Actor Bo Hopkins has passed away.
Let me drop back to the start of the 80s when he was seen in his biggest role. DALLAS was a prime time hit and a lot of men and women watched. J.R. Ewing bored me. If I watched it was for Pam's struggles with the family she married into.
Other than Victoria Principal's Pam, the women were weak and, yes, that included Miss Ellie. Sue Ellen was a drunk always being exploited. Lucy was a teenager forever being manipulated (when not sleeping with her biological uncle Ray).
DYNASTY started airing on ABC and, even before Joan Collins showed up at the start of season two, the show featured strong women. Linda Evans played Krystal and Pamela Sue Martin played Fallon. Krystal married Black Carrington. Her former boyfriend was in love with her but he was married. That was Matthew Blaisedale and Bo Hopkins played him.
Matthew was married to crazy Claudia and they had a daughter named Lindsay.
Blake loathed Matthew and tried to destroy him due to the fact that Krystal still cared for him. Not only did Mathew stand up to Blake over Krystal, he stood up to him over Steven.
Steven was Blake's son and Blake loathed him because he was gay. He would eventually kill Steven's ex-lover Ted when he thought they were getting back together.
Blake was trying to destroy Steven to force him to act straight and deny who he was.
With no money and not a lot of skills, he went to Matthew who hired him and was a friend and mentor to him. Steven was a major character in TV's LGBTQ portrayals but so was Matthew. Matthew was straight but it was a big deal for TV at the time that Matthew was not just accepting of Steven but also became his friend.
ABC was as uncomfortable with a gay character as Blake was so Steven had to go straight and end up with Claudia. This would lead to Matthew leaving town with Lindsay. He would returns many seasons later and hold the family hostage to try to force Krystal to come back to him (Steven would be the one to end the hostage crisis by killing Matthew).
In his long carer, Mr. Hopkins worked with pretty much everyone -- he was in George Lucas' AMERICAN GRAFFITI (and the sequel MORE AMERICAN GRAFFITI), he acted with Donald Sutherland and Karen Black in THE DAY OF THE LOCUST, with Jean Seberg and David Janssen in MACHO CALLAHAN, with Steve McQueen and Ali MacGraw in THE GETAWAY, with Lee Marvin in MONTE WALSH, with Burt Reynolds in THE MAN WHO LOVED CAT DANCING, with Jon Voight and Jennifer Lopez in Oliver Stone's U-TURN, with Rose McGowan, Ben Affleck and Nicky Katt in PHANTOMS, with Matthew McConaughey in Richard Linklater's THE NEWTON BOYS, with Stuart Townsend, Thandiwe Newton, Jamie Foxx and Melanie Griffith in SHADE, with Glenn Close and Amy Adams in HILLBILLY ELEGY, and with Brad Davis in Alan Parker's MIDNIGHT EXPRESS.
On TV, he was a guest on many shows including: THE MOD SQUAD, THE
PHYLLIS DILLER SHOW, CHARLIE'S ANGELS, GUNSMOKE, IRONSIDE, THE ROOKIES,
SUPERTRAIN, FANTASY ISLAND, HOTEL, MURDER SHE WROTE, MATLOCK, SCARECROW
AND MRS. KING, THE FALL GUY, THE A-TEAM, MATT HOUSTON, THE RAT PATROL,
FINDER OF LOST LOVES, BONANZA, the original HAWAII FIVE-O, BARNABY
JONES, and THE ROCKFORD FILES.
Mr. Hopkins was 80-years-old. DEADLINE notes, "Hopkins is survived by his wife Sian and son Matthew." DEADLINE is incorrect when they say he appeared on the first season of DYNASTY. He did appear on the first season. He also came back for three episodes in 1987 and we will not just go by memory, here is IMDB for the episodes of DYNASTY that he appeared in:
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Friday, May 27, 2022. The UN makes clear how little it cares about
Iraq, Katrina vanden Heuverl just realized your birthday was last month,
Margaret Kimberley pictures a better world and Amber Heard is not a
poster for feminism.
The Security Council of the United
Nations pretended to 'address' Iraq yesterday. They did not address
Iraq. It was another going-through-the-motions meeting where they
pretended to explore Iraq so they could renew the one year mandate over
Iraq.
They issued a lengthy, 366 word press release
on the matter that might fool some idiots but the reality is there in
the last sentence, "The meeting began at 10:10 a.m. and ended at 10:14
a.m."
Four minutes.
Four minutes is
how long they spent in a meeting about the security in Iraq. Four
minutes. And that allowed them -- that incredible overview -- to put
themselves in charge of Iraq for another year. And people think
Britney Spears was railroaded?
Four minutes.
It was so unimportant to the UN that they didn't even post the 'meeting' or 'hearing' to their UN YOUTUBE page.
The
increasingly laughable UNAMI did post the prepared remarks of the
United Nations' Secretary General's Special Representative (Jeanine
Hennis-Plasschaert):
Thank you, Mr. President,
Distinguished members of the Security Council,
My
briefing today will hit many all-too-familiar notes, as notorious
aspects of Iraqi political life are repeating themselves in a seemingly
incessant loop of zero-sum politics. But before delving into that, I
would like to share some impressions on the recent and ongoing waves of
massive dust- and sandstorms hitting Iraq.
Now, while a dust- or sandstorm as such is
not a new phenomenon for the country, the current wave far exceeds
Iraq’s experiences in recent years. Briefing this Council last February,
I spoke about the dangers of climate change and its effects, with
desertification as a central concern. Ever since, Iraq has been battered
by intense dust- and sandstorms that obscure the sky, send people
running for shelter, even resulting in sickness and death.
Now, these storms are only expected to
become more frequent. In other words: continued inaction, also here,
comes at enormous costs. Having said this, Mr. President, these storms
are not the only concern for the people in Iraq.
Iraqis continue to wait for a political
class that, instead of being content with stale power battles, they are
waiting for a political class that will roll up its sleeves to make
headway on Iraq’s long list of outstanding domestic priorities. As you
know, national elections took place well over seven months ago, and
multiple deadlines for the formation of a government have been missed.
Now, it is true, Iraq is not the only
country facing a protracted government formation process. But Iraq’s
political leaders would do well not to hide behind that argument. It
distracts from what is at stake.
It excuses a political deadlock while
non-state armed groups fire rockets with apparent freedom and impunity.
It excuses a political stalemate while ordinary people suffer. It
excuses a political impasse while simmering anger – public anger can
boil over at any moments.
So, my question is: what will it take to realize that this situation is completely untenable?
To date, political leaders subscribe to
the notion of dialogue, or another round of negotiations. But the
necessary willingness to compromise? It is painfully absent. Visit any
market and Iraqis will tell you: the national interest is, yet again,
taking a backseat to short-sighted considerations of control over
resources and power play.
It is therefore high time (and yes, I
repeat myself), but it is high time to return the spotlight where it
must be: on the people of Iraq, and a programme of action that provides:
- Adequate service delivery to all citizens.
- An end to pervasive corruption, factionalism and the pillaging of state institutions.
- The implementation of desperately needed reforms.
- The diversification of the economy.
- Predictable governance instead of constant crisis management.
- An end to impunity, with accountability as a key feature of the State, and (of course) …
- Reining in non-state armed actors while asserting the State’s authority.
Over the past three years, you have heard
me make these points numerous times. And one thing remains clear: the
neglect of the population’s most basic needs has gone on for far too
long.
Again, Iraqi political inaction comes at a
huge price. Not (in the short term) for those in power, but for those
desperately trying to make ends meet on a daily basis.
Mr. President,
A few more specific observations,
beginning with relations between Baghdad and Erbil. The sorry pattern of
ad-hoc negotiations continues to prevail instead of what is critically
needed: an institutionalized, predictable mechanism for the
comprehensive, holistic and durable resolutions of all outstanding
issues.
While this is evidently necessary, such a
mechanism continues to be plainly missing, and this deficiency is sadly
coupled with internal rivalries on both sides as well.
As I said last time: a spirit of
partnership and cooperation can and must guide all stakeholders,
including with regards to the recent Federal Supreme Court ruling on the
KRG Oil and Gas Law. Having engaged with both sides on this matter, I
am convinced that there is a way out.
However, and there is no denying it:
events in the past have gravely eroded mutual trust. Hence, it will
prove essential to build confidence, including by pledging to refrain
from politically motivated, unilateral actions in the future.
Now, Mr. President, zooming in on the
political situation within the Kurdistan Region: last year, in May, I
participated in an event at the University of Kurdistan. It is a
promising event with all Kurdistan Region political parties present.
In my remarks, I outlined the toxicity of
political infighting and factionalism. I emphasized the importance of
unity, not to be confused with uniformity. I spoke candidly about the
need to move away from the yellow & green divide, about the
responsibility of leaders to guide outreach and to bring together
opposing interests, to focus on solutions that represent the interests
of all peoples living in the Kurdistan Region - be it Erbil, Dohuk or
Sulaymaniyah.
However, one year later, this promising
event seems to have gained zero traction. On the contrary, divisions
have deepened - with adverse effects on the peoples of the Kurdistan
Region.
Now, and without repeating my remarks of a
year ago, but it must be clear: the Kurdistan Region has a choice. And
with the Kurdistan Region elections scheduled for the 1st of October
later this year, it is of utmost importance to level the electoral
playing field - with all political actors, big or small, enjoying equal
opportunities. Promoting a conducive electoral environment, that is.
Additionally, I can only underline that
geography does not always play in the Kurdistan Region’s advantage. In
other words: its unique geopolitical circumstances alone, should be
enough to give its leaders pause.
And, of course, that goes for the whole of
Iraq as well. As I have said on countless occasions: whether we like it
or not, a weak domestic home front only creates a welcoming environment
for continued external interference.
Now, on a related note, let me also comment on incoming missiles and rockets: Disturbing, disruptive and dangerous.
With the IRGC claiming responsibility for
up to 12 short-range ballistic missiles launched in the early hours of
Sunday March 13, another worrisome chapter was opened. And while the
IRGC described the targeted location in Erbil as “the strategic centre
for conspiracy and evil acts of the Zionists”, no evidence for such
claims was found. The targeted site is known as a civilian area, a
private compound.
Although both sides – Iraq, Iran –
although they are currently engaged in dialogue and do not wish to
escalate the issue, Iraq rightfully rejects the notion that it can be
treated as the region’s backyard, with routine violations of its
sovereignty and territorial integrity. Now, another case in point are
the ongoing Turkish and Iranian shelling activities in the North. So,
what are we looking at? Cross-border shelling and missiles as the new
normal for Iraq? This is a very risky way to advance interests, and one
which further weakens the State of Iraq.
Needless to say: any country or actor
seeking to settle a dispute has established diplomatic instruments,
including our good offices, at their disposal.
Now, moving to Iraq’s very own armed
actors operating outside state control: the reckless firing of rockets,
including at an oil refinery in Erbil some two weeks ago, remains
alarming and unjustifiable. These attacks seek to undermine Iraq’s
security and stability within an already extremely volatile, politically
charged post-electoral environment.
Fact is: “messaging by rockets”, “missile
diplomacy” – these are reckless acts, with potentially devastating
consequences. Also, and let me emphasize, Iraq does not need
self-proclaimed armed arbiters. And I again underline the great
importance of asserting the State’s authority. If the perpetrators are
known, call them out. This is essential to uphold the Rule of Law.
Ladies and gentlemen, turning to the ever-pressing question of Sinjar:
As we know all too well, Sinjar’s recent
history has witnessed horrific ordeals, culminating in the heinous
crimes committed by Da’esh. Today, while locals urgently need to rebuild
their lives, they continue to face unconscionable obstacles. Obstacles
due to discord on security arrangements, public service provisions and a
unified administration.
The Sinjar agreement, signed by Baghdad
and Erbil in October 2020, was seen (by many) as a glimmer of hope: a
very first but important step in the right direction.
At the time, I expressed hope that the
agreement would lead to a new chapter for Sinjar, one in which the needs
of the Sinjari people would come first, that it would help displaced
people return to their homes, that it would accelerate reconstruction
and improve public service delivery.
But for that to happen, stable governance
and security structures are - of course - pre-requisites. Now, ever
since the agreement was signed, I have called for a speedy
implementation. Well clearly, the opposite is true. To date, there is no
agreement on the selection of a new independent mayor, and funds for a
new local security force remain blocked, possibly due to interference
into unclear recruitment procedures.
Now, on these recruitment procedures: I
again emphasize the importance of pragmatism and realism. Not all people
who joined “other forces” in the past can simply be painted with the
same brush. It must be understood that some of them, absent the
authority of the State, simply opted for a safety net, an identity and
an income to provide for their families.
We also called on both Baghdad and Erbil
to reach out to the people of Sinjar, to open their arms to all
Sinjaris. Meanwhile, critics of the Sinjar agreement kept on emphasizing
the lack of consultations with local communities.
Now, while no one dismisses good advice,
and certainly not UNAMI, I have to say: local consultations did take
place and continue to take place. At the same time, it is true that both
Baghdad and Erbil could and should step up their outreach at the
grassroots level. The implementation of any agreement, winning hearts
and minds, is hard work. And this one in particular.
A piece of paper alone will not do the
job. One needs to be on top of it, 24/7, own it, constantly and
proactively engage with the communities on the ground, provide
explanations, clarify why a decision has been taken and why it benefits
the Sinjaris in the medium to long term. Having said this: significant
divides and the fragmentation of local communities are a fact of life in
Sinjar, making things even more challenging.
And within this context, it is also
important to note that Sinjar has increasingly turned into an arena for
external and domestic spoilers.
Now, while some of this can be traced back
to 2014 as Da’esh kicked off its atrocities, eight years later it is
time to acknowledge that yes, mistakes have been made in the past, but
Sinjar is part of the State of Iraq.
By giving room to external and domestic
spoilers, the situation will not get any better. And by now, all
stakeholders would do well to acknowledge this fact - notwithstanding
their gratitude for the help and assistance received in the past. You
know, nobody said that the establishment of stable security and
governance structures would be an easy ride.
But there is no denying it: the lack of
clear-cut coordination and implementation mechanism, the dominance of
partisan interests and the ongoing presence of spoilers significantly
hamper meaningful progress. I have to say – international observers have
been deployed for less.
Clashes have again erupted in recent
weeks. And this sadly made Sinjari families again pack their belongings
and find their way back to the Kurdistan Region to seek shelter.
So, let me reiterate:
- Sinjaris’ safety and security should be front and centre at all times.
- They deserve peace under the authority of the State.
- Domestic and external spoilers have no place in Sinjar.
- Baghdad and Erbil must assume their responsibility, and urgently
work together with only one objective: to improve the lives of people on
the ground and promote the voluntary, dignified return of displaced
persons to their homes.
Mr. President,
A few words on the issue of missing
Kuwaiti and third-country nationals and missing Kuwaiti property,
including the national archives.
In recent months, the Iraqi Ministry of
Defence has stepped up efforts to reach new witnesses through
broadcasts, the media, as well as consular and diplomatic channels
worldwide. As a result, at least two potential new witnesses have come
forward during this period, confirming that broadcasts with a wide
geographic reach can be helpful in eliciting information.
This demonstrated that investing efforts
in obtaining new witness information, and insisting on acquiring
satellite imagery analysis from relevant member States, are essential
steps to bring this crucial and sensitive file to a close.
Now, Mr. President,
I will conclude my remarks by underlining
(once more) the importance of overcoming the political stalemate.
Significant domestic vulnerabilities are being compounded by the ongoing
effects of the pandemic and global geopolitical tensions.
A sincere, collective and urgent will to
resolve political differences must now prevail – it must prevail for the
country to move forward and to meet the needs of its citizens.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Once upon a time, we attended these
meetings and reported on them here. But then they became a non-deniable
farce. Those present on the council didn't even pretend to be
interested, stopped any questions -- even softballs -- and the UNAMI rep
would read their statements. Then it got worse as they'd summarize
their prepared remarks instead of even reading them in full.
Now
the UN has extended its mandate over Iraq for a year and they did so in
a 'meeting' that lasted four minutes I think most of us spend more
time than that considering what we for dinner.
The UN made clear that it doesn't care about Iraq -- it only cares about controlling the country.
We
are weeks away from the eight month mark -- eight months since the
October 10th elections and the Iraqi government has still not announced a
president or prime minister.
But that's apparently not worthy of discussion.
Climate change is impacting Iraq harshly and nothing's being done but the UN doesn't want to discuss that.
The
vastly unpopular holdover prime minister attended the funeral of an
Iraqi poet days ago and was booed and pelted with objects forcing him to
leave but that's not anything the UN wants to address or explore.
They should be ashamed of themselves.
Continuing the ridiculous, at SCHEER POST, Katrina vanden Heuvel offers:
It’s time to challenge the orthodox view on the war in Ukraine.
As Russia’s illegal and brutal assault enters its fourth month, the
impact on Europe, the Global South and the world is already profound. We
are witnessing the emergence of a new political/military world order.
Climate action is being sidelined as reliance on fossil fuels
increases; food scarcity and other resource demands are pushing prices upward and causing widespread global hunger; and the worldwide refugee crisis —
with more international refugees and internally displaced people than
at any time since the end of World War II — poses a massive challenge.
Furthermore, the more protracted the war in Ukraine, the greater the
risk of a nuclear accident or incident. And with the Biden
administration’s strategy to “weaken” Russia with the scale of weapons
shipments, including anti-ship missiles, and revelations of U.S.
intelligence assistance to Ukraine, it is clear that the United States
and NATO are in a proxy war with Russia.
Shouldn’t the ramifications, perils and multifaceted costs of this
proxy war be a central topic of media coverage — as well as informed
analysis, discussion and debate? Yet what we have in the media and
political establishment is, for the most part, a one-sided, even
nonexistent, public discussion and debate. It’s as if we live with what
journalist Matt Taibbi has dubbed an “intellectual no-fly zone.”
Those who have departed from the orthodox line on Ukraine are
regularly excluded from or marginalized — certainly rarely seen — on big
corporate media. The result is that alternative and countervailing
views and voices seem nonexistent. Wouldn’t it be healthy to have more
diversity of views, history and context rather than “confirmation bias”?
Those who speak of history and offer context about the West’s precipitating role in the Ukraine tragedy are not excusing
Russia’s criminal attack. It is a measure of such thinking, and the
rhetorical or intellectual no-fly zone, that prominent figures such as
Noam Chomsky, University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and
former U.S. ambassador Chas Freeman, among others, have been demonized
or slurred for raising cogent arguments and providing much-needed
context and history to explain the background of this war.
Now it's time.
Now.
All these months later.
Is Katrina a 911 operator out of Buffalo, New York?
There's a saying, better late than never.
It's a saying.
It's not accurate. But people do say it.
People
aslo see that the US government is indifferent to the lives of American
babies as evidenced by the baby formula shortage. Margaret Kimberley (BLACK AGENDA REPORT) offers:
“Socialism doesn’t work” is repeated like a mantra. We’re told
endlessly that capitalism provides jobs, housing, food, and health care
in this country when it does a very bad job of doing all these things.
The United States is said to be “the richest country in the world,” a
strange statement which implies that the people are prosperous even
though they aren’t.
Gig work, housing insecurity, medical debt, and student loan debt are
all common experiences for people in the U.S. Now, to add insult to
injury, the system said to be so superior can’t even keep little babies
fed.
There is an historic shortage of baby formula. There are parts of the
country where food for infants simply can’t be found at any price. This
headline is the most honest about the situation. “America is running out of baby formula because 3 companies control the market and babies aren’t that profitable .” There are only three baby formula manufacturers and one of them, Abbott, had to shut down its plant after a whistleblower revealed their product was contaminated. Two infant deaths may be related to the contamination, which went undiscovered despite Food and Drug Administration regulatory authority.
The Biden administration has invoked the Defense Production Act to
increase the supply and now allows formula from foreign countries to be
imported. They are making quite a show
of their late in the day response to a situation that should have been
addressed sooner. But the stop gaps to resolve a temporary crisis should
not allow a bigger problem to go unmentioned. Capitalism is the problem. Transportation Secretary and onetime presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg
admitted as much even as he tried to defend the failed state. “But
let's be very clear. This is a capitalist country. The government does
not make baby formula, nor should it. Companies make formula.”
In a better society, a socialist society, baby formula wouldn’t be
sold by private interests. It would be provided free of charge to every
family and yes, the government would make it. The “market forces” which
we are told solve every problem actually create very serious ones. In
this country even the effort to provide infant formula to all,
regardless of income, is yet another means of supporting monopoly
capital.
Disclosure, I have known and been friends with Johnny Depp for years. Yes, we're going back to the trial.
For
those stupid enough to fall for Amber Heard's play acting yesterday,
thank goodness you aren't casting directors, the film industry would be
shut down.
Only the deeply stupid could have bought her act.
People want to kill her.
Yes,
Amber, when a woman speaks out, she's going to get threats. We've all
seen it happen. Here's the thing though, life does go on. And if
you're getting a threat you slide it over to the authorities -- see the
side of this website. I am not picking on Mike
but I am using him as an example. He could call out Joe Biden tomorrow
in the same language I did or worse and he would get a certain type of
response. I would get a different one -- mine would be more personal,
mine would be more threatening and more violent. That's because we live
in a society that does condone violence against women and don't kid
yourself that it doesn't.
That's reality.
It needs to change.
But I am not right because I receive a threat. Nor, Amber, are you.
People are upset with you and they are right to be upset.
You
took 7 million -- 'for charity' -- laughing all the way -- and then you
turned around and wrote that awful column. It wasn't written in a
vacuum. Despite agreeing not to disparage him (and he agreed to the
same with regard to her) as part of the divorce settlement, Amber began a
whisper campaign to lay the groundwork against Johnny. Emboldened by
the lack of pushback, she then went with her 2018 WASHINGTON POST column
which was calling him a domestic abuser.
Sorry, Amber, people are going to be mad at you and they should be.
Let's
pretend you're telling the truth: Well greedy trash, you shouldn't have
taken 7 million dollars. You should have prosecuted. But, if you're
telling the truth, your greed was more important than justice or in
protecting other women.
So climb off the cross because no one's buying your act.
You
ended a brief marriage that was a huge mistake. And you got 7 million
dollars out of it -- that you were never going to give to charity.
You should have gone on with your life.
Instead,
you wanted to hype yourself and turn yourself into a star so you timed
the column to debut as someone else's big film that featured you in a
small role came out. You were going to use this column for publicity
and the whole country was going to be blown away and obsessed with
Amber.
Didn't happen.
Because
as I wrote in real time, you were a cold fish on screen. You had no
heat. Julia Ormond didn't either and Julia's was a nice person. I love
Debra Winger but to stand next to her, you'd just think she was a nice
person. Put her in front of a camera and something happens. That's how
someone becomes a star. Meryl Streep's famous and she's a leading lady
(who doesn't really sell tickets) but she's never been a star and she
never will be. She lacks that certain something. I did not know
Elizabeth Taylor in her prime, I knew her much, much later. But you
could still see the spark even at the end. You either have it or you
don't. There's a writer who I loathe because she lies and in one of her
books she went off on Elliott Gould. If she'd said Elliott was never a
star, okay, you can make that argument. But to say he's not sexy? He
was very sexy back in the day. But the spark that makes a star is not
just about sexy -- it's something much more. Amber didn't have it.
I
can usually look at someone -- on film -- and tell you whether they've
got it or not. I told Sydney not to cast Julia in SABRINA. He was
convinced she was star material and she wasn't and to put her into an
Audrey Hepburn remake? That would have been too much for any female --
even Demi at the height of her fame. Julia might have pulled it off --
might have because SABRINA's really not a film that the world needs
remakes of because it's not fun and it's not dramatic and it really adds
up to nothing. Audrey gave it magic that the property really didn't
have.
Demi
Moore was a star. She captured the public's fascination, she sold
tickets. Greg Kinnear was not. A star sells tickets and a star has a
following.
Famous does not make you a star.
Amber's a bad actress who does not connect onscreen with the audience -- there is no dynamic, there is no pull.
But
many times, it's difficult for people to see themselves honestly.
She's thought for years she was going to be a star -- any day!!!! That
day never arrived and it's not arriving. But the plan was that AQUAMAN
would make her a star -- a big budget film! With her in it!!! And
timing the column to amplify attention, she just knew this was the thing
to do.
You
know what the thing to do is? Get John Waters to write a screenplay
about this. It's his next SERIAL MOM. Let Helen Hunt or some older
actress play the role since Amber looks so haggard these days. (That
chin was always gong to defeat any chance she had of aging well.)
14
years and 34 films after she started appearing in motion pictures, she
just knew this was her big break. Appearing in films with Demi Moore,
Kevin Costner, Nicholas Cage, Channing Tatum, etc did not make her a
star. There is no stardom within her.
But she hoped it would come via the one-two punch of AQUAMAN and her column.
It didn't.
I
have no idea what the jury will think -- her smirking at them every
time she took the stand wouldn't have done well had I been on the jury.
But she's lied repeatedly on the stand, been exposed repeatedly on the
stand, called others liars and then, seconds later, insisted she didn't
just call them a liar, she's shown 'devoted wife' in the elevators with
two men during the marriage -- once when she's nude except for a
blanket. That kind of weakens her claim that he beat her but she stayed
because of love.
She's a liar and both genders can lie.
Those
trying to make Amber the poster girl of feminism are deluded. If more
were known of her abuse of her female lovers, they'd probably shut their
uninformed mouths.
Unlike
those idiots -- male and female -- I actually known Johnny and, sadly, I
actually know Amber. Which is why I can say: Amber is lying.
The following sites updated:
