There are a whole slew of celebrities, sorta celebrities, celebrities who are celebrities because they criticise other celebrities, and celebrities' celebrities out there. And it's major news when Jen dumps Paul but Paul and Angelina are sad about Brad and some secret love affair is rumoured involving some guy who cleans pools in France.
Or something. Most of the headlines that are truly seared into my brain get there because I need to wait for the computer to be fully logged-on before I move my mouse to click that X on the "Welcome" screen. "Welcome! You've Got Mail!" proclaims AOL. "Here's an eyeful of, 'Why Thongs are Bad for Your Butt.' Ooh, and you tried to rush the computer while it was warming up and x out, did you? (evil cackle) Now it's gonna take *longer* while you wait for the computer to unfreeze. Enjoy!"
Oh, my.
How did I get onto that tangent? Oh, yeah. Celebrity news? And what I WANTED to get 'round to talking with you about was that it seems like the politicians, celebrities and even people on the ADVERTISEMENTS, fer crying out loud, all seem to get the same sort of treatment in the news.
Well, there's nothing like popping on to NBC for the extreme liberal news. It's news that I could have written myself, if only I were that enlightened. I guess I never knew that the flu and an orgasm sneeze (or something, I didn't click it to find out, ok?) could be confused or that certain celebrities and/or politicians are gay (post that under the "politics" subheading), have health issues (post that under "health"), are "speaking out" against this or that (front page, baby!), or better still, have a beautiful beach home ("leisure" section. Mention the celebrity/ politician has a home in that town, and make the rest of the article have nothing to do with him... just the town).
I think I'm far, far gone down the old Christian path. Logical reasoning no longer works with me. I just feeeeeeel that the following story is downright weird. Ready?
Elizabeth Edwards is doing an interview with nbc.com, which is an international web publication. Ostensibly millions of people are reading. And she's there to talk about how her philandering husband's alleged "love child" should be DNA tested... "quietly." Shhhh.
Oh! And to tell you that her kids are getting ready for school and everyone's happy! Happy! Happy! at the Edwards home now. Everything's just settled so nicely.
As Cookie Monster would say, "Me think she just promoting new book. Me think that all it is. Now all this talk make me hungry for cookie."
Yeah, it makes about that much sense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Look Out, Dad!!
My father is the purple dot above the blue weather station. He's juuust outside Milton's evacuation zone. Well! My brother and I jus...
Oh, Mrs. C: Cookie Monster would not say that. He now only eats cookies in moderation as part of a healthy balanced diet.
ReplyDeleteLOL I suppose I misquoted Cookie Monster a little there, but the flu/sneeze thing was really a headline. I would complain, but it would take me two hours to figure out who to grouse to, and by then they'd have moved on to some other disgusting story.
ReplyDeleteIt really is quite shocking. They have pills for medical conditions that shouldn't even be discussed, let alone researched and medicated. Yowza.
Mrs C, I don't get why you wouldn't be with Elizabeth Edwards as a mom, right down the line. She hoped the paternity testing would be done wuitely "for the sake of" that child. Good for her as a mom and Christian woman, right? Pretty graceful and compassionate imo.
ReplyDeleteThen about her own kids, stage four cancer is probably dying soon and her children are still young. The only parent they will have after she deteriorates and leaves this earth, will be HIM. In both cases, she is thinking of the long-term good of the innocent children, not revenge or sex or the media and celebrity or whatever. I say it's awfully cynical not to read the story that way . . .do unto others and all that jazz, right?
Sorry "quietly" is not "wuitely" unless you hit the keys blind. ;-)
ReplyDeleteThis story might add humanizing mom texture for you:
ReplyDelete*******************
Yet there is more to the story that Edwards alternately calls tragic and blessed. When her cancer returned three months after John's confession, she writes, "I needed him to stand with me" . . .The metastasized Stage 4 breast cancer is spreading further. Now back in chemotherapy and angry there are no new drugs to try, she has moments, she writes, "when I believe death is only a whisper away."
But hers is not a story of surrender, and in Resilience she returns to the central tragedy she pressed through earlier in her life: the 1996 death of her 16-year-old son Wade in a car accident.
"Among bereaved parents, a common thread is that we have already faced the worst days of our lives," says Gordon Livingston, a friend Edwards made through a grieving parents support group. "Elizabeth has that strength."
. . .As much as she hates appearing in the tabloids, she sees an upside in how continued interest in her story allows her to advocate for cancer patients and agitate for national health care. . . .
Edwards, who admits she fears being replaced when she's gone, often thinks of grandchildren she likely will never hold. They will hear stories of her, she writes. "They will be able to say that she stood in the storm, and when the wind did not blow her way—and it surely has not—she adjusted her sails." <
JJ, Elizabeth Edwards is clearly the wronged party in this story. There's just no question about it.
ReplyDeleteBut I rathermuch doubt I'd be writing a book about my marriage/life after such turmoil. I can't imagine granting interviews, even. I would issue a standard statement (keep copies in my purse) and whenever I'm approached, hand it over.
It would say that John Edwards deserves no public office. That any man who cannot remain faithful to his family cannot be expected to remain faithful to his God or his country. That he has shamed his entire family, not to mention the Democratic party and the nation. That his mistress, like him, is a person of low moral standards. That my own children must bear the scourge of the Edwards name so long as they live, though I would advise them to legally change their names and move far away when they reach the age of majority, so as to not be associated with their father's grievous moral failings. And thanks for calling.
(Reading it over...) Ok, I think that covers it. Anyway, after that statement is printed a few times, people will get tired of reading it and move onto the next thing. Some other pastor or politician. Yep, I'm cynical. :p
BTW, I'd agree **perhaps** Elizabeth Edwards is more of a Christian than I am. (Or circumstances have forced her hand, and she is a better actress than I could ever be.) Maybe she lives with a multifaceted person instead of just the news story as I do, and has found in her heart that she truly loves him. For that matter, Mrs. Edwards is probably also a very multifaceted person, and I am doing her a disservice by analyzing things as I do.
But it's been "presented" to us all to do so... which I think it probably shouldn't be...
And I freely admit to being a little cynical, but sexual immorality in a marriage is just so wrong. Especially in a politician who deems himself worthy of making the rules for "the rest of us." It's a level of hypocrisy that is beyond infuriating.
While I'm at it... I will say that I'm very glad Edwards is not President. That whatever ideological differences I may have with Mr. Obama, that he appears to have not strayed from his vows to his wife. That speaks a lot about a person, you know.
Way back btw, I said SHE should be the contender, not him. It would have made a very interesting Dem primary triangle. . .
ReplyDeleteAnd about the Obama family/marriage, I agree. Anyone just has to respect that on a human level despite politics -- just as in return, I've been hoping the same is true of the Palin marriage disproving recent reports of their split, even though I probably feel about their politics pretty much like you do about the Obamas. :)