Walter Cronkite married 65 years to Betsy. Don't lecture me on "family values," you FReeper idiots.

[Faygo Kid]

I have no doubt they will ring with joy over there at Walter Cronkite's demise, because that's what their handlers (Rush, et al) will tell them to do. Faux News will mention it with false sympathy and a sneer.

But Walter Cronkite was married for nearly sixty-five years to Betsy Maxwell Cronkite, whom he married on March 30, 1940. They remained together until her death on March 16, 2005.

We should all be so lucky. In our relationships, I mean, and I don't think it's luck.

I am stunned tonight.

[Captain Hilts]

1. He died? When?!?!!?!

[Tangerine LaBamba]

2. He's "gravely ill,"

and he's 92 years old.

Word is that papers have been updating his obit for the past week.

I guess he's dying ...............

[Captain Hilts]

3. When his time comes, they'll have to beat him with a stick...nt

[RandomThoughts]

4. Everyone has faults, and Walter Cronkite has his own areas of flaws

However they might not be being caught in marital infidelity.

Some have marital faults, some integrity faults, some honesty faults, and lots more areas where people are not perfect.

I think when a fault of character becomes a problem for someone in public service, or private power, is when that fault directly effects society in a way that hurts many people in society.



If it helps society then society should be able to know about it, if they can not accept it, then an argument should be made, and if they still can't accept it, maybe its not a good idea.

But so many people think they know whats best for society, so when society does not like an idea, they just go to secrecy and try to do it anyway.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

6. I just read the several times,

and I'm still not sure what you were trying to say.

Was it that private behavior that doesn't affect public policy shouldn't be made public when an elected official is caught with his pants down?

If that's what you were saying, then, yeah, I agree, but I know that I'm in the minority. It used to be that way - JFK's dalliances were known but never written about - but it's not that way any more.

Is that what you meant?

Because I got lost in all those words.................

[stevedeshazer]

8. Me too.

I have no idea what that meant.

:crazy:

[Suich]

9. Oh, good!

I thought it was me!

:hi:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

11. I commend you for deciphering that n/t

[Tangerine LaBamba]

13. You think I got it right?

I'm still not sure..................

[spiritual_gunfighter]

15. I tried reading it again and I am not sure either. n/t

[RandomThoughts]

12. Something like this.

Private behavior that does not effect society should not be used to evaluate the job done in a role in society. Except that it goes to character, and can be used to decide if actions done outside the role as public servant show an indication of actions that will be done inside public service based on character.

However when judging character one must not look at any one single moment, for all people have failings, but how they handled that moment, and the other things in their lives.

So I do not advocate the secrecy of such actions, but the learning of the people to be careful in judgement, for we all have faults. If anything, if everyones secrets were known, and people also had to face the wrongness of their own actions, people would be a bit more humble in their judgements of others.

In my view, society might benefit by everyone knowing every wrong action of every person. Or at least the actions of those that judge others by that same standard.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

14. Again, all those words -

maybe it's me, but I'm in the dark on this one, too.

An explanation shouldn't be as long as the initial confusing statement.

Is what you're saying what I posted above, because this doesn't clear up anything for me?

Is what you're trying to say that people's private actions shouldn't be used to judge their public roles? Or is it that you think everyone should know everything about everyone so that they can make what you might fashion a "fully informed decision"?

Honestly, you really do need to work on compressing your thoughts and saying it more simply, because whatever your message is, it's lost inside all those words that seem to be roads either leading nowhere or in a circle. It's hard to say which .........

[RandomThoughts]

16. less words can not further explain an idea in some cases.

Walters use of secrecy is not in marriage infidelity. His secrecy seems different. It is secrecy from society the actions of societal planning of some groups. So in some way it is still the same thing as the other guy did.

However I do not know the quality of his broadcast, but I know they were respected by many, and I am not speaking about his media work as much as the work of groups he belongs to.

Many people like secrecy for other reason. They believe there actions are better or they know what society needs.

Just like people, or someones wife does not tolerate infidelity, society would not tolerate some programs, which is why they are not spoken of in open meetings.

Walter Kronkite. in my view. fits into that category. He believes that some people that are smarter know what society should do. And the rest are not able to understand it, so to get things done, they have to be secret, because people would think of what the 'self proclaimed better people' think, as bad. In the view of 'self proclaimed elites' this is because of a limitation of average people. I believe it is possible that the idea itself is wrong, and that is why so many people disagree with it.

If it helps society then society should be able to know about it, if they can not accept it, then an argument should be made, and if they still can't accept it, maybe its not a good idea.

But so many people think they know whats best for society, so when society does not like an idea, they just go to secrecy and try to do it anyway.

I jumped from the comment that he never cheated on his wife, to how I believe some of his beliefs cheat on society by maintaining secrecy about social ideas that he thinks should be done, but most other people do not believe needs to be done.


I see how my first post left out some thoughts, but it is not intended to be complicated or anything, just something I thought about.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

17. I'm gonna stop now,

because, honestly, it's all gibberish.

However, if you meant this as a goof, it's a great one. Doublespeak and all that - very funny ...........................

[RandomThoughts]

18. Sorry you don't understand it.

No hard feelings, doesn't need to be understood, or you might be blocked from it, but that is a complicated topic.

Its not that complicated.

And it is not doublespeak at all, it makes a point and supports that argument.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

19. Then, please,

in one sentence, tell me the point.

And what was the argument?

I'm not "blocked" from anything - as a professional writer, I'm hungry for new ideas, and wide-open to them. Your impenetrable style left me with nothing, and I was curious enough to ask about it. Others found it impossible to understand, as well.

If you can't summarize your concept in a sentence or two, you're not thinking clearly. That's my experience......

[Gwendolyn]

20. I'm getting this from the poster's thoughts...

Some intellectuals and elites advocate secrecy with regard to policy because the "unwashed" or "little folk" don't have the capacity to think or judge what is good for them as a society.

S/he thinks this is wrong and transparency is essential.

I could be wrong, but that's what I'm reading from it. Wasn't aware that Kronkite advocated secrecy so that's be interesting to investigate.

[RandomThoughts]

21. yes, and also

I was making the comparison to infidelity with a wife.

too

infidelity with society, if a person with power does something without telling society.


So the title op becomes inaccurate, since both are wrong.


(Note I have wrongs I do also)

So I was only arguing he is not better. Not that he is worse. And gave what you said in your post as an example.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

22. See, in the context of the OP,

it makes even less sense.

Walter Cronkite was renowned for his integrity. Trying to put some kind of "secrecy" gloss on him now is laughable.

I still don't understand any of it.

This was a thread about Walter Cronkite.

I'm gonna quit now. Too much pushing rocks uphill in an obviously losing attempt.

Thanks for the help...................

[Contrary1]

5. One thing Lyndon Johnson got right regarding the Vietnam War...

"If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost America."

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Oh, no! I love him. The world will not be the same without him in it.

[CreekDog]

10. and Republicans on their 3rd marriages after being two time cheaters lecture me on marriage

SOB's.

:rant: