December 22, 2010

"No, I wasn’t contacted or interviewed or given any opportunity to opine on any of it, including having my seven-year-old daughter’s picture in the paper."

"The primary story here is not that interesting... People lie and cheat and steal all the time. That’s a fact of life. But rarely does a national news organization give them an unverified megaphone to whitewash it."

Forbes interviews the husband of that woman who had her wedding story told in the New York Times. We talked about the NYT story yesterday, and (my husband) Meade, in the comments there, draws attention to the quotes that I'm using here.
[Bob Ennis, former husband of TV reporter Carol Anne Riddell], now head of the digital media practice at the investment bank Petsky Prunier, did not have a high opinion of the Times even before this incident. “I’m happy if they spell all the headlines on the front page correctly,” he says. “The idea that they’d fact-check a style story — I don’t think that’s incumbent on them. But there’s a difference between that and publishing a choreographed, self-serving piece of revisionist history for two people who are both members of the media industry.”
Oh! I love how this is turning into a Forbes vs. NYT journalism showdown — with the help of the jilted husband, who's got the help of Forbes now, getting his side of the marriage breakdown into the national press. 
Although his ex-wife said she and her new husband volunteered to tell their story to the “Vows” column partly “for our kids’ sakes,” Ennis says he is angry primarily because of the effect he sees this episode having on those same kids. 
Right. Don't forget the kids. Everyone is premising his/her self-serving statements on the kids now.
“These folks are well within their rights to tell whatever version of reality they want to tell, and if The New York Times is gullible enough to print it, that mostly reflects poorly on the Times,” he says. “The picture of my daughter is another matter. I sure as hell would have objected if they had told me they were going to print it.”
Which one is his daughter? Is it the sad-faced girl with the bow in her hair in profile at the right-hand side of the photograph? Look at her and think about how she might feel as she gazes at the brown wedding-cake about to be put asunder by the gleaming knife gripped by her outreaching mother whose hand is overclasped  by the (diamond?) ring-wearing paw of her new husband, the erst-while friend of her parents, whom she's long known as the dad of her kid-friends, who are now strangely intruded into the confusing, ever-changing zone that bears the label "family."

Or is his daughter the sweet little child in the husband's arms? Imagine how her father's heart aches to see that man with one hand grasping his daughter's rear and the other hand grasping his ex-wife's hand and, inside that, a knife. The new husband and wife are performing wedding theater for the NYT photographer, and they don't know that the frame the Times will select is the one where their smiles look like predatory grimaces and everyone else in the photograph looks like they belong at a funeral.
“Maybe The New York Times has forgotten, but New York can still be a dangerous town for children of wealthy people. I want to find out from the Times how that occurred and I will expect some sort of response and if I don’t get one I’ll take further measures to achieve one.”
Ugh, the stink of a threatened lawsuit drifts into the room. But don't worry: It's for the children.

***

And don't miss the extra photograph at the original NYT story. The woman's long-clawed hand drapes over the shoulder of her conquered beast, who seems drained of life force. His ring-wearing hand lies limply on the table next to a drained bottle of beer. In the original story, when he told her he loved her, she knocked a beer "into his lap" — that is, onto his genitals. The liquids have all spilled out, and the phallic symbols are empty.

92 comments:

Pogo said...

"The liquids have all spilled out, and the phallic symbols are empty"

Hella good writing.

I need a cigarette.

Comrade X said...

Fact: Your kids never see you in the same light again. And that's on you.

Richard Dolan said...

The jilted ex is right that there is nothing new in the happy-talk blather of the new couple, just as there is nothing new in his anger, or in the way the kids have become props in a drama not of their making. It'a all playing out according to the standard nasty-divorce script.

Nothing to see here, folks, except further proof, if any were needed, of the meager offerings of 'style' journalism a la NYT. Time to move on.

Youngblood said...

I'm pretty solidly on the side of Bob Ennis here, but at the same time, I'm more than a little distressed by the way that what's essentially Facebook drama has been legitimized to a significant degree by both the New York Times and Forbes.

That's not to say that this guy shouldn't have his say, because he should, but the whole thing is distressing nonetheless.

MadisonMan said...

IANAL -- if one parent gives consent to have their kids' pictures in the paper, does the other also have to?

Maybe it depends on the wording of the divorce agreement.

Rich B said...

I'll bet that this isn't the last marriage for the two of them.

virgil xenophon said...

"Progressive" America. Ain't it grand!?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Sorta kinda O/T but since we're talking about journalism, did anyone happen to catch CNN's website and the Wolf Blitzer report from North Korea? After reading his article I thought to myself: Seriously this is journalism? I mean aside from the fact that it was a puff piece, the writing itself was horrendous. I mean it read like a 5th grader essay about what I did on my summer vacation.

What a joke that profession is.

Michael said...

Do you think that the attention seeking love birds are reflecting on the blow back? Do you think that their bliss, now at the intersection of waning desire and reality, is in any way diminished by harsh criticism? Do you think that the spotlight has gone out on their fascination with their own cool and passionate selves or do you think that they will just have another Corona?

AJ Lynch said...

Does their poor taste in beer say something?

howzerdo said...

I can't figure out the arm that is reaching up toward the couple's clasped hands in the first photograph? It belongs to which person? The sad girl, the twisted angle explains her face? The boy, he's wearing short sleeves? Mom, one of her arms is twice as long as the other? A person we can't see, perhaps the fifth kid?

edutcher said...

In answer to Michael, there was a piece somewhere that the happy couple was getting a lot of pushback on their story and Hubbo was "regretting" it. Most people are not amused at all.

Believe it was the WSJ, but I had other things to do and blew past it.

PS Agree with Rich B, as I sort of said yesterday.

rocketeer67 said...

Sometimes, Althouse, it really is for the children.

He gets a pass from me, because even filtering for the bitterness of the jilted, the cheaters' and NYTs' use of the children is exploitative.

Hoosier Daddy said...

The woman's long-clawed hand drapes over the shoulder of her conquered beast, who seems drained of life force.

You know when I first read that I thought it said conquered breast and figured the Professor was trying to start another vortex.

rhhardin said...

This is why the NYT calls its wedding page the women's sports section.

Ann Althouse said...

"IANAL -- if one parent gives consent to have their kids' pictures in the paper, does the other also have to?"

I'm not a family or a tort lawyer, but I'm reading between the lines of his quote, and I think he's suggesting a more sophisticated legal argument having to do with knowingly exposing a child to the danger of being kidnapped. A lot of people think they should keep pictures of their children out of the public eye, because they might be targeted by predators, and he suggests that's especially true of a child of a rich person, because she might be held for ransom. I don't know if he has a lawyer yet, but it certainly sounds to me as though he is exploring remedies against the NYT. He may be seeking out ways to use the courts as an arena for airing his grievances — it's Festivus season, after all — and pursuing fantasies of revenge. People sometimes use lawsuits to serve their emotional needs, and that can work whether or not they have a good claim on the merits. On a more mundane level: there are also settlements.

Pogo said...

This whole foofaraw has gladdened my heart, because it seems there still exists a simple revulsion to the New York style of modern marriage.

The idea that we must not merely tolerate but accept and celebrate every conceivable form of cohabitation (adultery, polygamy, polyandry, incest by Columbia professors, gay marriage, and on and on) gets some push-back here.

But maybe it's the death throes I am seeing, and not a sign of life.

rhhardin said...

Sociologist Erving Goffman studied inmates and children because they were desperados in the larger society.

They more or less manage to take care of themselves; the methods interested him.

rhhardin said...

Stanley Cavell on lawsuits

"I have not decided to let the court tell me that enough is enough: taking the matter to court is an expression of my judgment that it is enough."

In an exploration of what a moral argument is. Namely it's staking out positions you're ready to defend.

Jenn said...

I would LIKE to think that this odious couple is feeling some shame at the pushback they've received. It's a lot more likely that they're feeding off of it. It's clear from the article that they are both monstrously selfish and lack any normal sense of self-awareness, so likely the negative comments and criticism are just reinforcing their sense of entitlement - now, they're suffering for their love! They're Romeo and Juliet!

rhhardin said...

"Tragedy hits a southern Ohio family twice in a week. Details after Fox news."

Radio tease.

These are the women's pages of radio.

MayBee said...

I don't know if he has a lawyer yet, but it certainly sounds to me as though he is exploring remedies against the NYT.

Maybe against the NYT, maybe against his ex wife. Child custody issues seem to be never ending, evidence always being gathered.

William said...

The publication of her photo is not the most traumatic thing that has happened to that child recently....When someone complains about what a a wretch their ex spouse is, it begs the real question. The question is what is it about you that was attracted to and/or attracted such a wretch. A flea who lies down with dogs gets fed and fatuous people are prone to infatuation. This story will not end happily, but no one involved will miss a meal.

Kev said...

(the other kev)

Stories like this one and the other one from yesterday only renew my determination to never marry.

Youngblood said...

Jenn wrote:

"[N]ow, they're suffering for their love! They're Romeo and Juliet!"

Bingo.

In the mind of a narcissist, criticism is magically transmuted into praise.

Or, as they used to say where I grew up, "You just jealous!"

Pogo said...

I still argue for a NYTimes page called Vows/Disavowals.

This is all very much like high school, with more money.

EDH said...

Therapist #1: David, how did that make you feel?

Dave: I know my truth.

Therapist #1: Excuse me?

Dave: I know my truth.

Therapist #1: Did you say, "I know my truth"? Oh, boy.

Richard Dolan said...

Pogo: "there still exists a simple revulsion to the New York style of modern marriage."

There's no "New York style of modern marriage" that I'm aware of, and nothing NY-centric about this tawdry tale. Does anyone doubt that the same thing plays out in Chicago, St Louis and LA, to say nothing of those long stretches of emptiness in the middle?

There is a form of NYT 'style' journalism -- perhaps that was the intended target.

k*thy said...

Considering the circumstances, the new couple should have insisted or the NYT had a policy against the kids being in the picture.

That said, I wonder how Ennis thinks his escalation is going to help the children?

The Crack Emcee said...

Richard Dolan,

There's no "New York style of modern marriage" that I'm aware of, and nothing NY-centric about this tawdry tale. Does anyone doubt that the same thing plays out in Chicago, St Louis and LA, to say nothing of those long stretches of emptiness in the middle?

No, this is NewAge/Boomer shit writ large. EDH nailed it:

"I know my truth."

peter hoh said...

Edutcher, is this the blowback article you were referring to?

aronamos said...

Gawker notes: (Partilla's ex-wife Karla Tafrate, meanwhile, has declined to comment besides acknowledging that she read the story.)

As for NYC having no definitive marriage style, of course they do. It's like a whole other country. I can leave DC and go to Texas or Alabama or Montana and feel far more at home than I do among the bobos of the Upper West Side. Why should their "marriage" rites be any more exotic than the rest of their societal mores?

wv diciss. what you do at the cifes.

Bruce Hayden said...

Maybe against the NYT, maybe against his ex wife. Child custody issues seem to be never ending, evidence always being gathered.

I would combine this observation with that of the danger to the children that results from this. Until they are adults, many of us believe that their kids should not get any publicity whatsoever for their safety.

I do know that I would have used this sort of information against my ex as evidence of her not being all that competent to raise our kid. But, it turned out, I was the one who inadvertently crossed this line, maybe a decade ago, and was severely chastised by her.

Pogo said...

There's no "New York style of modern marriage"

I disagree.
Although these behaviors exist elsewhere, the NY elite are putting this on the Vows page for a reason, so that all may see the East coast celebration of adultery.

Would anywhere else see this behavior, frontpaged in the Style section, as a "social coup"?

Only New York, I think; hence my claim.

The Crack Emcee said...

Michael,

Do you think that the attention seeking love birds are reflecting on the blow back? Do you think that their bliss, now at the intersection of waning desire and reality, is in any way diminished by harsh criticism? Do you think that the spotlight has gone out on their fascination with their own cool and passionate selves or do you think that they will just have another Corona?

This is what I think about when I consider my wife's exploits - that moment when the dead bodies fell, and everyone knew, and she looked at the quack and finally had to face reality - what had she, really, done?

I would hate to be in that position.

aronamos said...

Some regret, via Page Six:

Love-struck advertising executive John Partilla regrets sharing news of his wedding to Carol Anne Riddell with The New York Times after many readers recoiled over the paper's "Vows" column last Sunday.

Partilla defended the couple's decision to share their story of how they walked out on their former spouses to be with one another. He told Page Six, "We were proud and happy to marry and legitimize our relationship and move forward. We can't control other people's judgments."

But, he conceded, "I think if we had had an indication afterwards of the nerve it would have struck, we obviously would not have shared our life in any way publicly."

wv: saute ... wait, a real word?

Jay said...

Over-under on the amount of time until they have a reality show:

45 days.

former law student said...

Is it the sad-faced girl with the bow in her hair in profile ...their smiles look like predatory grimaces and everyone else in the photograph looks like they belong at a funeral.


Everything is a Rorschach test for Althouse today -- judging by her remarks Meade better take her some place warm pronto.

The girl's gaze indicates interest in the cake cutting. The newlyweds' expressions indicate heartiness; everyone else seems content except for the white haired man who's obviously seen it all before.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

I wonder how those kids are going to feel when they figure out their new mommy is a common bar skank.

(One that is not aging well, either. Look at that arm flap. Gross.)

Oh well, you can't expect much, really. These people read the NY Times after all.

That's a dead giveaway that they're scumbags.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

Over-under on the amount of time until they have a reality show:

4 days

Scott M said...

Did anyone ever get the ages of the two principles?

former law student said...

Reading that section from back to front as I usually do, I was struck by the number of how many pictured couples had been married before -- including a nonagenarian marrying a hot babe in her seventies. Thus the story of the middle-aged madness did not seem so out of place.

None of the other stories mentioned the exes, either.

former law student said...

Scott, they met when she was 40 and he was 42; I forget the year.

edutcher said...

peter hoh said...

Edutcher, is this the blowback article you were referring to?peter hoh said...

Don't think so. It was under the Wall Street Journal masthead, but several organs may have contacted them once the reaction began.

t-man said...

They are all horrible (except, possibly, the silent wife of the horrible advertising guy), and the kids will probably grow up to be horrible as well.

former law student said...

His ring-wearing hand lies limply on the table next to a drained bottle of beer.

For Pete's sake, there's two inches of beer left in the bottle. I'm thinking Maui is the medicine to dejaundice the professor.

Scott M said...

Scott, they met when she was 40 and he was 42; I forget the year.

2006 according to the article under the cake picture. That makes them mid-40's and thus not Boomers. From this, we can extrapolate that not all of the ills that befall this nation originate from the Boomers, just nearly all. It is a fine point, but a point nonetheless. I have a pie chart that proves it.

Palladian said...

"Yeah, hubby ought to straighten out the little lady, take 'er on vacation 'n' warm 'er up. That'll stop 'er from thinkin' and writin' silly things!"

Jesus, FLS, do you ever listen to yourself?

Palladian said...

So gay marriage = incest, adultery, polygamy, "and on and on", Pogo?

Nice!

Titus said...

You should write romance novels Althouse.

I love your description of the couple.

Ann Althouse said...

You know incomplete emptying of the bladder on urination and incomplete ejaculation during sex are even worse than complete draining, so that bottle, whether there's a little beer left in it or not, is a metaphor for the enervated man.

Pogo said...

Sorry, Palladian, you're the tops in my book, but marriage has only one meaning.

And the others are alike only in that they are not under its umbrella.

dreams said...

Can't we all be sophisticated?

Eva said...

Sidenote... I think they've both had botox and filler, which gives them that weird appearance when (attempting) to smile.

FormerTucsonan said...

You know incomplete emptying of the bladder on urination and incomplete ejaculation during sex are even worse than complete draining, so that bottle, whether there's a little beer left in it or not, is a metaphor for the enervated man.

And you would know how? Or is Meade using your login when your back is turned.

Titus said...

I have never heard of the term incomplete ejaculation.


What the hell is that?

dreams said...

Incomplete ejaculation. I guess that would have to be premature complete ejaculation.

Pogo said...

It's like when President Clinton stopped saying hi and hugging Monica, a sort of POTUS interruptus.

kwood said...

From the article: As Mr. Partilla saw it, their options were either to act on their feelings and break up their marriages or to deny their feelings and live dishonestly. “Pain or more pain,” was how he summarized it.

I've been married 8 years now. Not all that long, but long enough to have ridden out a few bumps.

One thing I've learned, is that feelings come and feelings go. Change is constant. I think of some of the 'deep feelings' I've had in the past and thank my lucky stars that I chose to ride them out instead of acting on them. I thank my wife for clearly doing the same.

Our kids thank both of us.

Ann Althouse said...

Are there any female urologists?

holdfast said...

I hate to agree with Ham, but she looks like a bitch-faced bar skank.

And by "bitch-faced" I mean her expression of choice, not inborn facial features.

vnjagvet said...

Ditto holdfast. They deserve each other. And may at least one of them "fall in love" with someone else in the future. What maroons.

reader_iam said...

Apparently, the Vows column has a history, and this latest piece is just taking it another step.

former law student said...

