The Lure Of Fame

Back in February, Newsweek writer Jonathan Darman posted an on-line article entitled The Quiet Dignity of Rielle Hunter. In it, he pointed out that although everyone from Elizabeth Edwards to Andrew Young to Rielle's friend Pigeon O'Brien had been talking publicly about her, Rielle herself had remained silent and out of the limelight since the scandal broke in August, 2008. At the time, I wondered if her child support financial agreement with John Edwards included some kind of I-will-not-talk-to-the-press clause, but whatever the reason for her silence, it struck me as the right thing to do, not only for her own dignity but also to protect the privacy of her daughter. That all changed a few weeks later when the GQ article came out, accompanied by pictures of Rielle posing suggestively in bed in her underwear.

Reaction to the article, and in particular to the pictures, was pretty negative, which caused Rielle to call Barbara Walters and complain that she didn't think they'd actually publish the underwear pictures, and now, in an effort to set everyone straight on who she really is, Rielle is talking to Oprah. The interview is scheduled to be shown on Thursday and yes, my VCR is already set to record it. This puts me in the position of simultaneously snarking on someone for going on television to spill their guts at the same time I'm making sure I don't miss a word of it.

Snarkiness aside, I really am curious about what Rielle hopes to accomplish by doing this second interview. The GQ story didn't exactly enhance her reputation, but instead of retreating back into her dignified silence, she seems to think that if she just keeps talking eventually everyone will understand. The fact that that's not likely to happen is only part of the reason why I think the Oprah interview is a mistake. I also think she's seriously misunderstanding how fame and the media really work. Oprah's running the interview on the first day of the May sweeps period, which tells you everything you need to know about what's in this for Oprah. As far as what's in it for Rielle, who knows.

Earth Day: Good, Bad or Indifferent

I'm not a big fan of Earth Day. I want to be a good global citizen and do what I can to minimize the environmental impact of my time here on this earth, and I want everyone else to, too. Even with the best of intentions, however, it's not always clear how to do that, and most of the Earth Day "How You Can Help Save The Planet" articles I'm seeing today aren't helping much. For example, an article on the Huffington Post, titled "Seven Things You Can Do For Earth Day That Actually Matter," includes such gems as "Get rid of your car" and "Don't have a baby."

I would love to get rid of my car and live like a European, but as a resident of suburban Chicago it's just not possible. We don't have the public transportation infrastructure for that kind of lifestyle, and neither does any other city in America, which makes the suggestion in the Huff Post article not only unrealistic but really stupid. As for not having a baby, well, okay, I wasn't planning to, but a lot of other people are, not to mention all the people that already have kids, and I have to ask, do the geniuses at HuffPost really believe that telling people not to have kids is the way to save the planet?

I remember the first Earth Day, in 1970, when I was in junior high school and most of the kids in my school walked home instead of taking the bus. The irony was that the buses still ran their routes that day, and every other day since then, making our gesture of walking home symbolic but ultimately meaningless. 40 years later, as far as I can tell, most of the Earth Day activities are equally superficial, which makes Earth Day itself practically meaningless. If publishing articles with insultingly stupid ideas like telling people not to have kids is what now passes for "celebrating" Earth Day, it's probably time for Earth Day to go away.

Happy Birthday to Queen Elizabeth!

Happy Birthday to Queen Elizabeth, who appears to be hale and hearty at the age of 84. It's so fascinating to me to contemplate her life and legacy - she's been the Queen of England since 1952, my entire lifetime and then some, and for the majority of the British people she's the only Monarch they've ever known. By comparison, the President of the United States when Elizabeth became queen in 1952 was Harry Truman, and we've had 11 additional heads of state since then. This line of thinking leads to the uncomfortable question of when Prince Charles will ever get to be King.

Being the heir apparent is a strange and awkward role - the only way for Prince Charles to fulfill his career destiny is for his mother to die. And given the longevity of the Queen's female ancestors (Queens Victoria, Alexandra and Mary all lived into their 80s, and the Queen Mum famously lived to be 101), Charles could still have a long wait in front of him. If the Queen lives as long as her mother, Charles won't inherit the throne until 2027, when he will be 79 years old. Queen Victoria's eldest son and heir, who also had a decades-long wait before becoming King at age 59, is reported to have said something along the lines of "I don't mind praying to the eternal father but I must be the only man in the country afflicted with an eternal mother." I can't help wondering if Prince Charles feels the same.

Then there's Prince William. Recent rumors that he and his girlfriend Kate Middleton may be getting married soon have revived talk about the possibility that the Queen would somehow bypass Charles and name William as the next King. All credible evidence says that the chances of that happening fall somewhere between remote and "when hell freezes over." There are all kinds of traditional and historic reasons why I believe it would never happen, not the least of which is the sorry spectacle of the way things played out after King Edward the 8th abdicated back in 1936. That was the last time they messed around with the succession and it wasn't pretty. Finally, there's this: Does anyone really think Prince William would want to be king while his father is still around?

Do You Know Who Justin Bieber Is?

The new issue of People Magazine has Justin Bieber on the cover, along with a headline that identifies him as the "World's Biggest Pop Star". If that doesn't get you going, the sub-headline further states that he's the "hottest 16-year-old on the planet."

I must really be out of it because until 2 days ago, when his name was mentioned as a performer at the White House Easter Egg Roll, I had never heard of Justin Bieber. He's the so-called biggest pop star on earth and I had literally never heard his name.

I don't know if I'm really that isolated or if I'm just not paying attention to the latest teeny-bopper rock star sensation, but whatever. I've heard of him now and "world's biggest pop star" is close enough to "king of pop" that I can't help thinking of Michael Jackson. What are the chances that we'll still be talking about Justin Bieber in 25 years?