Trump Spectacle, Christianity Bashing.

A FEW of my responses to discussions/posts in Friends’ Facebook page, slightly edited. 

<>Trump Spectacle, and Stuff.

WHETHER Donald Trump gets jailed or not, it doesn't really matter to me. Honestly, sincerely. But I'd like that the Trump Theater is over soon. Per global perspective, the world (especially U.S. allies) has grown weary and exasperated with Washington infighting and partisanship drama.

Top traditional allies Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Israel have either cozied up to the superpower rival or simply hushed or feigned neutral grounds. Japan and South Korea are just "being nice," politically. But of course the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has massive long overdue quid pro quo to deliver to Washington. So whatever he does for the U.S. is a no brainer, such as thumbs-up to two additional military bases to 7 already existing for years in the islands. 
       What good does an endless Trump demonization do to America? Brag to the world that the United States can prosecute its "rogues," uh huh? Then I will go back in time to enumerate foreign affairs rogueness that crushed many countries, such as the coddling of dictators. And that’d easily include Ferdinand Marcos, Sr. 
There are many issues that are swept under the rug of this endless Trump spectacle. Internal/external. So jail him or whatever. Worse, this primetime TV thriller inflames the other side of the political extreme. We are seeing more violence in the streets, I fear.
       Yet tell me how many Potuses hid/kept documents? President Biden even did. How many Potuses had sexual shenanigans? I am more into prosecuting heads of state for blatant corruption. Other countries jail/ed their leaders, as in straight to the slammer. Most current on the hot seat of leadership murk is Scotland’s ex Prime Minister Nicola Sturgeon. I mean, Volodymyr Zelensky keeps massive wealth in offshore banks in British Virgin Islands, Belize and Cyprus. Yet the U.S. continually hands him billions$ in aid or taxpayer money. Purportedly to a war that is bound to be a repeat of the Afghanistan fiasco? A gargantuan wastage of resources and human lives. Why don't Americans talk about that instead? But then the anti war activists are already silenced by the Trump distraction, and that is very sad.  

<>Christianity Bashing, Anti Religion Hate. 

BEST way to deal with religious personages is–ignore them. Let them be. That’d be the most sane course. Religious/irreligious or faithful/secular, we anchor our (unpleasant or pleasant) behavior on personal prejudice or primal angst. Religion/irreligion is simply a cover. 

But then, there seems to be no stopping Christianity-shaming these days. 
       And since people these days get bored fast (despite so many other more sensible stuff to do) and we have this accessible social media media medium to throw whatever comes out of our “restless inertia” a.k.a. funky brain vessel, many aim to pour dark clouds on religion as scapegoat for social ills in our midst. We gotta blame stuff somehow. 
       Yet even before politics got messy and technology got frivolous, humanity has been killing each other because their faiths and beliefs clash. Religion has always been an expression of a people's culture; cultural traditions built villages based on common beliefs (per agriculture, clime and environmental facts, food sense, marriage, family, rituals etc) and alongside, political governance grew as well as business models and trade strategies. 
       Then animosities based on religious fervor and cultural self-righteousness rationale'd territorial grab, racism, commercial zeal, military dominance etc. But if we at least try to see the common positive or universal good in religiosity, like selfless aid in calamity areas and communal rescue initiatives or group-enhanced calm, we might be able to lessen hate. 
       But then trudat, it's boring not to diss Christianity (though it's dangerous to shame Islam so many veer away from that gig). Boredom can be fatal, too. So I thank God/dess there are streaming TV, sports TV, cats and dogs, gardening, cooking etc. Those who don't do these? Expect them to create an anti God meme for attention.

UKRAINE STORY vis a vis China Narrative, and other ramblings.

NEWS. “Biden Announces More Aid for Ukraine as Group of 7 Powers Meet in Japan.” / “GOP faction decries $113B for Ukraine.” Looks like this war isn’t going to end soon. Meanwhile, flash media did go to work hoisting Volodymyr Zelensky as the star of the recent G7 in Hiroshima, Japan albeit a weeping clown of unbelievable absurdity, pleading for more aid on top of the $150 billion total that Ukraine already got so far. 

       And the West, starring Washington, is still biting–as though Russia’s defeat is in the offing. Worse, Zelensky even “...tried to convince fence sitters like India and Brazil that there is no middle ground.” Volo isn’t aware that both giant economies are buddies of Russia per BRICS? And then Z also went to chastise and push a noncommittal or “quiet” Arab powers for support. Didn’t he know that UAE, Saudi Arabia et al thumbed-down the sanction?  

       But yes the Ukrainian leader, who was embroiled in massive corruption expose before the war, received vows of resolute support and promises of further weapons shipments even as Russian forces claimed to have seized the war-torn city of Bakhmut. And as yet again, while faced with homegrown issues such debt limit debate (resolved now?) and imminent migrant crisis, President Biden changes tone and announces more aid to Kyiv, topped by the much-sought F-16 fighter planes. 🇺🇦☮️🇷🇺

TIME feature: “Zelensky Was the Star of the G7. But the Summit's Focus Remained on China.” Because media choose/s to cast him as some kind of hero, which I have been vehemently disagreeing with from the get go. Kyiv is smothered by high-scale corruption years before Volo sat and he didn’t fix it as he vowed during campaign in 2019. He instead jumped right into the murk wagon. The war’s shudder took the focus out of his filth and now he’s nothing but a “walking, talking doll” pushing for more aid as Russia relentlessly pummels Ukraine, or parts of it. 

       G7 has ideas, of course, why it opts to still okay military handovers to Z. But I don’t think the “goodwill” will carry on, especially that Washington starts to regear its sights again towards Asia or China. Or spending cuts are now on the Oval Office table. 

       Xi Jinping did talk to Zelensky but I am almost certain it was all about trade and economics. End the war. China is BFFs with Russia so for Beijing, Vladimir Putin is a no brainer. They only have to sit and talk. These guys are bros in the `hood. After all, a prolonged war has obvious effect on China’s gargantuan Belt and Road Initiative project and huge FDIs globally. 🇺🇦☮️🇨🇳

G7 is all about how to deal with China and its BRICS buddies, notably Russia and India. But they gotta entertain Zelensky since, believe it or not, at least in the U.S., people (or voters) still favor arming Kyiv some more. But China isn’t dumb. The giant nation has what the West wants, especially in the line of technology, pharmaceuticals,  labor force, and raw materials for “climate” industry. 

       Besides being a major coal producer, China is one of the world's largest producers of gold and the world's largest producer of antimony, natural graphite, aluminum, steel, rare earths, barite, zinc and tungsten; and the third largest producer in the world of iron ore. Add mercury, tin, manganese, molybdenum, vanadium, magnetite, lead, zinc, uranium, and the world's largest hydropower potential. Did I add silicon, which is a much-sought chemical element for semiconductors? Polysilicon that is imperative to solar panels? 

       And China has petroleum and natural gas. Beijing is not even selling its oil though the Dragon is the world’s #6 largest producer, instead as #1 importer, Beijing buys a lot of fuel. What about APIs? Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients. China and India are top 2 producers. Meantime, China has invested in many countries, esp. North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa, for their resources. What the U.S. wants, China may have gotten them already while Washington was so busy with internal politics. 

       These extremely worry the West, not because China will invade Taiwan and flex its military muscle all over the globe. Nope. It’s all economics. 🇺🇦☮️🇨🇳

BACK to Ukraine. New York Times: “GOP faction decries $113B for Ukraine.” Sure, you may accuse me as a lame Republican, which I am not. Maybe I am lame but I am not GOP. Yet I concur, especially with Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) who fumes that Kyiv’s leadership “...thought it was an obligation for every American to pay $10 a month to fund their war.” Anyhow, after the meeting in Poland, Zelensky’s guys thanked the bipartisan U.S. delegation for the additional aid a.k.a. F-16 fighter jets to help in the war against Russia. 

       Meanwhile, in other News: “The Latest Rift Among Ukraine’s Allies Is Whether to Send F-16s.” And adds: “The United States is resisting a European push for the powerful fighters. But will it relent, as it did before with tanks, rocket launchers and air defense missiles?” But the latest news after recent U.S. lawmakers meeting with Kyiv reps in Poland is likely a green light. Lockheed Martin’s F-16 Block costs $64 million. Others depend on kind and make: From $12 million to $35 million, to as high as $108 million.

       Remember, last year, U.S. Congress signed a $113 billion aid to Ukraine. And in February 2022, the State Department approved the sale of 12 F-16 fighter jets with an estimated cost of $4.21 billion — a deal that also included radios, targeting pods and associated munitions components like guided missile tail kits. F-16s et al to Kyiv is not a “sale” though. Those are handouts. Paid for by taxpayers. 🇺🇦☮️🇷🇺

President Joe Biden, 80 years old, for a Second Term?

NEWS: “Biden Should Take Voters’ Concerns About Age Seriously.” New York Times Editorial Board adds: “The president has not taken advantage of the chance to ease voters’ concerns by engaging regularly with the public.”

REGARDLESS of President Biden’s failures, from 2021 to current days, age could be a serious issue, especially that the old person concerned is the Chief Executive of the world’s most powerful nation. Cognitive decline may begin after midlife, but most often occurs at higher ages or 70 or higher. So at 80 this year, Biden is really old. Donald Trump, who could be Joe’s Republican rival next year, is 4 years younger, but that isn’t young, either. 

       Both of them would do fine hangin’ with Willie Nelson, 90, if Willie could recognize them, that is. Keith Richards, 79, would be a better bet. 

      Seriously though, Biden and Trump are the oldest U.S. presidents ever. At #3 is Ronald Reagan who took office at age 69 and left White House at 77. Next: William Henry Harrison, 68 years old, Potus in 1841. But sadly Mr Harrison died just 31 days into the job, marking the shortest presidency in the country’s history. Didn’t really matter if he was old or young. The 5th oldest American prez in office was James Buchanan, 65 years old when he took office in 1857, just a few years before the Civil War. He did not seek reelection. Abraham Lincoln succeeded him in 1860.

       Wondering who was the youngest commander in chief of the United States at the  time of their election? John F. Kennedy, 43. He didn’t finish his term. If he did and, most likely won again? He would have been “only” 50 by then. 👴🗽👴

YOU may ask, so what if President Biden is “that” old? Yet at 80 today or 84, if he wins next year and leaves the Oval Office in 2028, he’ll be alongside the “age” company of Fidel Castro, who quit the Cuban political pedestal at age 82. (He ruled from 1959 to 2008; died in 2016, age 90.) Mao Zedong was also along that AARP row. Mao ended his reign as Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party at age 82, the day he died (1976). 

       Fidel and Mao were bosschiefs though a lot longer than any U.S. president. Senor Castro served for 49 years; Mao, 22 years. (Almost like Ferdinand Marcos Sr. of the Philippines, 20 years!) Meanwhile, the longest serving Potus was Franklin D. Roosevelt, 12 years, but he was President for four terms. He died relatively “young” though at 63. 

       For my trivia fix, who is the oldest currently serving head of state? Paul Biya Cameroon, 90 years old. Fact is, there’s a lot more guys who were older than Biden or Trump who sat at the center of leadership table, such as Mark Eyskens, Prime Minister of Belgium in 1981, who was 90. Or H. D. Deve Gowda, PM of India for a year ( 1996-1997), and Hüsamettin Cindoruk, Acting President of Turkey in 1993. They were 89 year old leaders. And more on that “aching back” club. 

       Anyhow, who is the oldest living former state leader? Khamtai Siphandone of Laos, 99 years old. 👴🗽👴

SO much for the age issue, okay? Old or young, I don’t think President Joe Biden should opt for reelection. For the sake of the Democratic Party, the United States of America and its 331.9 million people, and the global community. 

       The clear as sun failures of Joe Biden? Immigration chaos, ballooning debt, inflation murk. Lack, weak or inept foreign policy strategy that has crippled Washington’s  power and influence on the world stage. Etc etcetera. There are more.

       A Gen Z friend told me this: “At the start of his presidency, Biden halted oil and natural gas leases on public lands in an effort to curb carbon emissions and then a year or so later, allowed an oil company to drill in Alaska.” 

       Latest from New York Times: “Biden Faces Bleak Approval Numbers as He Starts Re-election Campaign.” And adds: “A Washington Post/ABC News poll shows challenges for President Biden and a disconnect between what Americans want and the options they have. 👴🗽👴

Sudan’s SOS and how the world and Washington respond.

NEWS: “U.S. Positioning Troops for Evacuation of American Embassy in Sudan.” / “Sudan’s Warring Generals Agree to Weeklong Truce, Says South Sudan.” News adds: “The battle has sent 100,000 refugees fleeing across borders. Now, neighboring South Sudan says both sides have agreed to name representatives to peace talks, but neither side has publicly confirmed.” 

THE Sudanese conflict is an old flaming tempest that hasn’t really subsided. Long before the Second Sudanese Civil War from 1983 to 2005 between the central Sudanese government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army, conflicts punctuated life in this impoverished Northeast African nation of 49 million. Violation of the agreement forged in Addis Ababa Accords and incorporated in the Constitution of Sudan in 1972 led to the second civil war. A number of mutinies took place in 1974, 1975, and 1976 that claimed thousands of lives. 

       The First Sudanese Civil War was a conflict from 1955 to 1972 between the northern part of Sudan and the southern Sudan region. Decades of struggle by the mainly Christian and Animist south against rule by the Arab Muslim north cut a long swath of cold darkness in the country. Until Sudan split into two in 2011, Sudan and South Sudan. Yet bloody hostilities didn’t stop. 

       At the core of the conflict lies a power struggle between Sudan's political center in Khartoum and its southern and western peripheries. From 2003, genocide or systematic killing of ethnic Darfuri people has occurred in Western Sudan.

       You may google the rest. 🇸🇩☮️🇸🇩

FOR years, Darfur has been a perennial theme in many speeches of U.S. presidents, notably Barack Obama in the duration of his terms from 2009 to 2017. Yet nothing has been done compared with Washington forwarded in other countries or regions. Since 2005 the U.S. government has contributed upwards of $8 billion in humanitarian aid as food aid, health care provisions, water, sanitation, and hygiene. They have also given money towards nutrition, agriculture, protection, and economic recovery programs. We are talking about almost two decades of “help.” 

       Before the 2000s, however, foreign aid givers handed Sudan close to $270 million between 1977–1981 and were Sudan's largest source of foreign aid by 1984. In current money, that’d be around $810 million? Based on OECD data, the U.S. has provided one-third of total aid to Sudan between 2000 and 2009, making it the largest donor for most of these years. The European Union institutions, provided 13.4 percent of aid during the same period.

       USAID's budget for Sudan in 1984: $25 million in development assistance and $50 million to finance the sale of agricultural products. I don’t know which were “aid” and which were “loans.” When Sudan failed to repay loans in 1985, the U.S. ceased all non-food aid.

       However, the U.S. didn’t stop giving help. For example, "Operation Lifeline Sudan" of 1989 delivered 100,000 metric tons of food into both government and in areas held by the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), averting widespread starvation. In 1991, the U.S. made large donations to alleviate food shortages caused by a two-year drought.

      Those were years ago before 21st century strode in and situations worsened. 🇸🇩☮️🇸🇩

FOR fiscal years 2005–2006, the U.S. committed almost $2.6 billion to Sudan for humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping in Darfur. Fast forward to 2022: Washington has provided a “mere” $371 million in humanitarian assistance to Sudan. Yet Washington has tossed $75 billion to Ukraine in just 1 year. Actually, the U.S. Congress approved $113 billion of Ukraine aid late last year. 

       The European Union is no different. E.U. or Europe per se has sent €19.7 billion to support Ukraine. This year to Sudan? €73 million. Between 2000 to 2009, Arab country governments, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates, made two large contributions to Sudan: $146.4 million in 2000 and $81.8 million in 2008. 

       What  about China? Sudan has acquired the largest share of aid allocated to Africa at the China-Africa Cooperation summit in 2018, where $60 billion was pledged "to achieve development in the African countries.” 

During the forum, China wrote off Khartoum's debts accrued up to 2015, totalling $10 billion. In addition, Chinese oil companies pledged to invest in the gas, minerals and oil pipelines from South Sudan to Port Sudan on the Red Sea coast. 🇸🇩☮️🇸🇩

MEANWHILE, on President Biden’s order, U.S. forces evacuated just under 100 American staff of the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum on the 3rd week of April. New York Times: “How U.S. Efforts to Guide Sudan to Democracy Ended in War.” And adds: “Critics say the Biden administration and its partners were naïve about the intentions of two rival generals and failed to empower civilian leaders.” 

       Let’s backtrack a bit. In early 2021, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin signed a memorandum of understanding with Sudanese Acting Finance Minister Heba Mohamed Ali, in order to clear Sudan's arrears with the World Bank, and to allow their access to more than $1 billion in annual lending.

       The quid pro quo: In March on the same year, Sudanese officials welcomed the missile guided destroyer USS Winston S. Churchill at Port Sudan, the first time in decades that the U.S. naval forces had visited the country.

       Sudan’s naval forces chief, Alnairi Hassan, praised the move. Then boom. In October, the Sudanese military, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan overthrew the government and detained Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok. Washington condemned the coup, called for Hamdok's release and suspended $700 million in aid to Sudan. Hamdok was reinstated as Prime Minister on November 21; the move was welcomed by the United States.

       This is where we are now. Still want to talk about Volodymyr Zelensky and Ukraine? End the war with Russia. Pressure Z to submit an accounting of aid tossed at him. Then let’s go fix Sudan. Of course, China is always watching or awaiting a U.S. move. 🇸🇩☮️🇸🇩

The U.S. Migrant Issue. Record Number Yet Unmoving.

Posted on Facebook, Oct 2022. Pasckie Pascua. 

THE NEWS. “New York Faces Record Homelessness as Mayor Declares Migrant Emergency.” / “In Record Numbers, Venezuelans Risk a Deadly Trek to Reach the U.S. Border.” 

New York City Mayor sends SOS for state and federal aid as the number of people in city shelters topped 61,000. And the migrant trek seems endless on Bidentime.

       New York Times adds: “Two crises are converging at the perilous land bridge known as the Darién Gap: the economic and humanitarian disaster underway in South America, and the bitter fight over immigration policy in Washington.”

       That is the main issue: Clashing immigration policy. And as a common fix is in discourse, relative laxity pervades on the borders. That’s despite after President Biden set the admission cap at 125,000 last year to keep pace with the 2023 budget. Middle of last year, the U.S. Border Patrol reported nearly 200,000 encounters with migrants along the U.S.-Mexico border, the highest monthly total in more than two decades.

       And the record number of arrivals keeps on. I lost track of the figures since another all-time high stat was again registered about a month ago. 

FUNDING refugees has evolved into a fiscal management bottleneck than a quixotic humanitarian aid. The Office of Refugee Resettlement provides resources for refugees, asylum seekers, and other new arrivals to the U.S. to assist with their integration into their new community.

       In Fiscal Year 2019, Refugee and Resettlement Assistance comprised a discretionary budget of $1.905 billion. Under FY 2022 funding, each refugee is provided $1,225 per capita grant. From the date of granted asylum, asylees may receive up to 12 months of aid to help meet their most basic needs, such as food, shelter, and transportation. Other sources give a higher number. Children or Unaccompanied Alien Children receive a much higher grant.

       Since FY 2008 there has been a seventeen-fold rise in the numbers of border apprehensions who are unaccompanied children. With rising overall apprehensions, this represents a striking eight-fold increase just between FY 2008 and FY 2019 in the proportion of all apprehensions who are unaccompanied children. There has also been a striking five-fold rise in all children when both unaccompanied and accompanied children are considered.

       Of course, that is expected. Until the U.S. government rework its immigration policy and corresponding relations with Latin American governments, this trend is expected to carry on. But first, legislature needs to set aside party narcissism and arrive to a common agenda. 

Mergers & Acquisitions: A Trend That is Bound to Carry On.

Posted on Facebook, Oct 2022. Pasckie Pascua.

THE NEWS. “What the $24.6 Billion Kroger-Albertsons Merger Could Mean for Groceries.” / “As Fox and News Corp Weigh Merger, an Activist Has Its Own Vision.”

Mergers and Acquisitions. Old, new story. As inflation continues to drive food prices up, and as e-market topnotchers Amazon and Walmart continue to rule retail, Kroger and Albertsons, two of the largest U.S. supermarket chains, move to link up as one.

       Meanwhile, in a related news, in high-end communication galaxy, Irenic Capital Management, which has a $150 million stake in News Corp, wants the company to split up its media and real estate listings businesses. But then, who cares, LOL! M&A is the name of the Fortune 1,001 game—and it seems working, or no brainer. It’s obviously win-win for the 1 Percent Capitalist.

       In 2021, there were 676 merge and acquisition transactions in the U.S. valued at more than $1 billion. Overall, the number of M&A deals last year was 21,107, up from 15,103 in the previous year. For this year, so far, companies have announced slightly more than 22,000 M&A deals, with a total value of $1.85 trillion. 

THE M&A trend is bound to carry on and expand since consolidation (of market share) etcetera work/s for giant corporations or leading franchises. Let’s (re)check the ups.

       A larger business, or one that has joined forces with another business, typically has higher needs in terms of materials and supplies. Purchasing necessary raw materials and/or supplies at larger volumes results in cost efficiency. Significantly, companies joining up means lower labor costs. Multiple staff members doing the same job at each individual company equals lower overhead and operational costs. By eliminating extraneous staff, a business can reduce its overall labor costs while maintaining a stronger, more effective labor force.

       Another: Increased market share by tapping into the resources that both bring to the business deal. This can help companies offer more products to consumers. And so on and so forth. 

SO what’d be the disadvantages of mergers and acquisitions? I don’t know. Start googling. Let’s simplify beyond Mergers & Acquisitions to a similar corporate trick that leave SMEs’ back up against a wall.

       Buyout. Example: If my tiny but thriving entrepreneurial venture which probably earns a few thousands of dollars each month is approached by a giant (who also do the same business, somehow) and is offered $25 million to gobble me out? Or maybe they’d instigate an internal tempest and then my employees threaten me all kinds of (il)legal stuff? What must I do?

       So why not just buy my company? LOL! Maybe you’d say I am a sell-out, right? But then isn’t that happening all over? Let’s start with Adam Neumann, ex-CEO of WeWork. He didn’t really “fall” as media put it. You may look up what he has been into after his supposed “ruin.” More companies!

       Yes, in his regard, why merge? Buy me out. Done. Then I will start a new kickass outfit. Fun!

Weighing in on the Depp Heard Drama

 

I NORMALLY don’t discuss people’s lives—especially celebrities and politicians—beyond their work. But the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard courtroom skirmish touches several subject matters of (societal) interest so let me try. I don’t watch the TV coverage or click on the YouTube snippets of the Virginia trial. But based on my Homepage soiree of sorts, seems like Johnny gains more credibility traction over his ex-wife.

       But “winning/losing” in this high-end drama, despite an eventual verdict, is nonsensical since I feel both already lost. If the case ended after divorce and the $7 million settlement (awarded to Ms Heard), then this “thriller” would have been consigned as simply another glossy break-up story. So many of those!

       Last that I read is Mr Depp was taken out of the 6th installment of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” Capt. Jack Sparrow. Johnny was to earn $22.5 million to reprise his role but, quite obviously due to the court hassle, producer Disney decided to go in a "different direction." There are reports that a female-led spin-off is on script development, with Margot Robbie attached to star. Hmmm. There you go.

       Check this though. The franchise has grossed over $4.5 billion worldwide, with Depp as its focal seller. Retail sales of merch, which is again anchored on Johnny as Jack, has so far brought $1.6 billion globally. Well, Johnny is out of Part 6 but, reports say, they are not pulling out his obvious likeness to the merchandise. Uh huh. Do away with the sexual politics-induced controversy but keep the profit? Johnny Depp should sue Disney, you reckon?

       Meantime, Johnny’s fans are all-out on a campaign to oust Amber from the cast of “Aquaman,” the highest-earning movie that she’s been involved with. But then “Aquaman” is Jason Momoa’s gig. Did Amber date Jason as well? LOL! 

FIRST, you know Mr Johnny Depp. But many non-rabid film hounds ask, “Who is Amber Heard?” I understand. Heard of her? Nope? Quite definitely, Amber is far from the Meryl Streep, Julia Roberts, Jennifer Lawrence megastar category, as we are wont to place Johnny on the male side.

      Yet Ms Heard is not even near the circle of Elisabeth Moss, Rachel Brosnahan, and Sarah Paulson. Some of her movies: Drop Dead Sexy, North Country, Side FX, London Fields, The Adderall Diaries, Price to Pay, You Are Here, and Alpha Dog. Probably you’ve heard of those but would say, “…she was in those movies?” The most popular megahit that Amber Heard was in: 2018’s “Aquaman.” She was also with ex-hubby Johnny in 2011’s “The Rum Diary.” But did you notice her there?

       So it’d be safe to say that Amber Heard got famous when she married John Christopher Depp II in 2015. And she got richer, too. I don’t know how much she was making before the A-1 marriage but per most recent data place/s her 2021 net worth at $2.5 million, though I’d dispute that considering the $7 million that she received per divorce settlement in 2017. Meanwhile, Mr Depp is worth more than $100 million.

       Reason why I seem to articulate the $ matter is obvious. This high-end drama is all about money. Second would be politics as in MeToo pitch or sexual politics showtime a.k.a. cancel culture fodder to many. 

GOTTA be honest. It is not hard to believe that Mr Depp could temporary lose his sanity per alcohol abuse and drug frolic, which isn’t really new/s among the rich and famous. Perpetrator, victim—both mind-altering intoxication pervade. Meantime, years before Johnny upped his asking price to double-digit millions, he already got bad-boy smear all over his face. Life with Winona Ryder and Kate Moss, for example.

       Hence a divorce sought by Amber Heard in 2016 was a no-brainer. She cited domestic abuse; she received a $7 million settlement from Depp when the divorce was finalized. Amber then vowed to donate the settlement to charity, specifically to the Children's Hospital of Los Angeles and the ACLU.

       From that point, it could have been over. Who cares who was telling the truth, right? This is Hollywood. And the verdict has been handed already. Johnny continues being Jack Sparrow and, in between, giggin’ and rockin’ with the Hollywood Vampires. Amber got a start-over and new, better film roles, perhaps.

       But nope.

       Amber had been lying about donating the money to charity. The L.A. Children's Hospital reported to have only received $100,000, which would be around $3.4 million shy of her allegedly promised donation. In April 2022 court testimony, ACLU testified that the organization had received a total of only $1.3 million of Amber's pledged $3.5 million.

      At the same time, testimony revealed that of the $1.3 million, Amber personally provided just $350,000 directly while $100,000 came from Depp and $500 thousand actually came from Elon Musk, another of Amber's former romantic partners. Ooops, Elon? 

MATTERS could have been over after the divorce settlement. But then Amber Heard wanted more, actually. In 2016, Ms Heard filed for spousal support after separating from Johnny Depp. According to court filings, in May 2016 Amber's lawyers offered to "keep this matter out of the spotlight" if Johnny allowed her to continue to use a Range Rover, to continue living in three of his Los Angeles penthouse apartments and to receive $125,000 for legal and accounting expenses.

       Next Amber reportedly asked for $50,000 per month from Depp to cover various expenses. Court documents revealed that according to Heard, her monthly expenses included costs like $10,000 for rent, $2,000 a month for eating out, and $10,000 for pet supplies and legal costs. She backed up her effort by claiming she was making a very small income, including $27,000 in royalties from various films.

       I guess, that was before the divorce?

       Okay. But the act that got Amber Heard deep in trouble was when Johnny Depp filed a lawsuit in the United Kingdom against News Group Newspapers, publishers of The Sun which referred to him as a "wife beater" in an April 2018 article. The lawsuit went to trial in 2020. Both Heard and Depp testified for several days. In November 2020 a judge ruled that 12 of the 14 incidents of violence that Heard reportedly claimed to have incurred were "substantially true." Depp lost an appeal in March 2021.

       Till the case went to the U.S. in 2019. Johnny sued Amber Heard for defamation in Virginia. He sought a settlement of $50 million as a direct response to an op-ed Amber Heard had written for The Washington Post (the same article as in The Sun?) in December 2018 that detailed the alleged abuse she suffered. That’s where we are now. 

NOW the drama is a TV spectacle and social media fodder. Sure, Johnny Depp’s fame elicited massive support his way. That is a no brainer. I don’t think Aquaman will come to Amber Heard’s rescue, anyways. Yet we still have to hear the final word or verdict.

       This side projects Mr Depp as a victim based on what I just typed up. Makes me think, what if Amber and Elon Musk actually got married? Amber should have hushed after the 2016 divorce settlement and handed what she promised Children's Hospital of Los Angeles and the ACLU. And then went to honestly work for her own keep.

       But it seems she has a lavish lifestyle to support as well—so she won’t let Johnny be. Again, I believe that Mr Depp was abusive when drunk or drugged and because of that, a divorce happened and $17 million was handed Amber.

       Thing is, why’d she pledge the money to charity when she knew she needed them most? You know what I’m saying? Now of course MeToo etcetera will probably take her case up as a political statement.

       Oh well.

       Okay, if ever the case is dismissed, which I hope it will—since I don’t want Amber to pay when she couldn’t, good. Just let this go, move on. But hey I am more interested in Mr Depp suing Disney! More to come?