Palladian, what is the opposite of rose-colored glasses? That's what Althouse seemed to be wearing today. And the professor's comment about the bottle seemed to put her deep into the pessimist end of the glass half-empty/glass half-full scenario.

When my own dear wife shows signs of being Nancy Negative (instead of Patty Positive) it is time for a change of scene.

El Presidente said...

Replace "Preschool" with "Church Board Room" and this is my story. The fact of the matter is that if the jilted ex cared more about his kids than hurting the ex-wife he would have let the story die as quickly and quietly as possible. I am not perfect in this but a big part of being the jilted ex is biting your tongue.

This second marriage is doomed from the start. When two narcissists meet they are both the 'perfect other' and a wonderful alternative to the the current spouse. They built this story around themselves and sold their fairy tale to the Times.

I guarantee that they are both shocked to see that the entire world hasn't bought into the wonderfulness of their lives.

Pogo said...

Well said, Mr. President-for-life.

The Crack Emcee said...

Scott M,

2006 according to the article under the cake picture. That makes them mid-40's and thus not Boomers. From this, we can extrapolate that not all of the ills that befall this nation originate from the Boomers, just nearly all. It is a fine point, but a point nonetheless. I have a pie chart that proves it.

Oh, please - they did "originate" with the Boomers - the rest is just the ripples in the water from the rock they threw in the lake.

Scott M said...

Agreed.

peter hoh said...

Althouse, I vaguely recall reading about a female urologist once.

But yeah, wouldn't it be funny if there were as many female urologists as there once were male gynecologists?

Martha said...

Of course there are women urologists. Once women medical school graduates were accepted by surgical training programs, some women chose urology as a specialty--still a rarity in the seventies when I went to med school but now approximately 20% of those training to become urologists are women. Women have urinary tracts too, you know---kidneys, ureters, bladders, and urethras.

gutless said...

The woman looks scary.

dreams said...

I thought it was a rhetorical question.

raf said...

what is the opposite of rose-colored glasses?

Well, cyan is the absence of red, so perhaps the opposite of rose could be somewhat cyanic -- cynic? Seems to make sense.

Angie Schultz said...

I'm thinking Maui is the medicine to dejaundice the professor.

No, no, no. Terrible weather. Storms, lightning, thunder. Shoo! Scat!

No, this is NewAge/Boomer shit writ large.

This is a 1960 movie starring Boomers Bob Hope and Lucille Ball, The Facts of Life.

JS said...

Dude with a diamond ring? Check.
Drinks Corona? Check.
She left her husband for a tool? Check.

nofuckinwayyouspammers said...

I think he's suggesting a more sophisticated legal argument having to do with knowingly exposing a child to the danger of being kidnapped.

If so, it's a specious argument. No sensible kidnapper would kidnap those kids, as all of the self-admiring "parents" would see it as a way to get more ink in the Times, and never think for a moment about the consequences to the kids.

As somebody observed, the kids will probably turn out horrible as well, anyway. That's a given with two parents in media and/or advertising, let alone four quasi-parents (for the time being. These two near-AARP-age juveniles are destined for further divorce, and probable remarriage to more blushing narcissi.)

Some people are a total waste of protoplasm.

Patm said...

this couple looks like the only thing keeping them from being featured on Jersey Shore is money.

orbicularioculi said...

I think these two individuals are "pathetic" narcissists. Then I could be wrong; maybe they just orbit around a different planet than I do.

lucid said...

She looks permanently restless to me.

Nice post, Ann.

AST said...

Boy, that second photo makes her look like a tramp. Eyes as dark as a raccoon's, dress all rumpled, with a satisfied smirk, she looks she's been working the bar and hooked a big one.

Kelly said...

Makes me want to throw up. Few kids are happy at their parents remarriage. Especially little kids who still have a father and remember what it was like to have an intact family.

My mother was divorced long before she met my step father. I remember their wedding well It was awful. You ought to see the wedding pictures. It shows my smiling step father and mother, my siblings and I are all glum and look miserable. I think I was around 9 or 10 years old.

CosmicConservative said...

Reading the comments on the NY Times website for this story I was not surprised by how many people play the "stop forcing your morality on the rest of us" card. I always wonder when someone plays that card if they realize the irony of their statement.

I'm pretty sure they don't.

Roddy Boyd said...

Here's what happened:
The NYT "reporter" recieved full permission to cover this and write it. Included in that was the acceptance of the presence of a photographer.

Ex-hubby has every legal and moral beef in the world against his former wife and her husband; what they did was cheap and exploitative, a low-rent bid to normalize and justify what is justly scorned in all cultures. They are something north of gross.

He has zero claim against the NYT and if anything ever happens to his kids his claim-- at best--against the ex-wife. The NYT, when shooting other kids with parental permission, say the Bush's and Obama's, bear no responsibility for their future safety. Nor do they have liability when they shoot the local swim team champ and the kid who won the city's spelling bee. A guardian's consent is a powerful thing.

The NYT lawyers rarely get something this easy sent their way, I suppose.

Roddy Boyd said...

It's easy. The NYT "reporter" who wrote this story recieved the approval of the people profiled--the cuckold and the cuckolder--to not only write the story, but to have a photographer present.

Or, they provided the shot (though my memory of the article indicates it was an NYT fotog; the Times doesnt often use third-party provided photos because of liability issues.)

The husband has every right to beef about what his kid is doing in the shot but his beef is with the woman who decided that it would be better to sleep with the other guy, not him, on an extended basis.

He has zero claim and the predator argument, should it be presented to the NYT's deep legal bench, will necessitate broad and deep laughter.

William said...

@Martha: Feminists made a valid point when they pointd out that male gynecologists recommended and performed hysterectomies at about four times the rate of female doctors in that specialty. For just that reason, I would be reluctant to consult a female urologist.....I think it's touching the way that all the commenters here are agreed that this couple will not find true happiness. Ha! Selfish and narcisstic people have an excellent chance of finding lasting happiness. I would draw your attention to the example of the Clintons.

Freeman Hunt said...

There's another Vows story linked from reader's link that includes this gem:

Aleta St. James, the couple’s life coach, who is also a Universal Life minister, performed the ceremony

Ha ha ha

Freeman Hunt said...

"Life coach." That is awesome.

I dub myself a life coach. Now accepting clients. For $$$. I will... coach you. About your life.

My life coaching package comes with two options:

Option 1: I mirror everything you say back to you. You know, the whole, "And how is that working for you?" "How does that make you feel?" "I hear you saying [x]. Is that what you're telling me?" type stuff.

Option 2: I tell you what to do. You tell me what's going on and what you want, I tell you what to do. It might work, it might not, but there it is.

Qualifications: I have titled myself "life coach." I can make a face that resembles patronizing concern. I have an Enya CD from high school somewhere that I can dig up and play for you while you are in the waiting room. I own a prism for science purposes, but I can put it in the middle of the coffee table, and we can call it a "crystal" and pretend it has powers.

Email me, and I will coach your life. Act fast, and I will send you a product of my choosing from the As Seen on TV shelf at Walmart.

Clioman said...

One day those "adults" will be old, and their children will be adults. Pay-back can be a real, real bitch...

Roux said...

Apparently they are pretty selfish people. You made a vow and you have children. You don't just fall in love with someone else, you have to consciously think and act to make it happen.

peter hoh said...

Falling in love with someone else is easy. It doesn't take conscious effort. Acting on those initial feelings of infatuation, of course, requires action, but it's not difficult.

It also involves convincing yourself that it's okay, or that you won't get caught. It's rather easy to convince yourself of either -- or both -- when you are under the spell of infatuation.

What takes effort is turning away from those feelings of infatuation.

murgatroyd666 said...

Freeman Hunt wrote:

"Life coach." That is awesome.

I dub myself a life coach. Now accepting clients. For $$$. I will... coach you. About your life.


Don't you think that this couple could have used a "life coach"?

Someone who could have told them, "No, if you keep teasing yourselves by flirting and falling in love, you will break up two families, betray the trust of your spouses who love you and have vowed to be faithful to you, and screw up the lives of five children who depend on you as role models and providers of love?"

Someone who could have told them, "No, if you have your nuptials featured in the New York Times, if you talk about how breaking up your marriages was the right thing to do, if you say how 'brave' you were, then don't you think you'll look like self-centered assholes to the entire world?"

The Crack Emcee said...

murgatroyd666,

Don't you think that this couple could have used a "life coach"?

The kind of advice you've offered isn't what Life Coaches do - they're slimy devils - you to pay them to say it's all going to be O.K.. The New York Times? Great! Be sure to mention my services! And so on.

I'd rather go with Freeman.