Posted on 05/13/2009 5:35:23 AM PDT by IbJensen
It pains me to take Elizabeth Edwards to task for anything. She is suffering from terminal cancer and from assertions that her cheating husband fathered a child with a party girl. So my first instinct is to totally lay off. The only rap against her, it seems, is that she knew of an affair after John Edwards announced his presidential run and that she kept it secret.
May I disagree? The ''cover-up'' was the good part. Some things are best left private. Elizabeth's book and Oprah outpouring drag the public under the couple's covers -- disclosure with no socially redeeming value. John's most troubling betrayal wasn't to her, but to his followers, who took him seriously.
Privacy rights activists hit their heads against a frustrating reality: Many Americans don't care a fig what others know about them. On the contrary, their juiciest details have become something to trade.
Webster's New World Dictionary's 2008 Word of the Year was ''overshare.'' To overshare is ``to divulge excessive personal information, as in a blog or broadcast interview, prompting reactions ranging from alarmed discomfort to approval.''
Oversharing can easily morph into exhibitionism. A case in point: French President Nicolas Sarkozy's very public romp with an ex-model/heiress, who chattered about her sexual exploits. The international focus on their self-display provided the ideal conditions for Carla Bruni to release a CD of her latest hard-breathing songs.
By contrast, the Obamas' starched formality represents a welcome return to reticence. The girls are sheltered from the media. Thank you, Obamas.
The already rich and already famous may air their personal dope for more fun and more profit. But why do ordinary people tell all, even when it's against their long-term interests?
The University of Florida discovered its medical students posting pictures and prose on Facebook that could hurt their careers later on. Photos showed students cross-dressing, and the doctors-to-be joshed about wearing ''Kevorkian Medical Clinic'' lab coats. Such hijinks would amount to harmless fooling around at a party. On the Internet, they can be accessed by anyone and forwarded out-of-context, probably forever. Why would smart graduate students engage in such indiscretion? For the same reason that lonely high-school students do: to get attention.
People in old-fashioned communities have close friends with whom they can share their inner thoughts and do crazy things. A Duke University and University of Arizona sociologists' study found that most U.S. adults have only two acquaintances with whom they can discuss intimate matters. About one quarter have no close confidants at all.
While people could relax in the comforting presence of personal friends, they now market themselves through ''online identities.'' They thus compete in cyberspace against rock stars, French presidents and assorted showoffs on YouTube. There's no sitting around with old pals over coffee and saying nothing for five minutes.
Social networking requires being perpetually onstage. That can get you into trouble without providing real company. Internet pals can't replace the companionship of a flesh-and-blood relationship, said Lynn Smith-Lovin, a Duke sociologist involved in the study. They generally don't visit you in the hospital, provide a Kleenex when you sneeze or help move a table upstairs.
Folks who don't value privacy might not mind selling theirs for money. Some years ago, Harvard Business School professor John Deighton wrote a paper suggesting that businesses pay consumers for their personal information. Identities as marketable assets.
One can imagine some futuristic economy where desperate people can sell their most private details for quick cash. Those who haven't blabbed can command a higher price. In some ways, that future is already here, isn't it?
But one had to mighty stupid not to see through the slick veneer this creep was coated with.
Are you suggesting the mainstream media is a bit dull? Or are they just dishonest?
Sycophantic gob of slobs.
Wrong! Had it stayed covered up the individual might have actually been elected to something!
Elizabeth Edwards knew of her husband’s lying and infidelity yet helped him cover it up in an attempt to convince voters he was loyal and trustworthy.
She wanted John to be President and she wanted to be the first lady and was willing to cheat and lie to the American people to make it happen.
If he had been nominated and elected she would still be covering up for him instead of whining about how she was wronged.
I felt a little bit sad for her but not any more. Shut up and suffer in silence EE.
She knew he was a charlatan when she agreed to marry him, but she wanted the good life.
Lizzie is, in some ways, like Hillary.
The difference is that Hillary was fully aware of what her husband-thingy was doing downstairs while she was upstairs doing some important experimentation with female interns.
I believe in forgiveness. I am sorry you don’t
Precisely.
Two peas in a pod.
I wonder if this same “journalist” wrote a column defending the Palin family’s right to privacy.
Probably not.
She wanted John to be President and she wanted to be the first lady and was willing to cheat and lie to the American people to make it happen.
If he had been nominated and elected she would still be covering up for him instead of whining about how she was wronged.
***********************
Exactly right. They're both despicable, grasping sociopaths.
Forgiveness is great. Super. Awesome. I wouldn’t stay with a man who lied and cheated. I feel that I deserve better than that, and if children were involved that they deserved better. I would divorce said cheater and wish him God’s love and peace.
I have my doubts......
Uh, what?!
At what point is a cancer considered “terminal?” At this point it seems hers is “treatable.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.