
‘She Was Trying to Tie Her Partner's Bow Tie but Kept Failing'
Bow Tied
Dear Diary:
I was riding the Q from Manhattan to Brooklyn on a Saturday afternoon. A man and a woman who were very dressed up were sitting across from me.
She was in a cocktail dress, and he was wearing a tuxedo. They were on their way to a fund-raising event for Prospect Park. She was trying to tie her partner's bow tie but kept failing.
As we approached the Manhattan Bridge, another man offered the woman his phone. He had found a video showing how to tie a bow tie.
The woman followed the instructions on the video with some help from riders sitting nearby, and, voilà, the tie was perfect.
Everyone who been following the events smiled and clapped. Then another man took a picture of the perfectly tied bow tie so the man in the tuxedo could see it too.
— Flo Rubinson
The Big Man
Dear Diary:
In 1984, I was fresh out of college and living on East 44th Street and Second Avenue. I had an entry-level job on East 74th and I took the Second Avenue bus home every night.
Once, someone reached into my purse while I was on the bus and stole my wallet without my even noticing. The thief got my credit cards, my driver's license, and what little cash I had. (I didn't carry much at the time since I only made about $186 a week.)
What was truly devastating was the loss of a Heineken label I had been carrying in my wallet for some time. It was from a memorable evening.
I was at Big Man's West in Red Bank, N.J., a club owned by Clarence Clemons of the E Street Band. I was sitting at a table with Clarence himself.
Out of sheer nervousness, I had peeled the Heineken label off a bottle in one piece. Clarence saw me do it, took the label and signed it: 'Right on! Love, The Big Man, Clarence Clemons.'
I could get a new license and credit cards, but that label was irreplaceable.
About three weeks later, I received a notice from the post office. A package with $1.08 postage due was waiting for me there.
It turned out that the thief had taken the money and then tossed my wallet into a mailbox. I got back my license, credit cards and, unbelievably, the Heineken label!
I still have it to this day but no longer carry it with me. I know I couldn't get that lucky twice.
— Mandy Cooper
At the Pool
Dear Diary:
On a hot July afternoon a few years ago, I brought my 9-month-old baby to a public pool in our Queens neighborhood.
As a new parent, I was overwhelmed by all the steps required to get a wriggling baby into the water. Regular diaper off, swim diaper on, onesie off, bathing suit on, etc.
On top of all that, the pool had a long list of rules and a staff whose members were diligently enforcing them with frequent blasts of their whistles.
Finally, we got into the pool. My baby splashed around in the cool water for a bit, and then we got out to sit on a lounge chair and breastfeed.
A few minutes later, an older woman who worked there approached us. I had seen her keeping strict order around the pool, and my body tightened as I prepared to be told we were breaking the rules in one way or another.
Instead, her face broke into a smile as she passed by.
'Go, mama, go!' she said.
— Lindsey Lange-Abramowitz
Tosca
Dear Diary:
We were returning from a vacation in Spain. Our first stop was on West Broadway to retrieve our African gray parrot, Tosca. From there we took a taxi to our Nassau Street home.
As we exited the cab in front of our building, we were greeted by the familiar cacophony of horns, sirens and bustling people. My wife spied a fresh fruit cart on the corner near Pace University.
'I'll be right back,' she said as she walked away with Tosca on her shoulder.
Suddenly, I heard her yell, 'Tosca, Tosca,' and saw her running down Park Place with people following her and yelling, 'Oscar, Oscar.'
A gust of wind had apparently lifted Tosca off her shoulder and was carrying her down the street.
She soon landed and began to screech: 'Taxiiii, taxiiiiiii.'
'Is that pigeon calling a taxi?' a woman who appeared somewhat bewildered said.
Yes, indeed. We had taught Tosca to say 'taxiii' when she wanted to be carried around our loft.
Luckily, my wife reached Tosca before any harm came to her, offered her a finger and then carried her home amid cheers and laughter from those who had gathered to watch.
— Penny Bamford
Friendly Driver
Dear Diary:
I was getting on an M5 bus going downtown from Columbia. I was on a call with my husband and hauling a suitcase, which made it difficult to use my phone to pay the fare.
'I love you,' my husband said as I fumbled with the phone.
'I love you too,' the bus driver said.
— Simone Pinet
Read all recent entries and our submissions guidelines. Reach us via email diary@nytimes.com or follow @NYTMetro on Twitter.
Do you have a tale of a memorable experience that involved someone dressing in public in New York City? Please submit it below or share it in the comments. While you're there, join the conversation.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Diddy's request for mistrial denied as rapper's ex reveals details of alleged forced 'hotel nights'
Judge Arun Subramanian denied Sean "Diddy" Combs' request for a mistrial Tuesday morning ahead of the cross-examination of the rapper's ex-girlfriend. Jurors heard testimony last week from Cassie Ventura's friend, Bryana "Bana" Bongolan, who claimed Diddy dangled her off a 17th floor balcony in September 2016. Portions of her testimony were questioned after Bana couldn't remember details of the alleged incident, including what drugs she was on at the time. Diddy's legal team argued that the prosecution knowingly presented false testimony to the court in a letter filed June 7 and obtained by Fox News Digital. Diddy's legal team wrote that Cassie and Bana each provided "demonstrably false" evidence about the balcony allegation to the court, and then "doubled down, using this false testimony to obtain a ruling admitting inadmissible hearsay evidence about it as well, all to present a false narrative to the jury." However, the federal judge ruled there was no interference. Judge Subramanian noted the defense was able to, and did, attack Bongolan's testimony to undermine her credibility. According to the judge, there was no prejudice to an exhibit that had helped the defense's case. Diddy's defense argued the issue could not be raised before Bongolan took the stand, and it's obvious she perjured herself. The defense insisted there is no basis that the government wasn't aware this testimony was false. The prosecution said there wasn't perjury and Bongolan's testimony could be explained by confusion, mistakes or faulty memory. The government pointed out Bongolan admitted she didn't remember all the details. WATCH: WITNESS DETAILS HOW DIDDY 'DANGLED' HER OVER A BALCONY IN EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY Following Bongolan's testimony, Didddy's ex-girlfriend Jane took the stand. Testifying under a pseudonym, she told the jury about meeting the "Last Night" rapper in 2021. The two dated until Diddy's arrest in September 2024. According to Jane, she was forced to participate in "hotel nights." During these sessions, which could last anywhere from 24 hours to multiple days, she was allegedly expected to have sex with other men while Diddy watched. Jane was dating Diddy when Cassie's sexual abuse lawsuit was made public. She claimed she read three pages that showcased a similar experience to hers. "I was reading these pages, and they felt like a nightmare," she told the jury. Jane began to cry on the stand, saying she had a lot of sympathy for Cassie. "I can't believe I'm reading my own story," she recalled thinking at the time. Jane testified from Thursday through Monday. Her cross-examination began Tuesday.


Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Judge restricts DOGE access to federal databases, finding 'breach of law and trust'
A federal judge has restricted the Department of Government Efficiency's access to federal databases, citing a "breach of law and trust." Led by the American Federation of Government Employees, a group of current and former federal government employees and their unions in February sued the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and DOGE for alleged "breach of privacy." U.S. District Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York granted the plaintiffs' April 25 motion for a preliminary injunction Monday, but said the scope of the injunction would be addressed in a separate order. "Following President Trump's inauguration, OPM granted broad access to many of those systems to a group of individuals associated with the Department of Government Efficiency ('DOGE'), even though no credible need for this access had been demonstrated. In doing so, OPM violated the law and bypassed its established cybersecurity practices," Cote wrote in a 99-page opinion on Monday. "In brief, the OPM records at issue concern the plaintiffs' most sensitive private affairs," the opinion says. "They include social security numbers, health care information, banking information, and information about family members. For some people, disclosure of information in OPM systems could subject them to danger." An appointee of President Bill Clinton, Cotes said plaintiffs "have shown they are entitled to" a preliminary injunction, which "would stop disclosure of OPM records to individuals associated with DOGE and require the destruction of any copies of personal information that have been obtained through such disclosure." "The plaintiffs have shown that the defendants disclosed OPM records to individuals who had no legal right of access to those records," Cotes wrote. "In doing so, the defendants violated the Privacy Act and departed from cybersecurity standards that they are obligated to follow. This was a breach of law and of trust. Tens of millions of Americans depend on the Government to safeguard records that reveal their most private and sensitive affairs." The judge further criticized the Trump administration's handling of OPM records. "The Government could have acknowledged that in its rush to accomplish a new President's agenda mistakes were made and established, important protocols were overlooked. It has not," Cote wrote. "The Government has defended this lawsuit by repeatedly invoking a mantra that it adhered to all established procedures and safeguards. It did not. Without a full-throated recognition that the law and established cybersecurity procedures must be followed, the risk of irreparable harm will continue to exist." In a May hearing, Justice Department lawyers reportedly argued that any preliminary injunction granted should include exceptions for high-level OPM officials and cited how a separate judge had walked back initial restrictions placed on DOGE access to Treasury Department records in February so long as DOGE staffers have the appropriate training and vetting, according to the Federal News Network. Justice Department lawyers filed a separate motion in the case on Friday, citing the Supreme Court's latest decision related to DOGE access to Social Security Administration (SSA) records. DOGE's future remains uncertain amid a rocky public fallout between its former leader, tech billionaire Elon Musk, and President Donald Trump, though both men previously said they want the waste-cutting entity's work to continue. The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration two victories on Friday in cases involving DOGE, including giving it access to Social Security systems containing personal data on millions of Americans. The three liberal justices dissented in both cases. The justices also separately reined in orders seeking transparency at DOGE. In one case, the high court halted an order from a judge in Maryland that had restricted the team's access to the SSA under federal privacy laws. The Trump administration says DOGE needs access to carry out its mission of targeting waste in the federal government. Musk had been focused on Social Security as an alleged hotbed of fraud. The entrepreneur has described it as a "Ponzi scheme" and insisted that reducing waste in the program is an important way to cut government spending. But U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland found that DOGE's efforts at Social Security amounted to a "fishing expedition" based on "little more than suspicion" of fraud, and allowing unfettered access puts Americans' private information at risk. Her ruling did allow access to anonymous data for staffers who have undergone training and background checks, or wider access for those who have detailed a specific need. The Trump administration has said DOGE cannot work effectively with those restrictions. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer also argued that the ruling is an example of federal judges overstepping their authority and trying to micromanage executive branch agencies.


CBS News
2 hours ago
- CBS News
Leaders of sex-focused women's wellness company that promoted "orgasmic meditation" convicted in forced labor trial
The leaders of a sex-focused women's wellness company that promoted "orgasmic meditation" were found guilty Monday in what has been described as an abusive scheme to coerce their employees into performing traumatic and demeaning tasks with little or no pay, authorities said. A Brooklyn jury deliberated for less than two days before convicting Nicole Daedone, 57, and Rachel Cherwitz, 44, on federal forced labor charges, following a five-week trial. Daedone founded OneTaste Inc., the California-based wellness company, and Cherwitz formerly served as its sales director. The two each face up to 20 years in prison and will be sentenced at a later time, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for New York's Eastern District. Prosecutors had argued Daedone and Cherwitz ran a yearslong scheme that groomed adherents — many of them victims of sexual trauma — to do their bidding. They said Daedone, of New York, and Cherwitz, of California, used economic, sexual and psychological abuse, intimidation and indoctrination to force OneTaste members into sexual acts they found uncomfortable or repulsive, such as having sex with prospective investors or clients. Three witnesses testified they were coerced into becoming a "handler" for OneTaste's first investor, who was also Daedone's boyfriend, and said doing that that required them to live with him, cook for him, and "perform demeaning sex acts at his direction," the U.S. Attorney said in a news release. Daedone and Cherwitz allegedly told followers the questionable acts were necessary in order to obtain "freedom" and "enlightenment" and demonstrate their commitment to the organization's principles. Nicole Daedone, center, founder and former CEO of OneTaste, departs Brooklyn federal court on Tuesday, June 13, 2023, in New York. Jeenah Moon / AP Prosecutors said OneTaste leaders also didn't pay promised earnings to the members-turned-workers and even forced some of them to take out new credit cards to continue taking the company's courses. Assistant U.S. Attorney Nina Gupta, in her closing statement last week, said the defendants "built a business on the backs" of victims who "gave everything" to them, including "their money, their time, their bodies, their dignity, and ultimately their sanity." "The jury's verdict has unmasked Daedone and Cherwitz for who they truly are: grifters who preyed on vulnerable victims by making empty promises of sexual empowerment and wellness only to manipulate them into performing labor and services for the defendants' benefit," said Joseph Nocella, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Daedone's defense team cast her as a "ceiling-shattering feminist entrepreneur" who created a unique business around women's sexuality and empowerment. Cherwitz's lawyer, Celia Cohen, argued that the witnesses who testified weren't forced to do anything. When they didn't like the organization anymore or wanted to try other things, she said, they simply left. "No matter what you think about OneTaste and what they were doing, they chose it. They knew what it was about," she said in her closing statement last week. "The fact they are regretting the actions that they took when they were younger is not evidence of a crime." Daedone was convicted on federal forced labor charges by a Brooklyn jury. Jeenah Moon / AP Lawyers for the defendants said their clients maintain their innocence and intend to appeal. "We are deeply disappointed in today's verdict," the lawyers said in a statement Monday. "This case raised numerous novel and complex legal issues that will require review by the Second Circuit." Daedone co-founded OneTaste in San Francisco in 2004 as a sort of self-help commune that viewed female orgasms as key to sexual and psychological wellness and interpersonal connection. A centerpiece was "orgasmic meditation," or "OM," which was carried out by men manually stimulating women in a group setting. The company enjoyed glowing media coverage in the 2010s and quickly opened outposts from Los Angeles to London. Portrayed as a cutting-edge enterprise that prioritized women's sexual pleasure, it generated revenue by providing courses, coaching, OM events, and other sexual practices for a fee. Daedone sold her stake in the company in 2017 for $12 million — a year before OneTaste's marketing and labor practices came under scrutiny. The company's current owners, who have rebranded it the Institute of OM Foundation, have said its work has been misconstrued and the charges against its former executives were unjustified. They maintain sexual consent has always been a cornerstone of the organization. The company didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment.