It is truly amazing to me how other people seem to be able to function in the world. I managed by going to law school, focusing on one very narrow section of the law, and then lucking into a related position. I was attracted to law because when you finish law school you are a "lawyer." How handy.

I found focusing to be very handy also. I more or less picked an area of the law at random, told people I was interested and went with it. Was I interested? Sure. Why not. The more you know about something, the more interesting it becomes. Then you start going to conferences for people with a shared focus, and you have a little group, and then you write a paper or achieve some small success, and you're in. In fact, I recommend going to conferences even if you're not quite in the field yet. A small fee, and you're a member. If money is an issue, don't stay in the conference hotel. Get something cheaper nearby on price-line.

What about workplace safety videos? How big is that field? Can you get more education in it? Other training or workplace related educational films? I'd try to build on what you have. Who cares if its dorky as all get out.

And see a therapist and get outside in the sun. Your duplicity comment is a bit concerning. Can't tell whether its a reflection on you or your parents. Read up on behavioral therapy. Basically the idea is that people can be trained--not unlike our canine brethren--to overcome bad habits, or desensitize themselves to otherwise difficult situations.

And don't try fast food again. I once had a great job, however, working in a local deli. It was primarily a lunch place and I made sandwiches on the dinner shift. There were maybe 50 different sandwiches on the menu and you had to know how to make them all, as well as cook omelettes. It was actually kind of fun. I was great at cleaning the grill.

Elizabeth Edwards did not "allow" her husband to risk the health of the nation. She assisted him in doing so. She did not want to know the truth then, and she does not want to know the truth now. Her book is not some sort of fearless look into the abyss. It is a fearful exercise in denial.

In what may be her last hurrah, Elizabeth has decided to go out and deny Frances a father and insult her mother. In Elizabeth's imaginary world, "her" children and Frances will never have to vie for their father's attention. In her imaginary world, it is right and just that she should publically trash Frances's only present parent. On Oprah. To be preserved for all time. In her imaginary world, John was hapless and vulnerable to someone who had the temerity to call him "hot."

What strikes me is that Elizabeth Edwards had no friend trusted enough or sensible enough to persuade her of the inanity of this scheme. What a terrible way to exit this world. And one for which she can not blame John.

Middle-aged-white-lady: Rebecca is not kidding. Edwards was making a serious run at the Democratic nomination. Had he been a fringe candidate that had no hope of success--yes, it would be laughable to say he endangered the Democratic party and the country. But he was not a fringe candidate. Had he managed to win the nomination--as he and Elizabeth were trying to do and had some success with--the revelation about cheating on his campaign-prop wife with the new-age floozy and the resulting innocent would have lost the election not just for him, but for all of us.

CrunchyFrog: Yes, Kerry's selection of Edwards after Edwards lied to him shows that the American people's choices in 2004 sucked lemons.

Amy Olmstead: Yes, denying an innocent child equal access to a father because of hurt feelings is unconscionable.

sclloyd: Oh please. Open your eyes. Rielle's refusal to have Frances tested was choreographed with John to protect Elizabeth (and him). And now that Elizabeth is out there disrespecting Rielle and her daughter she's gotten over her agreed upon reluctance. Or so says the National Enquirer--and they've been right about things before.

lorifromky: Yes. Elizabeth Edwards is willingly living a lie. And the tour is about anger, not strength.

As to all who diss the significance of infidelity, I have no problem with men having as many partners and mistresses as they care to have. It's actively holding themselves out as one-woman men while doing so that's the problem. Fidelity is not a burden to those who chose their partners well or who knew themselves well enough not to make commitments they could not keep. "To thyself be true" is the most important fidelity.

I didn't watch the Sykes clip but I've read a couple of articles that summarized what were, presumably, her high points. And they weren't funny. When Democrats start laughing at things just because they fit our biases and not because the performance was either clever or funny, its time to wake up and try harder.

On the upside, Obama was hysterical--as always.