The reconstructed jets are subjected to calorimeter-based quality
selections~\cite{DAPR-2012-01}.  Jet candidates coming
from background processes, namely: cosmic-ray showers, LHC beam conditions and hardware problems, are rejected as described in
Ref.~\cite{ATLAS-CONF-2010-038}.
 Central jets with $|\eta|<2.5$
originating from pile-up are rejected by a track-based
selection~\cite{ATLAS-CONF-2013-083}.

\subsection{$b$-jet selection}
\label{ref:btagging}

The flavour of a jet at particle level is defined according to the hadrons contained in the jet. If the jet contains at least one $b$-hadron with
$\pt > 5$\,\GeV\ and \ensuremath{\Delta R}\xspace with respect to the jet axis of less than 0.3, then it is considered as a $b$-jet. If no $b$-hadron is present,
but a $c$-hadron that meets the same criteria is found, then the jet is considered as a $c$-jet. All other jets are considered as
light-flavour jets.

At detector level, the relatively long lifetime of $b$-hadrons is used to select an event sample enriched in $b$-jet pairs.
To identify $b$-jets, a combination of the JetFitter and IP3D algorithms~\cite{ATLAS-CONF-2011-102} is used.
The JetFitter algorithm aims at reconstructing the decay vertex of the $b$-hadron
and the subsequently produced $c$-hadron, assuming that both vertices lie on the same line from the primary vertex,\footnote{The primary
vertex is defined as the vertex with the largest scalar sum of $p_{\mathrm T}^{2}$ for its associated tracks and with at least two associated tracks with $\pt>400$ \,\MeV.} corresponding to the flight direction of the $b$-hadron. The IP3D algorithm is a track-based algorithm using the signed longitudinal
and transverse impact parameter significances of the tracks matched to the jet (where the impact parameter is defined as the distance of the track from the vertex at the point of closest approach). The variables describing the impact parameters and the
reconstructed decay chain are combined by a neural network trained
using MC simulation samples. This combination assigns a set of
probabilities $(p_b, p_c, p_l)$ to every jet, corresponding to the
probability of the jet being a $b$-jet, $c$-jet
or light-flavour jet, respectively. A jet is considered to be $b$-tagged when $\log_{10}\left(p_b/p_l\right) > 0.35$, a
choice that results in a $b$-tagging efficiency of $\varepsilon_b \sim
70\%$ in simulated \ttbar events (corresponding to a $c$-jet rejection factor of 5 and light-flavour jet rejection factor of 125).

A scale factor is applied to the efficiency obtained from simulation to account for the data-MC difference.
Two methods are employed to select these $b$-jet samples: the first
uses an independent $b$-tagging algorithm that selects jets containing
a muon from a semileptonic $b$-hadron decay~\cite{ATLAS-CONF-2012-043}; the other selects $b$-jets from \ttbar
decays~\cite{ATLAS-CONF-2012-097}. The differences between data and simulation observed in these control samples are used to derive a series of
\pt- and $\eta$-dependent scale factors, which are then applied to each jet in simulation.

Table~\ref{tab:definition} contains all the fiducial phase-space
definitions for particle-level and detector-level objects used in this
analysis.

\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
  \vspace{0.5cm}

    \begin{tabular}{l c c}
    \hline
    \hline
      Definition &Particle-level jets & Detector-level jets \\
      \hline
      Jet identification &  anti-$k_t$\xspace with $R=0.4$& anti-$k_t$\xspace with $R=0.4$\\
      & include muons and neutrinos & \\ \hline
      $b$-jets definition & $b$-hadron with $\pt > 5$ \,\GeV &$\log_{10}\left(p_b/p_l\right) > 0.35$ \\
      & $\Delta$R (jet;$b$-hadron)<0.3& \\\hline\hline
      Event selection & &\\ \hline
     Leading jet & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\pt > 270$\,\GeV\ and $|\eta| < 3.2$} \\ \hline
      2 $b$-jets selection &\multicolumn{2}{c}{$\pt > 20$\,\GeV\ and $|\eta| < 2.5$} \\
      & \multicolumn{2}{c}{2 $b$-jets separated by $\ensuremath{\Delta R}\xspace~>~0.4$}\\
       \hline
      \hline
    \end{tabular}
  \caption{Fiducial phase space of the measurement. The definition and
    the selection requirements for particle-level  and detector-level
    jets are given. The particle-level jets are constructed using all particles, including muons and neutrinos, as input (see Sect.~\ref{ref:Unfolding}).
    The $\log_{10}\left(p_b/p_l\right)$ criterion corresponds to the
    ratio of the probabilities of the jet being a $b$-jet or
    light-flavour jet. }
  \label{tab:definition}
\end{table}

\section{Event selection}

Events are selected using two calorimeter-based single-jet triggers with a \pt-thresholds of 180 and 240\,\GeV and $|\eta| < 3.2$.
These thresholds are used to define two ranges for the transverse momentum of
the leading jet where the trigger efficiency is close to 100\%:
$270 < \pt < 355$\,\GeV\ and $\pt > 355$\,\GeV, respectively.
A prescale factor of 3.5 was applied to the 180 \,\GeV\ threshold
trigger; no prescale factor was applied to the 240 \,\GeV\ threshold trigger.

Quality requirements are applied to ensure that the selected events are well measured. In
addition to selecting only data from periods in which all sub-detectors
were operating nominally, a veto is applied to reject specific events
in which the calorimeters were suffering from noisy or inactive
regions.

The leading jet is not required to be identified as a $b$-jet, but the
selected events must have at least two $b$-tagged jets with $\pt > 20$\,\GeV\ and
$|\eta| < 2.5$,  and  the two highest-\pt $b$-tagged jets within the
$|\eta|$ requirement are taken as the dijet pair. To avoid jets with
significant overlap, the two $b$-tagged jets in the pair are also required to be
separated by $\ensuremath{\Delta R}\xspace~>~0.4$.

\begin{figure*}[htbp]
  \subfloat[$90\,{\mathrm{\GeV}} < \ensuremath{p_{{\mathrm T},bb}}\xspace < 110\,{\mathrm {\GeV}}$]{
    \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fit_pt_90_to_110_all.pdf}
  }
  \subfloat[$1.4 < \ensuremath{\Delta R}\xspace < 1.7$]{
    \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fit_dr_14_to_17_all.pdf}
  }
  \caption{
    Examples of template fits in a \ensuremath{p_{{\mathrm T},bb}}\xspace and \ensuremath{\Delta R}\xspace bin. The uncertainty
    shown on the \bbbar fraction is the statistical uncertainty
    of the fit parameter. Systematic uncertainties are not shown.
  }
  \label{fig:fits}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{Purity}
While the requirement of $b$-tagged jets provides an event sample
enriched in \bbbar pairs, there is still a non-negligible contamination from $c$-jets and
light-flavour jets. The fraction of true $b$-jet pairs in the sample of $b$-tagged jet pairs, referred to as the
purity of the sample, is determined by performing a template fit to the combined IP3D and JetFitter probability distributions. This fit is performed
independently in each bin of the cross-section measurement. To obtain optimal separation between $b$- and $c$-jets, the fit variable is constructed
as $\sum \log_{10}\left(p_b/p_c\right)$, where the sum is taken over both of the $b$-tagged jets.

The fit uses a maximum-likelihood method to determine the relative
contributions of four templates that best describe the flavour content of the \bbbar pair in
data. These templates are defined as:
\begin{itemize}
  \item $bb$-template: $(f_1, f_2)$ = $(b, b)$,
  \item $b$-template: $(f_1, f_2)$ = $(b, c)$, $(c, b)$, $(b, l)$ or $(l, b)$,
  \item $c$-template: $(f_1, f_2)$ = $(c, c)$, $(c, l)$ or $(l, c)$,
  \item $ll$-template: $(f_1, f_2)$ = $(l, l)$,
\end{itemize}
where $f_1$ and $f_2$ indicate the flavour of the leading and sub-leading jet, respectively. The fraction of \bbbar events in the  $b$-tagged sample
is determined by the relative contribution of the $bb$-template.

The dijet templates are obtained from single-jet templates in MC simulation using a convolution technique in every bin of the investigated variables. This allows
the creation of smooth, finely binned templates even for bins with a small number of dijet pairs.
As the $b$-hadron decay is a process internal to the jet, the $b$-tagger probabilities for a given jet
do not depend significantly on the properties of the dijet system. The shape of the fit variable distribution can be parameterised as a function of the \pt and flavour of
the single jets in simulation. The contribution of each $(p_{\mathrm T1}, p_{\mathrm T2}, f_1, f_2)$ combination within a cross-section bin is then determined by
convolving the $\log_{10}\left(p_b/p_c\right)$ distributions for $(p_{\mathrm
  T1}, f_1)$ and $(p_{\mathrm T2}, f_2)$.
Figure~\ref{fig:fits} shows examples of the fits for two bins of the variables
\ensuremath{p_{{\mathrm T},bb}}\xspace and \ensuremath{\Delta R}\xspace.

To verify the validity of the procedure, a closure test is performed by comparing the templates obtained via the convolution to those obtained from the bi-dimensional \pt distribution. Good agreement is observed with the generated templates in all kinematic regions.

\section{Unfolding}
\label{ref:Unfolding}

The correction of the measured distribution for detector effects and inefficiencies
is done via an unfolding procedure that uses the iterative dynamically stabilised (IDS)
method~\cite{Malaescu:2009dm}.
At particle level, jets are constructed using all particles,
including muons and neutrinos, as input. Particle-level jets are required to
pass the same kinematic selections as jets reconstructed in the calorimeter. The detector
effects are corrected by using an unfolding matrix, which
maps the event migrations in a binned distribution from detector level
to particle level. The data are unfolded using the
unfolding matrix and then compared to the predicted particle-level
distribution. The iterative part of the unfolding allows
the matrix to be modified to account for mismodelling of the MC
simulation.
Any statistically significant differences
between  the data and simulation are assumed to originate from
processes not included in the simulation and are added into the
unfolding matrix. The data are then unfolded using the modified
unfolding matrix and the process is repeated until no element in
the unfolding matrix is modified by more than one percent.
To cross-check the unfolding results, the
unfolding is done with a bin-by-bin method and compared.
The bin-by-bin method  takes the ratio of the detector-level jet and
particle-level jet distributions, combining all the necessary corrections
into a single factor. It treats each bin as an independent
measurement, behaving as if events appear or disappear within the bin
rather than moving to another.
The ratio of IDS to bin-by-bin results is about 2\%, except for the mass and the \pt, where differences up to 10\%
were observed.

The unfolding matrix is derived from simulated {\sc Pythia~6.4}\xspace dijet events,
and is defined for events that have both the particle-level and the
detector-level jet pairs within the fiducial acceptance of the
analysis. Fiducial and efficiency correction factors are applied to
the  data before and after the unfolding, respectively.
The fiducial correction, applied before the unfolding, accounts for
the effects that cause a detector-level jet pair not to be matched
to a particle-level jet pair. The primary reason for the
mismatch is that one of the particle-level jets has a \pt below the
event selection threshold and so is rejected by the analysis.
The efficiency corrections, applied after the unfolding, correct
primarily for particle-level jets which meet the event selection criteria
but  are measured outside of the fiducial range at detector level.

\section{Systematic uncertainties }

The systematic uncertainties on the measured cross
sections are evaluated varying the relevant quantities by one standard
deviation, and applying the unfolding procedure; the differences with
respect to the standard  procedure are taken as the uncertainties.
The total systematic uncertainties are obtained by adding the components in quadrature.

The dominant systematic uncertainties in this measurement result from
the $b$-tagging and the jet energy scale
calibrations. Table~\ref{tab:systematics} provides an overview of the
systematic uncertainties. Their magnitude depends on the variable used in the differential cross section measurement, and the minimum and
maximum uncertainties are reported.
Each systematic uncertainty is propagated through the entire analysis,
including the unfolding procedure.

\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
  \vspace{0.5cm}
    \begin{tabular}{lr}

    \hline
    \hline
      Source & Cross Section Relative Uncertainty \\
      \hline
      $b$-tagging efficiency & 10--30\% \\
      $b$-jet template fit & 3--8\% \\
      Jet energy scale & 10--20\% \\
      Jet energy resolution & 2--8\% \\
      Jet angular resolution & 1--5\% \\
      Unfolding & 5--10\% \\
      Luminosity & 1.8\% \\
      \hline\hline
    \end{tabular}
    \caption{Summary of the dominant sources of systematic uncertainties and their relative effect on the {cross section}\xspace.}
    \label{tab:systematics}
\end{table}

The $b$-tagging efficiency and light-flavour-jet rejection rates in MC
simulation are calibrated by applying \pt- and $\eta$-dependent scale
factors to the simulated jets~\cite{ATLAS-CONF-2012-097,ATLAS-CONF-2012-043}. These scale
factors are derived using various data-driven techniques, as
discussed in Sect.~\ref{ref:btagging}. The uncertainty from this
calibration is evaluated by varying the scale factors for each jet
flavour by one standard deviation.
The effect of this uncertainty  ranges from 10\% to 20\% in
most bins, and reaches 30\% for low and high values of \ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace.

While the $b$-tagging calibration uncertainty takes into account differences between data and MC simulation in the $b$-tagging efficiency, this does not
necessarily account for differences in the shape of the $b$-tagger probability distributions. The $b$-tagging algorithm used for this
analysis makes use of tracks to identify $b$-jets. To account for any effects due to track mismodelling, all the template fits
are re-evaluated after the simulated events are reweighted to match the small difference in $b$-jet track multiplicity observed in data and the difference is taken
as the uncertainty. The resulting uncertainty in the {cross section}\xspace amounts to
about 1\%.
In addition, a
control sample of $b$-jets is selected using a tag-and-probe method. The data-to-MC ratio of the $\log_{10}\left(p_b/p_c\right)$ for the probe jets
is fitted with a first-order polynomial. The template fits are then redone after the MC simulation is reweighted
to match the difference in $\log_{10}\left(p_b/p_c\right)$ seen in
data. The resulting uncertainty is in the range 3$\--8\%$.

The systematic uncertainty resulting from the calibration of the jet
energy scale~\cite{PERF-2012-01} is typically around 10\%, but reaches 20\% for jets with a small angular separation.
Smaller contributions to the jet uncertainties
result from mismodelling of the jet energy
resolution~\cite{ATLAS-CONF-2010-054} and  the resolution of the jet direction.
The uncertainty of the jet energy resolution is estimated by performing an additional Gaussian smearing of the jets by one standard deviation,
resulting in a 2--8\% uncertainty.
The uncertainty due to the jet angular resolution is estimated  by
comparing the angular resolution of the nominal sample with
that of samples for which the material description and $b$-jet
fragmentation are varied~\cite{Bowler:1981sb,Buckley:2009bj}; this
uncertainty is in the range 1--5\%.

The unfolding uncertainty is evaluated by reweighting the MC simulation
that is used to derive the unfolding matrix to reproduce
the {cross section}\xspace measured in data.
Using the reweighted unfolding matrix results in a 5--10\% change in {cross section}\xspace, which is assigned as a systematic uncertainty.
Finally, the systematic uncertainty of the luminosity is 1.8\%~\cite{DAPR-2011-01}.

\section{Theoretical predictions\label{tp}}

The results are compared to the NLO MC generators {\sc Powheg}\xspace, r2299,~\cite{Nason:2004rx,Alioli:2010xd,Frixione:2007vw,Frixione:2007nw}
and {\sc MC@NLO}\xspace~4.01~\cite{Frixione:2002ik,Frixione:2003ei}. Both NLO
generators use the CT10~\cite{Lai:2010vv} PDFs
and a $b$-quark mass of 4.95\,\GeV. Events generated with {\sc Powheg}\xspace are
passed through the {\sc Pythia~6.4}\xspace parton shower and
{\sc MC@NLO}\xspace events are showered with
{\sc Herwig~6}\xspace.520~\cite{Corcella:2000bw}.
{\sc Herwig~6}\xspace uses an angular ordering parton shower with
a cluster hadronisation model and employs the MRST LO** PDFs and the set of tuned  parameters AUET2-LO**~\cite{ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-008}.
While {\sc Powheg}\xspace and {\sc MC@NLO}\xspace are both formally accurate to NLO, their treatment of higher-order terms differs. The data are also
compared to the LO predictions provided by the {\sc Sherpa}\xspace~1.43~\cite{Gleisberg:2008ta} and {\sc Pythia~6.4}\xspace MC generators. {\sc Sherpa}\xspace is capable
of generating multiple partons in its matrix elements, and was also used to generate \bbbar using a LO 2$\to$3 matrix
elements for this prediction. As {\sc Pythia~6.4}\xspace is a LO generator, it is not expected to provide an accurate normalisation.
The {\sc Pythia~6.4}\xspace distributions are normalised to the
integrated {cross section}\xspace measured in data by applying a factor of 0.61.
{\sc Sherpa}\xspace is found to produce the correct cross-section normalisation.
{\sc Powheg}\xspace{}+{\sc Pythia~6.4}\xspace is chosen as the baseline to examine the
theoretical uncertainties. The largest theoretical uncertainties
derive from the PDF
uncertainties and uncertainties due to missing higher orders.
By varying the renormalisation scale, \ensuremath{\mu_{\rm R}}\xspace, and the factorisation scale, \ensuremath{\mu_{\rm F}}\xspace, which are set to the same value in {\sc Powheg}\xspace,
an estimate of the effects of the missing higher-order terms can be
made.
To evaluate the uncertainty, the scales are varied independently
from one half to twice the central value,
and the cross-section variations are added in quadrature.
The effect of the scale uncertainties on the NLO prediction ranges from 20\% to  50\%, and dominates the theoretical uncertainty.
The uncertainties due to the choice of PDFs are estimated from the 52 eigenvectors of the CT10 PDF set evaluated at
68\% confidence level, and are in the range 5--10\% for the variables investigated.
Other cross-checks were performed, such as a study of the
effect due to the $b$-quark mass uncertainty and of the scale matching
between {\sc Powheg}\xspace and the parton shower. All of these have a negligible effect.
The total theoretical uncertainty is obtained by adding the scale and PDF uncertainties in quadrature.

\section{Results and discussion}
\label{sec:result}

The differential cross section for \bbbar production is shown as a
function of the six observables in Figs.\,\ref{fig:mass}$-$\ref{fig:ystar}.
The top panel of each figure shows the data points as black dots, with
the total experimental uncertainties as yellow boxes, together with
the prediction and theoretical uncertainties obtained by using
{\sc Powheg}\xspace.
The middle and lower panels report the ratio of theoretical
predictions to data.
For the predictions from {\sc MC@NLO}\xspace, {\sc Sherpa}\xspace and {\sc Pythia~6.4}\xspace, only the statistical uncertainties are shown.
Because of the normalisation factor applied to {\sc Pythia~6.4}\xspace distributions, as explained in Sec.\ref{tp}, the comparison between {\sc Pythia~6.4}\xspace and data is meaningful only at the shape level.
Figure\,\ref{fig:mass} shows the differential cross section for \bbbar
production as a function of the dijet invariant mass.
The cross section decreases with increasing mass except for a step
around 550\,\GeV. This value corresponds approximately to twice the
\pt requirement on the leading jet, i.e. to a mass region where the
flavour-creation process, with two almost back-to-back $b$-jets, becomes the
dominant production mechanism.
{\sc Powheg}\xspace provides a very good description of the data over the whole
mass spectrum, with the exception of the high-mass region where a
small deficit in the prediction is seen.
The {\sc MC@NLO}\xspace prediction is consistently below the data for
$\ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace<350$\,\GeV, at which point it becomes higher than data.
This jump corresponds to the region where the flavour-creation process begins
to contribute to \bbbar production.
The LO predictions (both {\sc Sherpa}\xspace and {\sc Pythia~6.4}\xspace) overestimate the data at low
masses and underestimate them at very high masses.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{mass_POWHEGBIS.pdf}
  \caption{
    Top panel: the differential {cross section}\xspace for \bbbar production as a function of dijet invariant mass, \ensuremath{m_{bb}}\xspace, compared to the theoretical
    predictions obtained using {\sc Powheg}\xspace. Theoretical uncertainties obtained by using
{\sc Powheg}\xspace are also shown. Middle panel:  ratio of the NLO predictions to the
    measured {cross section}\xspace. Bottom panel: ratio of the LO predictions to the measured {cross section}\xspace. For the predictions from {\sc MC@NLO}\xspace, {\sc Sherpa}\xspace and {\sc Pythia~6.4}\xspace only the statistical uncertainties are shown. For both Middle and Bottom panels: the yellow band represents the combined statistical and systematic experimental errors for the data. Theoretical uncertainties on the POWHEG prediction are also shown.}
  \label{fig:mass}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{pt_POWHEGBIS.pdf}
  \caption{
    Differential {cross section}\xspace for \bbbar production as a function of the transverse momentum of the dijet system,
    \ensuremath{p_{{\mathrm T},bb}}\xspace. The figure layout is as in Fig.~\ref{fig:mass}.}
  \label{fig:pt}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{dphi_POWHEGBIS.pdf}
  \caption{
    Differential {cross section}\xspace for \bbbar production as a function of the
    azimuthal angle between the two jets, $\Delta\phi$.
    The point corresponding to the first bin of the {\sc MC@NLO}\xspace to data
    ratio is about 3.5 and does not appear in the plot. The figure layout is as in
    Fig.~\ref{fig:mass}.}
  \label{fig:dphi}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{dr_POWHEGBIS.pdf}
  \caption{
    Differential {cross section}\xspace for \bbbar production as a function of the angular distance between the two jets,
    $\Delta R = \sqrt{(\Delta\phi)^2 + (\Delta\eta)^2}$. The figure layout is as in Fig.~\ref{fig:mass}.}
  \label{fig:dr}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{yboost_POWHEGBIS.pdf}
  \caption{
    Differential {cross section}\xspace for \bbbar production as a function of the boost of the dijet system,
    $y_B = \frac{1}{2}\left|y_1+y_2\right|$. The figure layout is as in Fig.~\ref{fig:mass}.}
  \label{fig:yboost}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{ystar_POWHEGBIS.pdf}
  \caption{
    Differential {cross section}\xspace for \bbbar production as a function of $y^{*} = \frac{1}{2}\left|y_1-y_2\right|$. The figure layout is as in
    Fig.~\ref{fig:mass}.}
  \label{fig:ystar}
\end{figure}

The differential cross section as a function of the dijet \pt ranges
between $0.2$ and $0.5 \,\mathrm{pb/\GeV}$,
as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:pt}.
Such a relatively constant distribution is a consequence of  requiring a
leading jet with $\pt>270$\,\GeV,
which suppresses the flavour-creation process, which typically
produces two $b$-jets with low $\ensuremath{p_{{\mathrm T},bb}}\xspace$.
Without this requirement, flavour creation would overwhelm the
other production mechanisms by several order of magnitudes.
All MC generators provide a good description of the high-$\ensuremath{p_{{\mathrm T},bb}}\xspace$ region.
{\sc Powheg}\xspace and {\sc MC@NLO}\xspace deviate significantly from data for \ensuremath{p_{{\mathrm T},bb}}\xspace below
about 200\,\GeV, while {\sc Sherpa}\xspace overestimates the data in
the region $50 \lesssim \ensuremath{p_{{\mathrm T},bb}}\xspace \lesssim 130$\,\GeV.
{\sc Pythia~6.4}\xspace reproduces well the shape of the data.

The {cross sections}\xspace as a function of the azimuthal angle and of the
$\eta$--$\phi$ distance between
the jets are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:dphi} and \ref{fig:dr},
respectively.
In these figures, the region at high angular separation is where the
flavour-creation process is expected to dominate. This is visible in
the peaks at $\ensuremath{\Delta \phi}\xspace\sim \pi$ and $\ensuremath{\Delta R}\xspace\sim 3$.
The NLO predictions are above the data in
Fig.~\ref{fig:dphi} for low \ensuremath{\Delta \phi}\xspace values, where the \bbbar pair is more
likely produced together with at least one other jet.
They reproduce well the shape of the data distribution for $\Delta\phi \gtrsim 1$,
but underestimate the cross section by a factor two in the same region.
Good agreement between data and simulation with LO generators
is seen.
The differential cross section as a function of \ensuremath{\Delta R}\xspace, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dr}, is well reproduced
by {\sc Powheg}\xspace.
The ratio of {\sc MC@NLO}\xspace predictions
to the data is $\sim 0.5$ for $\ensuremath{\Delta R}\xspace\lesssim 2$, and is above
the data in the intermediate \ensuremath{\Delta R}\xspace region.
The LO predictions do not show strong
deviations from data apart from an excess for \ensuremath{\Delta R}\xspace values below $\sim 0.7$.

Figures~\ref{fig:yboost} and \ref{fig:ystar} show the cross sections as a
function of the rapidity variables $y_B$ and $y^{*}$,
respectively.
The {\sc Powheg}\xspace predictions reproduce well the shape of the data distribution for
both observables.
The LO predictions deviate from the data for $y_B$ > 1.2.
The {\sc MC@NLO}\xspace predictions are above the data  for  $y_B < 0.1$,  and are
significantly lower than the data for $ 0.3 \lesssim y_B \lesssim
1.4$, as well as for $y^{*} \lesssim 0.8$.
{\sc Pythia~6.4}\xspace and {\sc Sherpa}\xspace also generally describe the data well, particularly the $y^*$ distribution,
although their predictions are above the data for $y_B \gtrsim 1.2$.

\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}

Differential {cross sections}\xspace for pairs of $b$-jets have been measured in $pp$
collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$\,\TeV\ using $\mathrm 4.2\,\text{fb}^{-1}$ of data
recorded by the ATLAS detector at the LHC.
Six dijet variables are investigated to probe the \bbbar phase space:
the invariant mass,
the transverse momentum, and the boost of the dijet system;
the azimuthal angle,
the angular separation,
 and the rapidity difference between the two $b$-jets.
The dijet system is defined as the two highest-\pt $b$-jets
in the event with
\pt $>$ 20\,\GeV, $|\eta|<2.5$, requiring a minimum \ensuremath{\Delta R}\xspace of 0.4.
A further requirement of a jet in the event with a minimum transverse
momentum of 270\,\GeV\ is applied.

The results are compared with NLO QCD predictions obtained using
{\sc Powheg}\xspace and {\sc MC@NLO}\xspace and the LO predictions
provided by {\sc Sherpa}\xspace and {\sc Pythia~6.4}\xspace.
The use of single-jet triggers with high $p_{\rm T}$ thresholds significantly changes the relative weight of the different production
processes with respect to an almost unbiased selection~\cite{STDM-2010-15}, with
an enhancement of the gluon-splitting mechanism by strongly suppressing the low-$p_{{\rm T},bb}$ region where the flavour-creation process dominates.
Under these conditions, {\sc MC@NLO}\xspace shows significant deviations from data for
all variables, both in terms of shape and normalisation.
{\sc Powheg}\xspace generally reproduces well the  measured differential cross sections, although it
underestimates the data at low \ensuremath{p_{{\mathrm T},bb}}\xspace.
The LO predictions approximately reproduce all distributions although some bins
show deviations of up to about 50\%.

In general, this analysis, which is particularly sensitive to the
three-jet topology,  confirms that the current MC  generators have
significant difficulties in describing regions of phase space which are
not dominated by two hard  $b$-jets.

\bigskip

\section*{Acknowledgements}

We thank CERN for the very successful operation of the LHC, as well as the
support staff from our institutions without whom ATLAS could not be
operated efficiently.

We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina; YerPhI, Armenia; ARC, Australia; BMWFW and FWF, Austria; ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus; CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil; NSERC, NRC and CFI, Canada; CERN; CONICYT, Chile; CAS, MOST and NSFC, China; COLCIENCIAS, Colombia; MSMT CR, MPO CR and VSC CR, Czech Republic; DNRF and DNSRC, Denmark; IN2P3-CNRS, CEA-DSM/IRFU, France; GNSF, Georgia; BMBF, HGF, and MPG, Germany; GSRT, Greece; RGC, Hong Kong SAR, China; ISF, I-CORE and Benoziyo Center, Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST, Morocco; FOM and NWO, Netherlands; RCN, Norway; MNiSW and NCN, Poland; FCT, Portugal; MNE/IFA, Romania; MES of Russia and NRC KI, Russian Federation; JINR; MESTD, Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MIZ\v{S}, Slovenia; DST/NRF, South Africa; MINECO, Spain; SRC and Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; SERI, SNSF and Cantons of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland; MOST, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, United States of America. In addition, individual groups and members have received support from BCKDF, the Canada Council, CANARIE, CRC, Compute Canada, FQRNT, and the Ontario Innovation Trust, Canada; EPLANET, ERC, FP7, Horizon 2020 and Marie Sk{\l}odowska-Curie Actions, European Union; Investissements d'Avenir Labex and Idex, ANR, R{\'e}gion Auvergne and Fondation Partager le Savoir, France; DFG and AvH Foundation, Germany; Herakleitos, Thales and Aristeia programmes co-financed by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; BSF, GIF and Minerva, Israel; BRF, Norway; Generalitat de Catalunya, Generalitat Valenciana, Spain; the Royal Society and Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom.

The crucial computing support from all WLCG partners is acknowledged
gratefully, in particular from CERN and the ATLAS Tier-1 facilities at
TRIUMF (Canada), NDGF (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), CC-IN2P3 (France),
KIT/GridKA (Germany), INFN-CNAF (Italy), NL-T1 (Netherlands), PIC (Spain),
ASGC (Taiwan), RAL (UK) and BNL (USA) and in the Tier-2 facilities
worldwide.

\clearpage

\printbibliography

\newpage
\input{atlas_authlist}

\end{document}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


MOBILE | To the bafflement of insect experts, gigantic yellow jacket nests have started turning up in old barns, unoccupied houses, cars and underground cavities across the southern two-thirds of Alabama.
Specialists say it could be the result of a mild winter and drought conditions, or multiple queens forcing worker yellow jackets to enlarge their quarters so the queens will be in separate areas. But experts haven�t determined exactly what�s behind the surprisingly large nests.
Auburn University entomologists, who say they�ve never seen the nests so large, have been fielding calls about the huge nests from property owners from Dothan up to Sylacauga and over into west-central Alabama�s Black Belt.
At one site in Barbour County, the nest was as large as a Volkswagen Beetle, said Andy McLean, an Orkin pesticide service manager in Dothan who helped remove it from an abandoned barn about a month ago.
�It was one of the largest ones we�ve seen," McLean said.
Attached to two walls and under the slab, the nest had to be removed in sections, McLean said.
Entomologist Dr. Charles Ray at the Alabama Cooperative Extension System in Auburn said he�s aware of about 16 of what he described as �super-sized" nests in south Alabama.
Ray said he�s seen 10 of them and cautioned people about going near them because of the yellow jacket�s painful sting.
The largest nest Ray has inspected this year filled the interior of a weathered 1955 Chevrolet parked in a rural Elmore County barn. That nest was about the size of a tire in the rear floor seven weeks ago, but quickly spread to fill the entire vehicle, the property owner, Harry Coker, said. Four satellite nests around it have gotten into the eaves of the barn, about 300 yards from his home.
�I�m kind of afraid for the grandkids. I had to sneak down there at dark and get my tractor out of the barn," Coker said. �It�s been a disruption."
Coker said he may wait until a winter freeze to try to remove the nest.
In previous years, a yellow jacket nest was no larger than a basketball, Ray said. It would contain about 3,000 workers and one queen. These gigantic nests may have as many as 100,000 workers and multiple queens.
Without a cold winter to kill them this year, the yellow jackets continued feeding in January and February -- and layering their nests made of paper, not wax. They are typically built in shallow underground cavities.
Yellow jackets, often confused with bees, may visit flowers for sugar, but unlike bees, yellow jackets are carnivorous, eating insects, carrion and picnic food, according to scientists.
�They were able to find food to colony through the winter," Ray said in a telephone interview.
He investigated a nest near Pineapple, measuring about 5 feet by 4 feet, that was coming out of the ground on a roadside. A southwest Pike County house in Goshen had a giant nest spreading into its roof.
Goshen Mayor G. Malon Johnson said he consulted Ray in removing it because he was concerned that children playing nearby could be attacked.
A colony has a maximum size in early July and August. The hot, dry conditions could force the yellow jackets out of ground nests.
�Normally it starts declining in the fall," Ray said.
He said the �super colonies" appear to have many queens.
�We�re not really sure how this multiple queen thing works," Ray said. �It could be that the daughters of the original queen don�t leave the nest or that the queens have developed some way to cooperate."
Ray examined a collected nest from Macon County to count the queens in it.
�We found 12 queens so far, so that�s definitely a factor," Ray said Thursday.
Dr. Michael D. Goodisman, a biologist at Georgia Tech who has studied large nests in Australia, said he�s heard of some large ones in Georgia and Florida, but not as big as those in Alabama. A 6-foot by 3-foot nest on a pond stump in Bulloch County, Ga., was featured July 12 on CNN.
�I�m not sure people know what triggers it," he said.
U.S. Department of Agriculture entomologist James H. Cane said he�s familiar with a nest in Florida 10 or 15 years ago that engulfed a big easy chair. Cane said the monster nests reported in Alabama are intriguing and agreed with Ray that they could be the product of multiple queens in a single nest.
The nest usually dies out each year. �All that overwinters is the future queen," he said.
Given a queen�s egg-laying rate, he said, there�s no way a nest with a single queen could get that big in a growing season.
But in a multiple-queen colony, Cane said, there must be space where queens can�t get at each other.


Thyroid hormones were found to help our ancestors survive but left us susceptible, revealed new study. Although most victims survive the 735,000 heart attacks that occur annually in the U.S., their heart tissue is often irreparably damaged -- unlike many other cells in the body, once injured, heart cells cannot regenerate. According to a new UC San Francisco study, the issue may date back to our earliest mammalian ancestors, which may have lost the ability to regenerate heart tissue in exchange for endothermy -- or as it's known colloquially, "warm-bloodedness" -- a Faustian evolutionary bargain that ushered in the age of mammals but left modern humans vulnerable to irreparable tissue damage after heart attack.
At first glance, there's no obvious connection between a mammal's ability to regulate its body temperature and its inability to repair heart damage. But the new study reveals that these seemingly disparate biological traits are inextricably linked -- by thyroid hormones. The thyroid gland produces a pair of well-studied hormones that are known to regulate body temperature, metabolic rate and normal heart function. Because of their critical role in promoting heat generation to maintain body temperature, these hormones have been posited to be the driving force behind the evolutionary transition from cold- to warm-bloodedness.
This discovery represents the first demonstrated connection between thyroid hormones, cardiac development and repair, and the evolution of endothermy.
Increase in Injection based drug abuse has lead to an increase In infective endocarditis cases in the United States. Infective endocarditis is a type of dangerous heart infection.


To serve a global clientele, we present the best wines from South Africa's viticultural regions. The list highlights a collection of wines from small producers that are released in limited quantities. Because Pinchos is so diverse, you have the opportunity to order wines by the glass and choosing wines that are uniquely suited to the myriad of flavors of our dishes.
In addition to our vast collection of wines, we offer a selection of fine whiskeys, single malts, tequilas, spirits and liqueurs from around the world. Other libations include classic cocktails, of which the FORK unique Bloody Mary is a house favourite.


This year begins my 26th year of teaching here at SMS! During that time, I have taught reading, science, and math. Now I only teach 8th grade pre-algebra and 8th grade Algebra 1. I have coached football and volleyball here at SMS in the past. But currently i am only coaching our hunter safety team. I hope this website is useful for you and please let me know if there are things I can do to improve it.


text:
Breaking news: Jon awarded custody of Collin
Collin spends the weekend with Jon
We hope this marks a transition home to Jon permanently! Sweet Collin looks so happy and healthy.
Recap: Kate Plus 8 "Mother's Day Surprise": Friends, the Mary Kay Leturneau haircut was once cool
Coming up on Kate Plus 8, the high holiest of Gosselin holy days is upon us, a time of fasting and feasting, prayerful meditation, gifting and re-gifting, and celebration. It is .... Mother's Day. No, no, no, do not fill this whole episode with old clips! I hate my life!
So, confession, my own birthday is very close to the day to the Tups, so I too know about how the birthday will every seven years or so fall on Mother's Day or darn close. For me growing up that was never made an issue. Each were celebrated every year as if any other birthday or Mother's Day, just as you would treat a child the same who was born on or near Christmas. And to my great shock, Kate has agreed to allow the children their birthday day, and she will celebrate Mother's Day on another day. That is probably the most unselfish thing she has done in years, and I can't work out what the catch is, there must be one. Apparently Leah was the one who told Kate she felt sorry that Kate had to share Mother's Day with their birthday. Kate's response was Mother's Day can be any day. Wait, rewind. Did Kate say "any" day, or EVERY day? Not sure which one I heard. Because that could be the catch, she'll give them their birthday, but she gets every other day! Moo-ha-ha!
Like good little parental alienated children, Alexis dutifully recites the script that she is most grateful for Kate because she "takes care of us alone!"
Oh, brother. Here we go. This episode aired on May 10, 2015. I know, uncharacteristically timely. Usually we would expect a Halloween episode around about this time. But we're now three years later, and there's a world of difference between trying to brainwash 10-year-olds and trying to brainwash 14-year-olds. See Hannah.
The kids are planning a surprise breakfast for Kate, which mostly consists of Mady ordering everybody else about. Mady is really, really firm with the kids, constantly raising her voice and pushing them around. It's awful to listen to. She learned this from her mother, and it won't serve her well. It won't work for teachers, or professors. It won't work for friends. It won't work for boyfriends. And good luck with marriage.
Kate takes about five minutes to simply tell us she doesn't know what the kids are up to. Yeah, I know people like that. Moments you will never get back.
So, like, Kate left her kids alone with the crew this whole time? Unbelievable. They're probably old enough the crew won't molest any of them easily, but what about their comfort during filming, their safety? Where is their mother to watch out for children who are getting too tired filming, being pushed too hard, are hungry, who need a break from it? Collin is here, and we know now he has special needs! Terrible.
Lol, old pics of Kate. I'm a good deal younger than Kate, yet still close enough in age to be in the same sort of fashion era growing up. It was all about the same for a long period. How come in the late 80's, 90's, all of us kids dressed and styled like 40-year-old tenured school teachers? How was this cool? It's so bizarre. And hilarious. There's Kate, all of 16, and through no fault of her own, dolled up in a snazzy turquoise turtle neck, busy black and white patterned v-neck cardigan thing, little gold necklace and matching ring, dark red nail polish and lipstick, and the Mary Kay Leturneau haircut from her molesting days, bangs and all. See what I mean?! Teacher haircuts were once outrageously cool!
And just some ramblings, but putting myself back in that time period, I'm going to guess Kate was cool. And I think the information we have was she did run with the cool kids, had a cool boyfriend, was a cheerleader, was reasonably popular. What it took to be cool back in the day was often a little money from your parents, to buy the right clothes and get into the right sports, like cheer. Indeed, Kate's clothes look pretty on point for what they are. So all this ungrateful nonsense from her about her parents not treating her right or giving her what she needed to make it, it seems like Kate was doing just fine for herself even back in the teen years. Try being an uncool kid to begin with whose parents genuinely couldn't afford any of these latest styles, or any of the things that would transition you into making cheer (like a little gymnastics lessons) like how I and many of my friends in the rural Northeast grew up. It's not fun at the time, but you grow up and eventually realize everybody did their best and thankfully it doesn't matter one bit you weren't cool then and didn't do cheer and you were probably better off not being part of all that anyway.
Some boring old clips. Kate tells the story again that she always wanted to be a mom since she was a really young kid, would even have dreams about adopting piles of kids on her doorstep. Pull over the furniture because I want to armchair this. First of all, I don't think it's normal for a pre-pubescent girl to feel that strongly about children just yet. Many little girls will claim they want a baby, but it has more to do with just liking to play babydolls and imagining yourself married to Leo with six kids living in New York City, you're a lunch lady and you drive a Mercedes because that game MASH predicted that, and little to do with what motherhood really entails and the much more complex feelings a mature adult woman often has about having children.
So, I think Kate's obsession with not one baby but many babies was not normal at her age, and I wouldn't be surprised if the baby obsession was related to her fanciful desire to have someone or many someones love her in the way she thinks other people didn't, namely her parents. Her parents surely loved her unconditionally, but Kate is the type to interpret discipline, telling her no to things, or having rules she doesn't like, as a parent not really loving her. That would be Kate.
Kate says she went to nursing school to bag a doctor husband. Just kidding, she says she went to nursing school to have knowledge about caring for her children and supporting them. You have to be a nurse to care for your kids properly? Can't you just call Kaiser if they get sick? They have a 24/7 hotline and the nurse always helps you out, although the preliminary just-making-sure-this-isn't-an-emergency questions are always kind of ridiculous. If I wasn't breathing I wouldn't be calling a 1-800 number, lady, shouting in my entire ten digit member ID into my iPhone, shouting in the last four digits of my social security number, saying "correct", and shouting 4, then 2, then 4 again, then 1 to finally get to your ass.
If you want to know how to take care of kids you could also pick up a parenting book or do a basic first aid for babies and children course through the Red Cross and skip the incredible expense of nursing school. It's just a weird reason to go that doesn't really make sense. How about, I went to nursing school to help sick people? Nah, too cliche.
Also, how was Kate going to get these kids anyhow? Did she even know Jon at this point? Maybe in nursing school she learned how sex works?
I'm enjoying the old pics of pre-botoxed Kate, though! She truly has progressed over the years. Or, regressed, if you like.
Kate was definitely a girl's girl back in the day, which I can't help but interpret as shallowness. She's always got jewelry on, always in a cute outfit, always has her nails done, always has her hair styled in some trendy teacher hairdo. In an old Halloween photo where she's the spitting image of none of the kids (they all are dead ringers for their dead father), she's got her hair dyed blond and in a tight perm. That can't have been cheap. What did she miss out on exactly during childhood? Because her childhood sure looks happy and privileged enough to me.
Oh, did anyone catch the old clip of Kate talking into the camera about how not-glamorous she felt when the six babies were maybe three months old? It looked just like a screen test tape we always suspected she may have sent off to TLC to get her show. Busted.
Does anyone care about her boring fertility story for Mady and Cara? I sure don't. She had to wait awhile to take a pregnancy test because it's not like today when you can take a test a few minutes after conception. Um, they still don't have those.
Once in a great while Kate will say or do something really genuine, and a tiny part of me wants to like the woman. They show an old home movie Kate herself filmed, showing her pregnancy test with the twins. A faint line. She then pans down to the counter where she's taken two more tests! Much stronger lines. She's pregnant, and it's the most wanted pregnancy ever, she says Because, yeah, ya totally do line up those tests and keep peeing on them one after another in disbelief! And I almost, almost, teared up a little at year 2000 Kate finding out such good news.
I think you get to a certain age and you just can't help but cry when you hear someone is pregnant especially someone you care about, or even when you know someone else is finding out someone they care about is pregnant! How many of us both laughed and definitely cried as our dearly departed Golly Gee found out she was going to be a grandma not once, but twice, in this lovely tribute video one of her sons made. ("You better not be joking me, I'll kill you!")
Had Kate been more like 2000 Kate throughout these long years, she might actually have some viewers left who genuinely care about her.
Wow Kate needs to stop being, like, a likable person; this episode is getting spooky. She says the twins were such easy-going babies she was like, hm, I'd like another! Dude, I know so many parents who had an easy first child by sheer luck of the draw and were then like, parenting is easy, adulting is a breeze, I don't know what everybody else is talking about with terrible-this or that. Let's have another!
There were so many old clips and Kate yammering on I nearly forgot that in "present day" the kids are still making breakfast for Kate. Nothing interesting happens.
Is it just me, or is it really mean when adults say to children, "It's the thought that counts." It's basically just a nicer way of saying your work sucks. I have vivid memories of various adults saying this to me and other kids when I was a kid and even at the time I knew exactly what they were really saying. If there is one thing I caught onto pretty quickly as a child, and still do believe today, it's that many adults assume kids are stupid or don't know wtf is going on. Wrong.
Well, at least the younger girls seem happy and excited to have helped out with the breakfast, including the pancakes and fruit salad. Kids this age desperately need to be assigned mild to moderately challenging tasks and figure them out on their own, it's crucial to normal development and good self esteem.
There's a discussion about "Collin's card-making station" which I guess is where they will make the Mother's Day card, but I don't see Collin anywhere. I'm guessing if he were even still around at this point, this was one of the last episodes he was in the house for, but not actually on camera. It was a slow progression with that kid that gradually took him out of the show.
Mady, who is far too old to still be whining about this, says the day the sextuplets were born was the worst day of her life and it was pretty awful after that too. While it certainly would be hard on a little girl to have so many younger brothers and sisters, now at her age, it's time to grow up. Also in defense of Kate and of course Jon, they went to great lengths to make sure Mady and Cara felt special and privileged and there were many things the twins got to do that the sextuplets were left out of. Mady is, sadly, a selfish and ungrateful child. Some children come by unselfish characteristics naturally, others, like Mady, must be taught and if they're not taught, unsavory aspects become a solid part of their personality, and it's unattractive.
Kate rattles off some of her parenting "rules" as we watching boring old clips. Stick to a schedule, no means no, don't give in. And generally I think her parenting advice is just bad. The first two there are definitely numerous exceptions to when it's beneficial to depart from the schedule as well as just let things go. And don't give in is definitely terrible advice. In fact, most parenting experts will advise you to really pick your battles, that you should only come down hard on the important stuff, and that it's best to let most things go for happy, well-adjusted children and a peaceful family. In other words, you give in a whole awful lot. I'm reminded again of GollyGee, who, in an adorable small video within her video tribute, her son David is refusing to sit up for a family photograph, instead preferring to recline against mom's legs with his hands under his head. GollyGee in short order gives up, shaking her head with a bit of a smile. She gave in! Because at the end of the day, does it really matter David didn't sit up this one time? And you can look back on the photograph and video, as we have, and laugh at the little boy's antics, at doing things his way as kids like to do. No tears, no whining, no battles that day in that house. Had GollyGee "stuck to her guns" as Kate advises, that family photo might very well have turned into a horrific battle of wills and spoiled the whole day. And it didn't result in raising a serial killer. David turned out all right, didn't he? (Thanks for stopping by to say hello, David!) GollyGee was a good mama. Kate is not.
I'm kind of surprised they show the clip of Collin distraught in the furniture store, begging to be changed, because that was surely one of Kate's most evil moments. She's chatting away on the couch as if her behavior in that store that day was normal.
I think the TLCgo app is showing way too many commercials. They just showed ten in a row, followed a few minutes later by seven! I pay for TLC through my cable company, it's not like I'm getting this for free. A paying customer shouldn't have to sit through excessive advertising.
Kate's prattling on about how she taught all the kids to cook. Fascinating. A producer then asks Mady who taught her to cook and she says Kate actually taught Cara, and then Cara taught Mady. Heh. That struck me as kind of funny, though I'm not sure it was a totally fair comment. Who knows who taught her, but I wouldn't put it past Kate to grossly exaggerate how much time she's spent working with the children to teach them to cook and playing the part of the loving attentive mother. Probably not as much as she wants us to believe.
Kate again proves that she doesn't understand child development at all, despite nursing school, when she talks about their eating habits and how the children are trying to "challenge" her with their picky eating. It's not all about you, you cow! Good lord. Picky eating is a completely normal stage of child development and has far more to do with kids genuinely having very sensitive taste buds that don't adjust easily to the plethora of foods that adults easily love and chow down on. In fact a British study found that a child's food likes are almost 75 percent based on genetics. That means it leaves only a small percentage to be determined by a parent pushing it down their throat until they give in and eat it. Kate's so freaking stupid. Most kids grow out of pickiness naturally, as long as they are getting enough variety of nutrients it's just not something to stress about. I woke up one day and loved the things I hated as a kid--salads, feta, coffee, Chinese food, hummus, limes, cheesecake, sweet potatoes, Brussel sprouts, zucchini, carbonated drinks, and lots of other foods kids will often avoid. Love them now! Nobody did anything to push them on me, I just started eating them because my taste buds developed into adult ones.
Kate really is rich talking about how much she struggles with sibling rivalry. Good grief, I can rattle off dozens of examples of both her handling sibling rivalry terribly or even outright encouraging such rivalry. For starters, when you blatantly play favorites with your children, sibling rivalry is inevitable.
Mady says twice that her younger siblings are brats, and there's a perfect example of the kind of completely unacceptable behavior towards one's siblings Kate has allowed and encouraged. It is not acceptable to name-call your siblings with such cruel and nasty names.
The producer tries to get Mady and Cara to say what a hard job of it Kate has raising eight kids, and they actually won't really go there. Mady says in actuality they all make it a lot easier for her. Heh. Well, I like that comment. For all Kate's whining and playing martyr about raising these kids, the kids do their best to help her. And I think that is a fair comment, we've seen plenty examples of the children pitching in and overall cooperating to prove they aren't total nightmares and can be very helpful when it comes to their care. The boys especially seem super easy to me. There's a huge difference between raising a child who is helpful and cooperative versus one who is constantly resisting you (even if it's due to things out of their control like special needs).
Kate gets lots of emails from strangers saying they're worried Mady is mean. Really?! This makes Mady laugh. How does that email go exactly? "Dear Kate, your daughter Mady is mean and I'm concerned. God bless"? Sounds like something GollyGee would have had the nerve to do! Heh! Also, I know I keep talking about GollyGee, but there's a lot about this episode that brings her to mind, and one of them is I think I understand much better now after her death and getting to know better who she was in her private life, why the kids meant so much to her. And I think so much of it had to do with her truly relating to raising three boys. She raised three boys, she did it right, Kate was doing it oh so wrong, and that really bothered her because she knew how much better their mom could have done by those boys. She would never toot her own horn about what kind of mother she was, but we know now she was amazing.
I catch a little glimpse of Collin at the card making station. He looks fine, even politely asking a sibling to hand him a pen and setting the table perfectly, explaining he "observed" how to do that in a restaurant. Aw. He's so cute. This is the kid who needed to be locked up for years? Was this the last episode where we really heard from him? Also he didn't learn how to set a table from his mother? Maybe this is because she eats all her meals standing at the counter.
Kate has a theory and I fall asleep. What the hell is a "girl mom"? She had girls first and so that made her a girl's mom? I really have no clue what she is talking about. Her theories are about as useful as those of the Flat Earth Society.
Oh I see this was just an opportunity to slam the boys for being normal little kids and to make a host of stereotypical and exaggerated comments about the girls. You can guess that the sum of it is the boys don't understand anything at all and all the girls do is have drama. As I have proposed many times, it is women themselves who often set women and girls back the most, and this is but one example of a woman, one who is semi-famous and has a bit of a platform to boot, using terribly exaggerated and untrue stereotypes that girls are all emotional fluttering basket cases who can barely make it through the day without a meltdown worthy of a truck of ice on a 100 degree day. Maybe if Kate did some work as a mother for once to help them better regulate and cope with their emotions, you wouldn't have so much drama. Children need to be taught how to handle intense emotions everyone will feel boys and girls alike, just as much as they need science and math. Make no mistake little girls watch this show, and it is disappointing they have to hear Kate say these things. I hope their mothers are around to set things straight.
I don't much like her comments about the boys, either. If boys are stupid with glazed over eyes all the time, does that mean they don't hold any responsibility for their actions, like when they go too far with a girl who doesn't want to? After all they're just a stupid boy. One could take it there.
Kate gives some cliche advice about doing your best that nobody cares to listen to. Also, I think doing your best is a cop out, because only you the person really knows for sure what your best is, so you can use it as a crutch to do half-ass work all the time because after all, that's just my best!
The kids and Kate do some terrible acting pretending that this all wasn't arranged by producers as the kids finish breakfast and Kate pretends she's surprised and impressed and goes out to eat her pancakes and read her card.
Collin made an incredibly creative card in which you actually can remove the heart from the center of it to hold it. That's really good, Collin! At least Kate takes the time to read each card individually and spend a moment with each child telling them how much she enjoyed the card. They need much more individual time with their parents.
Why is Kate still talking??? Eat your breakfast, bitch!
Shockingly, Kate admits it's not the kids' fault she has so much to do. Of course it's not. They didn't ask her to trick the fertility doctors into having a fuckety billion kids at once. So STFU already.
Oh, I hate her guts. While the kids are cleaning up without complaint, Kate has to say, "who are these children?" Oh shut up! There are piles of tapes in the archives of these kids helping out and working hard. Just stop it.
Ha, the bird is on Kate's shoulder, totally channeling Tanya Harding's stage mother. Nice. From now on this bitch's nickname is Lavonna any time she has that bird. It's just such a great villain name anyway isn't it? Lavonna Golden!
Lavonna Golden
Ick, they made a nice table for Kate to eat at with tablecloth and all, but instead she eats on the nice couch. I think that's gross. All that syrup and crumbs. She's a slob. And also they made the trouble to put a table together for her, so sit at it!
Gross! The kids are massaging her feet. Yuck. And look up grooming behavior, because it often starts as massages and other gone-too-far touching. I'm not saying Kate would groom her kids, I don't see any evidence of that, but it's still gross to engage in grooming behavior even though you're not really trying to groom them.
Woo-hoo, a clip from the book signing I attended in Santa Monica! I think that will always be my favorite Gosselin memory. I arrived directly from work and Kate was sandwiched in between two narrow bookshelves and WTF? I somehow immediately ran into a Radar online reporter who was maybe about my age, we somehow immediately hit it off which was fun, and she explained that Kate was embarrassed by the low turnout so thought moving her in between the shelves would help. I see, so like, if you move yourself into a tiny house and invite some friends over to it it will make it seem like you have a lot more friends. Good thinking actually. I logged onto realitytvkids to "livestream" from the event and so the night began with a bang!
Why is Kate talking about what the haters say about her? Nobody was talking about that. I thought we were talking about breakfast! Again, she insists she's just doing her best--a cop out, see?
Nobody does everything right so cut me a break! she insists. Um, Kate, nobody suggested you must "do everything right" whatever that means. I hate when she misstates what the criticism is then answers the misstatements. It's called strawman-ing, and it's a cheap debate tactic and she knows damn well she's doing it. Aw, did the book signing bring up bad memories? Poor thing.
Kate wouldn't ask for eight different kids. That's kind of a weird thought to have. Except Collin. She would like to return Collin. I know it's maybe thirteen years and six months past the warranty period, but could they pretty please make an exception for her? She'll accept store credit!
It's kind of irritating to hear the brainwashed kids talking about all the good things about Kate she has drilled into them she does for them, but when you think about it, it's probably a really good thing they are able to see the positives of Kate. Some of them apparently already and soon more of them are really going to have problems with this woman and the choices she made for them (filming, Jon, the physical abuse), but in order to work through all those issues and have a rebuilding point with Kate and develop some trust, they're also going to need to be able to find some of the positives about her. For better or worse she is their mother to deal with, and cutting her out of their lives is always a method of last resort. So, for those who want to keep her on board as their mother, they have to work with what they have and what they do have is a mother who growing up let them have a lot of pets they love, on some level cares for them and on some level loves them. It's a start.
Sediments by Realitytvkids.com ~ Administrator at 9:13 PM 628 sediments (sic) from readers
Gosselin v. Gosselin: PA docket shows the children have a Guardian ad Litem, and Kate filed an appeal past the deadline resulting in its denial
The public record docket, linked to us by one of the lovely ladies here, shows some interesting information.
The best news of all is that at least one of the children, and hopefully all of them, are now listed as having a Guardian ad Litem, family law attorney Lauren Marks, who is a party to the case and invited to respond to any motions or requests. Marks' bio reveals she's a Penn State grad with experience as a public defender as well as experience as a GAL in "highly litigious" cases. She seems to be over qualified for this post!
Kate filed an appeal of an order in May three days late, to which the Courts asked her to "show cause" (I.e. explain) why the appeal should be heard. On June 14, they "quashed" the appeal due to her tardiness, which means she can no longer appeal.
The filing fee to file Kate's appeal was $90.50. Not to mention attorneys fees, of course.
A briefing schedule is in place, which basically means deadlines to turn in your documents, with a brief due Monday July 9 for Kate. It's unclear what the briefing relates to.
The full docket can be viewed here.
Per Curiam Appellant, K.I.G., defendant below, filed a notice of appeal from the final
custody order entered April 5, 2018. Appellant's notice of appeal was docketed below on May 8, 2018.
An appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the order from
which the appeal is taken. Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). This Court has no jurisdiction to excuse the failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Valley Forge Center Associates v. Rib-It/K.P., Inc., 693 A.2d 242, 245 (Pa. Super. 1997); see also Pa.R.A.P. 105(b) (an appellate court may not enlarge the time for filing a notice of appeal).
Accordingly, Appellant is hereby directed to show cause, within ten days of the date of this order, as to why this appeal should not be quashed as having been filed untimely on May 8, 2018, thirty-three days after entry of the subject order. Failure to respond to this directive may result in quashal of this appeal without further notice.
DOCKET ENTRY
Docket Entry / Representing Participant Type Response to Rule to Show Cause
Quash Sua Sponte
Per Curiam Through this Court's June 4, 2018 Order, Appellant was directed to show
cause why the appeal should not be quashed as untimely. Appellant filed a response on June 11, 2018, but did not present legal argument to justify this Court's jurisdiction. An appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the order from which the appeal is taken. Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). This Court has no jurisdiction to excuse the failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Valley Forge Center Associates v. Rib-It/K.P., Inc., 693 A.2d 242, 245 (Pa. Super.
1997); see also Pa.R.A.P. 105(b) (an appellate court may not enlarge the time for filing a notice of appeal). Because the notice of appeal was filed on May 8, 2018, more than 30 days after the entry of the April 5, 2018 order, the appeal is hereby QUASHED.
Appellant's request for leave to file a notice of appeal nunc pro tunc is DENIED without prejudice to Appellant's ability to seek relief in the trial court.
Gosselin v. Gosselin: Jon's Petition to Open and/or Strike Judgement
In jaw-dropping court documents, Jon's attorneys essentially lay out a 2012 agreement in which Kate blackmailed Jon to not seek custody legal or otherwise under penalty of $125,000 in child support arrears plus $8,000 in interest and fees.
https://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Jon-Gosselin-Slams-Kate-132K-lawsuit-docs-1.pdf
According to Jon's lawyers, Kate has been unable to produce the actual documents of the alleged agreement. She is however asking Jon to pay up now that he has asked for custody.
Jon's lawyers are asking the bill nonetheless be reduced to zero, arguing that the 2012 agreement would be prohibited by law, is vague, has not even been produced to review, is against public policy and not in the children's best interest.
Jon has found Collin, and Hannah is with him full time
In a very unexpected sextuplets birthday post, Jon wrote on Instagram that he and Hannah visited Collin for his belated birthday (Jon posted a few days ago on Hannah's birthday that he now has her every day and night). Collin has been missing for two years, and Kate has offered little explanation why, other than he is getting treatment.
Glad I could celebrate my son Collin's 14th birthday with him and his sister!
A post shared by Jon Gosselin (@jongosselin1) on May 12, 2018 at 3:00pm PDT
Jon also commented:
mandapanda184 @jongosselin1 Oh good. So the reports that Kate shipped him somewhere without letting you know where, aren't true?
jongosselin1 @mandapanda184 that's true but I found him
Sediments by Realitytvkids.com ~ Administrator at 5:33 PM 1013 sediments (sic) from readers
Recap: Kate Plus 8 "Kate's Most Memorable Moments": Nana Janet is dead, next?
Noooo! is all I can say to this one. Not another clip show! Ugh!
You can pretty much guess what this episode will be comprised of. This includes Hannah pooped in Hannah's underwears, cupcake gate, and lots of whining about a divorce that even then was ages ago--over five years ago when this episode first aired!
This is like the T.V. version of clickbait on the internet, draw viewers in with what looks like new material, then bait and switch them with something recycled you've already seen before if not many times before. They seem to do this at least once every season and sometimes more. This episode seems even more gratuitous when you realize that only a few months later they are going to air a three hour clip show ("A Decade of Kate") of much the same drivel. There was only one other "real" episode between this clip episode and the Decade clip show! This is great for TLC's budget but very disrespectful to viewers.
Kate says she wants to look back on the old clips because she has annoying teenagers now and needs to remember when they were little. So go pop in a DVD and look at the old clips. Don't burden viewers' time with this. How rude.
As Kate has said on more than one occasion, it was so much easier to corral toddlers. Well right, you can child abuse a two-year-old into submission a hell of a lot easier than you can to a walking talking 10-year-old with opinions and who can run away and rat you out to mandatory reporters. That must stink for the child abusers.
Babies are so cute so that you don't abuse them, Kate essentially says. I'm not even joking, she actually says this. I'm glad Sherlock over there has figured out the morbid evolutionary reason why human beings are born with big heads and eyes. The editors immediately launch into a clip of Alexis having a diaper blowout as all babies will eventually, and Kate freaking out. So, like, if Alexis weren't cute, Kate would beat the shit out of her for that? Besides, she hit them anyway, cute or not, so I guess her theory doesn't apply to her.
There's no manual how to raise one baby, Kate says, let alone six. What? There are dozens of manuals about raising children out there, delving into all the nuances of babies practically week by week, so I'm not sure what she is talking about. What to Expect the First Year is a popular one, as well as On Becoming Baby Wise and many others. If you have six kids, I guess if you're Kate you just buy six of such books. Funny enough, just days after I wrote this portion of the recap, the Roseanne reboot, which is hilariously sharp and timely, made the same joke. Dan was telling Darlene look we did the best we could raising your kids, there's no manual on this. Darlene looks at him in disbelief and says yes there are! Heh!
They throw in so many little clips, many of which I nearly had forgotten about, and one of them is when Kate is in a battle of wills with young Mady, ordering her to put on shoes she says are hurting her feet. Kate's reasoning? Kate wears shoes that hurt Kate's feet so Mady should put them on. Even all these years later she still blows my mind. Kate is a consenting adult, and if she wants to wear shoes that hurt her feet that's her choice, but Mady is a kid and clearly doesn't want to do the same. Plus, she is a growing kid, so more likely than not, the reason her feet hurt are because she's outgrown the shoes. In any case, no one should wear shoes that hurt their feet--it is a warning sign something is wrong with the fit, and could eventually cause permanent damage in your later years. There are lots of shoes that fit properly and are still cute, this need not be such a big deal.
They show gum gate yet again, and Kate again doesn't take the opportunity to apologize to Aunt Jodi. She doesn't say anything at all about it this time.
Every moment of when the kids were young was hard. The grouchy moments were every day. That is a very pessimistic way to remember their toddlerhood. Sheesh.
They show the clip where Kate showed her post-pregnancy belly. At the time I thought that was brave of her to show that, but then she turned it into a freebie for tummy tuck surgery and my good graces vanished. I also don't believe Kate when she says that she never imagined someone would offer her free plastic surgery as result. Please. Today's Kate talks about her old stomach with absolute detest, calling it the jowls of a dog--ouch! That seems rather offensive to people who are carrying some flabby skin for whatever reason, and can't afford fancy surgery as a quick fix. A post-pregnancy belly isn't usually attractive, fair enough, but it's still you and it's the battle scar of bringing children into the world, which should be special. Kate marks the tummy tuck as the beginning of the rest of her life, and I just find this whole segment very shallow and inconsequential.
Kate reminisces about the one time they made Korean food with Jon, who is only shown from the hands down. It's amazing the way she is able to speak about this segment in such depth without ever mentioning why the kids are Korean in the first place, due to the sperm donor's ethnicity she selected perhaps online. What an elephant in the room, or shall I say Korean elephant!
This episode is a little disorganized as newer episodes tend to be because nobody in production cares, and we go from the producers feeding Kate things to talk about via old clips to suddenly the viewers asking questions. Can't she answer these questions on twitter?
Kate's favorite free trip was Australia/New Zealand, which is coincidentally without a doubt the most expensive free trip ever given to her, and she somehow swung it so she could go twice. We kill time reminiscing about the koalas for what feels like an eternity. I forgot how much the kids manhandled those poor koalas. Geez. Woo-hoo, the only old clip I ever enjoy seeing: Brad, the patron saint of haters, telling Kate about herself before pushing her off a high rise.
Kate says she wouldn't let the younger kids do this jump today. They are now the same ages as Mady and Cara when they jumped (age 10). Why? It's perfectly safe. Probably safer than crossing the street to get there. Usually parents get more lenient with subsequent children, not less. If a kid wants to do it and you can afford it, let them. Such drama over nothing and you run the very real danger of imposing your fears on your kids. Contrast this was Amy Roloff, who with gumption and style, jumped out of an airplane to celebrate her one year anniversary with her new boyfriend Chris. She acknowledged she was terrified but stuck to her goals to try new things and do something wild with Chris to mark the occasion. She was optimistic and pleasant the whole time, and as a viewer, I was rooting for her, and eager to see how this would shake out. I had no doubt she would go through with it. I had been cautious of Chris, I suppose I'm always going to worry about someone having ulterior motives when dating a little person, but he seems to have developed into quite a thoughtful and supportive boyfriend for Amy, and she's giddy in love with him. It's cute, and I hope he is what he seems.
Kate reveals the real reason she finally jumped i.e. was pushed off the building by Brad. Because she didn't want her 10-year-olds to be braver than herself. Well, of course the reason has to do with some kind of imaginary competition with her own children from Joan Crawford here. Typical.
Invariably somebody asks her what's with Kate showing no interest in dating, does her blood run cold or something? Kate says she can't meet anyone because she spends all her time in the kitchen or grocery store. The hell? I would almost buy this excuse if she had even a part time job, but she doesn't work. You do not spend 16 hours a day in the kitchen or grocery store, it's impossible. She then goes on to say something even more absurd, in that she would love to get out of the house and check out the great new local restaurant but the right person hasn't come along yet. Just, the f. The F! This woman cannot be implying that one must have a boyfriend in order to have a nice and novel evening out. Abraham Lincoln called, and he wants his century back. Yeeshhhh. We know now that Kate is only interested in dating if she's getting paid to do it, hence her new dating show. Heh.
We launch into another long and boring justification for why they had to get the mansion because their perfectly adequate solidly middle class house was just way, way too small. From all the clips they showed, the old house looks huge. The toddlers have plenty of places to run, the grounds were big, the dining room is plenty big enough for a long table, and the kitchen, although not huge has good flow to it creating the illusion of more space. There is something rather funny about all their excess back in the day happening right smack dab in the middle of a bad recession. They really alienated so many viewers by being so greedy. Kate actually says now the mansion is starting to feel too small too. No, she really says this. I really think that for many adults one of the hardest things to come to grips with is to be happy with what you have, to not always be wanting more. This usually applies to material things like your house and all your stuff. But it can also apply to things like how many children you will have, and your marriage. I've read quite a bit about this because I struggle with it too in some ways and I don't want to get sucked into this "creep." Like when the new iPhone comes out, something in me just wants it. Even though my current iPhone works just fine and I paid a lot of money for it. It's hard to not buy the newest thing, but I'm getting better.
The best way that helps me conceptualize all this and not worry about the Jones is to think of life not as a fixed pie 500 meter dash where it's you versus the world and if you don't win the next guy is. Rather think of it as a recreational sport, things like cycling or hiking (non-competitive). You can play it alongside people you like and enjoy, but you're really only ever playing versus yourself. How high you can climb, how far you can peddle. You could enjoy it alongside an elite athlete because how he does is irrelevant to you. So don't worry about a co-worker getting a promotion, or that perfect wife of your second cousin's on Facebook, or that great house on the market that's just a little more expensive than yours, so, you can afford it right. Because they're all hiking their own hikes and you're hiking yours.
I believe the number one reason adults find themselves unhappy or unsatisfied in adulthood is because they never really worked on being happy with the way things are. And Kate is clearly one of those. She has a house that should make even the saddest person happy for a dozen lifetimes, and yet there she is, feeling unsatisfied with it. The pathetic thing is Kate doesn't even seem to recognize her own unwarranted dissatisfaction. At least a lot of people recognize it and try to address it.
We then go into a long recap of all about when they first got the German shepherds. There are a couple telling comments in the old clips, too. One, after the only thing the dogs did was pee in the house (they were very, very little puppies!) Kate has a meltdown and barks at the distraught children "He's going back and I'm not kidding!" Because when a living thing doesn't function just perfectly you return to the manufacturer. See Collin.
Kate then says when she sent the dogs back to the trainers, she knew they were coming back, or "at least one" would be back. So, all along she never intended to take Nala back, but tricked the kids into thinking they were both going to get training and come back? Vile.
Nala was high strung and would make a good police dog, Kate remarks stupidly. High strung is not really what they are looking for in police dogs, how dumb is she? And besides, even if Nala would have made a good police dog, Kate probably ruined it by keeping her for as long as she did, interfering with training that often occurs during a puppy's formative years to try to make a police dog out of them.
By the way, just this winter a police dog in California undeniably saved many lives when he bolted for and pinned down an erratic and dangerous criminal who had just abandoned his stolen car to try to run away from the cops on foot. The driver had tried to plow over a female cop with his truck a few weeks before and has a long criminal history and is looking at life in prison for this little stunt of his. The dog's attack was so fierce it accidentally smashed the poor pup's teeth out on the curb! Here is the incredible video. Thank you, Officer Puskas!
We talk about the then-five years ago divorce for awhile. It's boring, except the part where Kate claims the bright side of this is the divorce taught the kids things, like about trust and people's intentions. The F! One, she just made a totally uncalled for and very nasty slam at Jon, directly implying the kids learned they couldn't trust him and that he has bad intentions. Of course some of the children are estranged from Jon, this has been the narrative they've been brainwashed with for these past five years. One need not literally spell out "You can't trust your dad" in order to implant the idea firmly in a young child's head. And two, no TFW, a divorce is never good for children, no study has ever shown so. Sure, some kids may be better off not having two parents together who are miserable under the same roof, so in that respect it's best for everyone to split up and something that just has to be done, but the divorce itself is never beneficial to the kids.
How do you say so organized, a very dense fan asks. Kate doesn't! She's a slob.
Emeril when he visited was so gentle and soft-spoken with the children, it's like they just shut down, mouths agape, having no idea how to interact with someone so kind and low key. Kate reveals that all the time she name drops that Emeril cooked in her kitchen. Lol, that must be obnoxious to what few girlfriends are around to hear that.
In a rare sweet moment between Kate and one of the kids, she helps Leah learn to swim in Hawaii. Kate's reaction is appropriately proud and excited, like a mother who adores her kid should react when her little bird finds its wings. You can tell how much this makes Leah happy in turn, not just to swim, but to make her mom proud. The kids desperately needed so much more of these quiet moments and less of all the anger and stress.
Is there anything more irritating than a grown woman trying to make whale sounds at a whale? That is all.
With only 13 minutes left in this episode, the editors for some strange reason decided now was the time for Kate to recap what we're doing here. Like if you came into this episode midway you'd be really confused I guess? Kate sums it all up in a really....slow....manner, weirdly emphasizing random words. Is she reading a cue card, just took her meds, or what is going on here? And couldn't she just say "it's another God damn clip show, people" and that's all anyone would really need to know to understand?
Since I'm really getting bored and the clips they are showing at the moment are absolutely pointless--(we still have 13 minutes left of this, yeesh!), I'm just going to say a few thoughts on the TLC app for Amazon Fire TV. It's basically wonderful. The TLC app I was using before on my computer was and still remains a piece of crap, showing endless commercials every few minutes and refusing to remember the place I last left off. The Amazon Fire app keeps me signed into it unless I don't log in for months, it always remembers my place in the episode even if I leave the app for a long time, and has simple and easy to use one-click commands to play, pause, add closed caption, fast forward at different speeds and the like. I only wish there weren't ads that you can't skip, but there's a handy countdown when they do run the ads (Ad 2 of 5 and so on) so you more or less can guess how much longer you have to go grab yourself a coke with a lemon before the show starts up again. Well done to TLC and Amazon Fire. All the Amazon Fire apps have been good to excellent, which leads me to believe they have extremely strict guidelines for developers that keeps them in compliance with smooth operation.
Nana Janet is dead by the way, and I don't remember Kate ever mentioning that other than in this clip show just now. Google explains that she died in October 2009. Except there are no tears or any emotion from Kate when she explains this. She could just have easily been explaining how one of the children missed her because she was gone to have tummy tuck surgery, as she will a bit later. It's all the same affect, all the same chipper explanations, just literally a short run-down of how helpful Nana Janet was and then out of left field Kate says Nana Janet left us all too soon. She left us.....all too soon? She's ..... DEAD??? Good Lord, I'm glad I knew this before this moment due to reports on the blog, because this news really would have hit like a ton of bricks, wouldn't it have?
We come to that dreaded moment in the episode where the editors realize they're only at 37 minutes and they've got to make it to 43. To kill time they add in some loosely related to not-at-all related clips about everything from bedtime to "I have a weiner" to ice skating. A really long explanation about how the kids I guess remember better because of the show, which I suppose is another excuse why they needed to do this show? But Kate's explanation doesn't make any sense. I'm convinced the kids are not "remembering" the actual experience at all, they are simply remembering the episode. And I still don't know how home movies you make yourself couldn't accomplish the same thing.
Kate is adamant she will never regret the show because of all the memories she made. So like, if you don't have a TV show you can't make good memories with your kids? The hell is she even talking about? And I really can't stand people that go around stubbornly refusing to have any regrets about choices they know damn well were poor ones or at the very least questionable. There have been a heck of a lot of downsides to filming these children she refuses to acknowledge, a little humility about that would do wonders. Let's take it there. God forbid what if someone one day were to ever hurt themselves due to the pressures of this damn show and the fame? Would Kate regret all of this then? I'm just curious how far it would have to go before she would finally give this line up. Time will tell.
Recap: Kate Plus 8 "Mother's Day Surprise": Friend...
Gosselin v. Gosselin: PA docket shows the children...
Gosselin v. Gosselin: Jon's Petition to Open and/o...
Jon has found Collin, and Hannah is with him full ...
Recap: Kate Plus 8 "Kate's Most Memorable Moments"...

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl