Not sure what to think at the moment. I keep seeing things on either side that are interesting. One thing I'm not going to do is side with JD because I'm a fan or side with AH just because she's a woman. Things in his favor: his friends speaking out (rebuttal: friends are often just as surprised as anyone what goes on behind closed doors) his former wives speaking out (rebuttal: see drug use point below) the timing of the accusation - right after he stated he would not do spousal support and his family trashing her to the press Things in her favor: pictures of the bruises (rebuttal: could be fake) picture of her sobbing in her car after the hearing (rebuttal: she may be that good an actress) rumors of him using drugs, which could explain how a man who has never been violent before suddenly becoming violent
That's pretty much it. I have a very hard time taking Heard's side, largely because Depp is very well known for being a gentle, kind and extremely generous person with just about anybody. Meanwhile she is well known for being nasty, stuck-up and difficult to work with. Doug Stanhope did an excellent and ferocious write-up on it, he flat-out believes Depp is being blackmailed.
I think people have a hard time believing Jack Sparrow is an alcoholic on a perpetual coke binge who might have trouble controlling his temper. Amber Heard always struck me as a sociopath. There is no light in her eyes and every action I've seen her perform comes off like Ted Cruz: only pretending to be human, mimicry.
Pretty much no way to know without knowing either of them personally. Both scenarios happen all the time. People can get downright nasty, exaggerating the bad behavior, or outright lying about their spouses in these settlements. Wife beaters aren't exactly rare either. I would think if it was something he was doing often the people close to them would know. There's almost always glaring signs. Of course, knowing it's going on is pretty different than being able to prove it in court.
Milo was at UCLA last night. Today UCLA is on lock down with an active shooter, 2 people shot. It's doubtful the events are related, but still.... http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/us/ucla-shooting-report/index.html EDIT: Live updates from UCLA: https://twitter.com/UCLAnewsroom
Well shit: UCLA Newsroom @UCLAnewsroom 4m4 minutes ago Police confirm 2 dead in shooting at UCLA. Police are sweeping Engineering IV building for a possible shooter.
Actually, they may have the guy: "CBS2’s Jasmine Viel reported police say the gunman may be one of two victims found dead " Probably a murder/suicide. EDIT: Local stations are reporting that a gun and suicide note were found with the bodies. If that is true, why all the hoopla?
Infotainment right? School shootings get CNN/Fox and local news stations ratings. It fills the air too. Now they can speculate for hours on end and people with nothing to do will watch. They'll bring in experts who will guess whats happened, talk about security protocols on campuses, reflect on Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, inevitably gun control and how this person could possibly have a weapon will be brought up, how things happened will be scripted and put on a timeline. Its all so scripted its sad.
Indeed. Thank you to those who sent me well wishes for my nephew. I was driving before, and my sister texted me with the "active shooter" info. I texted my nephew and he was fine, but a little anxious, obviously. But, it was the LAPD that tweeted an "active shooter" alert and a "Citywide tactical alert" message. WTF? Also, during the incident, my nephew reported that someone saw "4 shooters dressed in dark clothes with assault rifles." Based on the main photo CNN is running, there was no such thing, and the "shooters" were law enforcement with rifles. Good grief.
"President Barack Obama was also briefed about the incident while aboard Air Force One, according to a White House spokesman." Oh crap. Does this mean he's going to frown and lecture us on guns again?
It's now being reported that it was a student that shot a professor over grades. http://laist.com/2016/06/01/ucla_shooting_victims_id.php If this turns out to be the case, instead of addressing how we arrived at this point and what needs to be done to remedy the mindset that allowed it to happen, we will hear how we need more gun laws and need to abolish grades, because they make people feel bad about themselves. EDIT: Unbelievable. The first paper published by the professor? A. Mota, W. Klug, A. Pandolfi, M. Ortiz, Finite Element Simulation of Firearm Injury to the Human Cranium, Computational Mechanics, 31(1-2): 115-121, 2003 http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~klug/publications.html
I may have missed it but what is everyone's opinion on the Washington Post's poll where 90% of Native Americans(granted thats through the survey pool) have no problem with the Washington Redskins name? Even though most major NFL writers have said they still won't say the name I personally think this should end all the bullshit about having Congress pressure the team to change it.
I work with a girl who's full-status native and this is pretty much how she feels. She could care less. Also, she appreciates the irony that Washington is getting all the hate for using the name Redskins (like they have for DECADES), but the Chicago Blackhawks, the Cleveland Indians, the KC Chiefs, the Edmonton Eskimos, etc. are not getting any backlash at all.
As far as I can tell, they keep trying to make redskin into some Native American equivalent for nigger, which it just isn't. Part of me says just change it so they'll shut up, but of course it'll just be the next thing then. One of the funnier protest signs I've seen so far from all of this was "I'M A PERSON, NOT A MASCOT". We'd have a pretty long line of the disenfranchised if we took that approach to every sports team name that could apply to a group of people.
I can't speak for those other teams, but the Indians get all kinds of shit from actual Native Americans over their mascot chief wahoo.
I don't give a fuck what Art Briles has to say, unless it's taking responsibility for what's going on at Baylor. Fuck him and fuck that program.
So the shooter at UCLA wasn't a white guy like every lunatic was hoping for. "Sources identify the gunman as Mainak Sarkar. CBS News has confirmed that he used a 9mm semi-automatic pistol to kill 39-year-old engineering professor William Scott Klug in an office, before taking his own life." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ucla-campus-shooting-victim-gunman-safety-protocols/ It also may not have been over grades, apparently Sarkar wrote a blog post about the professor stealing his code.