Dan Rather’s Body Language Clearly Shows How His Lawsuit Took It’s Toll On Him

Dan Rather Lawsuit

Even though Dan Rather  is 5 million dollars poorer due to legal bills  he spent on his case  and even though the court of appeals threw out his $70 million dollar breech of contract against  CBS , his not having to continue with the case may very well be a blessing in disguise. Personally, I don’t think he should appeal the decision, but rather move on with his life.

     Not only will he save on additional legal bills but he will be spared the added emotional distress which may have caused him health issues and even perhaps  shortened his life. If he looks this horrible now- so worn and beaten up, one can only imagine how he would look at the end of the trial where there would be no guarantee if he would win or lose anyway. One could only imagine the havoc that it would wreak on his physical being.

   Dan feels he was wronged by CBS removing him from his Evening News Post over a report that examined former President George Bush’s military service so he sued. But truth be known, Dan Rather would have been removed from his post anyway because most 77 year olds are  commonly relieved from their anchor duties.

     Networks want young good looking physically anchors that are easy on the eye, just like they wanted him back in 1981 after they made a then 65 year old news icon Walter Cronkite  retire. At that time, CBS thought Walter was too old for viewers to look at, so they hired the  tall, dark and handsome  Dan Rather with his appealing  voice and winning smile. Now close to 25 years later they did the same to him.

Walter Cronkite
Walter Cronkite

  It came full circle. Of course in this day and age of political correctness, no one could do what they did to poor Walter and make him retire because of his age. So they used  another excuse or made Dan’s life miserable by giving him less to do, so he would quit or they blamed it on whatever.

A young and handsome Dan Rather who replaced Walter Cronkite
A young and handsome Dan Rather who replaced Walter Cronkite

    Ageism is not always the case in the news media. Experts can appear on the air  even if they are in their 100’s. Look at Dr. Ruth and Dr. Joyce Bothers and so many aging politicians and legal analysts. In fact the older you are, the more seasoned you are , the more you know, So it works to your advantage. Of course you still have to look good.  

    If you continue to look good, are likeable, get along with people, and have a following (big ratings) you can remain on the air even as an anchor until  they wheel you out on a gurney. Case in point- Los Angeles anchor and my dear friend and on camera media mentor when I was a young reporter at KABC television, the late and great Jerry Dunphy. Everyone adored Jerry and he worked on the air until he was 86 when he passed away.


brockman_dunphy   I believe that Dan still has a good future ahead of him on television but he needs to do a few things first. Since, like it or not, looks are what counts in the media, especially for a talking head, he needs to spend some of that money he just saved from not going forward with the case and invest in :

a)  a great plastic surgeon with a light touch who will just nip and tuck and not pull his skin so tight that he looks like he will be wearing a Halloween mask. He needs the eye bags removed, the lids lifted, jowels lifted, turkey neck tightened. moles removes, and  a deep facial peel to get rid of the wrinkles. He needs to grow his hair out and have it cut and styled so it better frames his face. It can be silver and he could look loike a silver fox if he styled it like Bill Clinton’s hair.

  b) He then needs along vacation where he chills out and sees the world, not from a reporters eyes but from a human being’s eyes. He needs to travel around the globe and visit some starving children who could really benefit from some of the money he saved on his legal bills. He needs to donate some of that money to them to make sure they can eat and have a roof over their heads and even make sure that they have some money so that can receive proper medical attention.

c) Then after he is humbled by helping those needy children around the world, he then needs to take some more of  the money he saved from not  having to continue the lawsuit and  do a compelling and entertaining television show. In the show he needs to puts his ego aside so that he  is not the only one in front of the camera.  Instead he needs to develop new talent and  hire a team of competent really attractive on camera people to deliver the message of the show. I think that with all of his experience he would add a credibility to the show while his “team” would add other elements like sex appeal and humor.

   Then he needs to get behind some major charitable causes that he believes in and raise money to support them. He needs to give back what he has been given – money fame, a great lifestyle.  He needs to get over his bitterness, stop whining and complaining and move on. He needs to put  his energy into doing some good in the world instead of wasting it on a losing battle.


Steven Spielberg’s Body Language shows He Couldn’t Be Prouder of Drew Barrymore’s Directorial Debut

steven and drew

This touching  photo of Steven Spielberg and Drew Barrymore at the screening of her movie Whip It, says it all. With his beaming smile, head and upper torso leaning into drew with his left foot pointing in Drew’s direction shows the body language of any proud “papa” as  Drew makes her directorial debut. Drew responds in kind with her head on Steven’s shoulder and  upper torso  leaning into him as she beams a megawatt smile. It’s so amazing when you think back to little Drew being directed by Steven in ET . And here she is now, all grown up and following in her mentor’s footsteps as a director. How inspiring!

Latest and Most Disgusting Body Language of Al Qaeda- Storing Bomb Materials Inside Their Anal Cavities

    Every time I go to the airport and have to take off my shoes to pass through security,I really don’t mind. I always remember the  Al Qaeda shoe bomber who nearly killed a planeload of passengers by hiding explosives in his shoes. So, if as  a  result, everyone has to take off their shoes to assure passenger safety, that is fine with me.


     As soon as  I learned  today that there was a new technique Al Qaeda is using  to store bomb material inside their body cavity, namely their rectums, to avoid detection at airport security,  I now  welcome the idea of  a full airport body scan for everyone who  plans to fly.  


     Apparently an al Qaeda operative avoided detection by two sets of airport security as he had a pound of high explosives plus a detonator inserted into his rectum.This  Al Qaeda operative who was one of the most wanted men in Saudi Arabia,  was also able avoid detection by palace security as he detonated a bomb almost killing with  Saudi Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef, head of Saudi Arabia’s counter terrorism operations, was thankfully only slightly wounded.

Al Queda bomber who hid explosives in his rectum
Al Queda bomber who hid explosives in his rectum

   Security analysts  say that  on a plane at altitude, the effects of such a bomb could be catastrophic. And there is no current security system that could stop it other than to require people to strip naked at the airport the security analyst reports.  So  as  a result to this recent mishap it is only a matter of time until every airport around the world is equipped with a full body scan machine.

Prince 3

But for those who raise a red flag in terms of having something suspicious in their body in addition to  telling behavior and  specific body language signals often seen in terrorists , a  full body cavity  search would no doubt be a must, especially of the evidence needed to be retrieved.

   For those who are appalled at the notion of this or who are  concerned about their right to privacy, the message is simple- don’t fly! Find another way to do business where you don’t have to fly  like teleconferencing. For those who still want to see the world  and don’t want to fly, they may have to resort to 3D travel logs.

Kate Gosselin’s Body Language Shows She Either Ignores Maddy or is Agitated Around Her

.kate and cara gosselin

Kate might as well have left her older twin daughter Maddy at home instead of taking her on her errands. As you can see in this first photo Kate walks  three steps ahead of an annoyed Maddy, looks in the opposite direction Maddy in which is looking, and doesn’t even realize her daughter is behind her. Kate  is more interested in talking on her phone. Maddy who seems to be  struggling to keep up isn’t too pleased that she is not getting the “quality” and “alone” time that  she was no doubt promised with mommy. Maddy’s  facial expression shows she is quite stressed.


kate and cara gosselin

Now that Kate is finally off her cell phone you would think she would show a little attention to Maddy, but she doesn’t. Instead, Kate continues to walk two steps  ahead of her daughter. Kate  appears to be ignoring the little girl even though she took her hand. The little girl leans her head away from Kate. There is clearly no mother daughter bonding, connection, or interaction going on here.

kate and cara gosselin

But when there is finally an interaction it is not a pleasant one at all. Even though Kate manages to slow down so that Maddy can catch up with her stepwise, there is  still a lot of physical distance between them as far as their bodies are positioned.  There is  a tense scowl on both of their faces complete with neck muscle tension and furrowed forehead which shows  and anger and upset between mother and daughter.

    In watching five seasons of the show, Maddy is definitely the one child which needs the most attention and the most love. On the show she is usually seen pouting, kicking, yelling, crying, screaming, slapping, hitting, or expressing some type of upset. The only time I ever saw her happy was when she was an episode in front of a camera taking modeling photos with her sister. This clearly demonstrates how much she craves attention and being noticed. Her relationship with Kate on the shows also demonstrates how poorly connected the  are. Maddy is full of rage towards Kate and the photos of them on  this little outing makes it clear as to the reason why Maddy feels so angry. She is constantly  ignored and disrespected by her mother. When she finally is paid attention to, it is with anger and hostility on Kate’s part.  

   My feeling is that Kate needs to  spend less time trying to be famous on camera, less time doing  interviews trashing Jon, and spend  more “real” quality time with Maddy in a qualified child therapists office so that she can help Maddy get to the bottom of her anger towards her mother. She and Maddy both need to be in a family therapy situation where Kate not only learns better communication techniques, but learn how to  communicate more love and affection towards Maddy – something poor little Maddy  is obviously starving for. Kate needs to do it now, before it is too late.

Body Language Fallout from the 70’s from John Phillips to Roman Polanski Where “Free Love” and No Boundaries Came Back to Haunt Them


The recent horrific allegations that McKenzie Phillips made about her rock star father having  a sexual relationship with her when she was  younger and now the arrest of film director Roman Polanski in Zurich where he may be  extradited back to the US to face charges for having sex with a 13 year old girl at the time back in 1977 is testimony to what happens when drug takes over one’s life and all moral boundaries fly out the window.

      MacKenzie said in her Oprah interview that she forgave her father just as the now 45 year old woman Samantha Geimer who long ago identified herself publically forgave Polanski for what he did to her 30 years ago. But there is no doubt that psychological damage from these misguided acts tormented these two women their entire lives. We certainly saw evidence of this with MacKenzie Phillip with yet another drug bust under her belt  a year ago and her countless stints in rehab. And we have also  seen how the repercussions of Polanski’s act  affected  Smantha Geimer  who wants the case dropped against Roman Polnski so that she and her family can finally get on with her life.

    There is no doubt that Roman Polanski had many psychological issues due to the repercussions of his parents being killed in a  concentration camp and he courageously  escaping the Holocaust having o fend for himself as a young boy. The Manson family murder of his then 8 month pregnant wife  Sharon Tate in 1974  didn’t help either. There is no doubt that Polanski went of the psychological deep end three years later in 1977 when he plied a young girl with a part of  a Quaalude ( a popular recreational drug during the 70’s) which he most likely took as well and then had sex with her. He plead guilty to one of the charges against him and was sent to prison for 42 days of evaluation which lawyers agreed would be his full sentence. Unfortunately the now deceased judge tried to renege on the plea bargain so Polanski fled to France where he remained productive in the film world, accomplishing film masterpieces like the Oscar winning film “The Pianist: in 2002  that have subsequently enriched and enlightened  the world. He has been married to French singer and actress Emanulle Seigner since 1989 and has two children and has lived a productive life.

      While his act of having sex with a minor 30 years ago was wrong, I think it is even more wrong to

reawaken case by bringing him back to the US and retrying him for statutory rape. He made amends

with his victim as she won a large  sum of money in a civil suit against him. She has made peace with the

situation. She has moved on and has even been one of the biggest supporters in terms of dropping the

criminal case against Polanski. In fact reportedly told the court in a written statement:

“If Polanski cannot stand before the court to make this request, I, as the victim, can and I, as the victim do. I have urged that this matter come to a formal legal end. I have urged that the district attorney and the court dismiss these charges.   She also says how  continual discussion of the details of her case decades later by prosecutors “causes harm to her, to her husband and children.”

    For the sake of this woman’s mental health who has been victimized enough, I fully agree with her ithat  this case against Polanski  needs to be dropped. But what never needs to be dropped is  the awareness of how  all  proper judgment is thrown out the window enabling egregious behaviors like having sex with one’s child or having sex with an underage child  to  occur when there is the lethal combination of  a.  self entitlement, b. no boundaries, and  c. drugs.

   The Free Love Decade of the 70’s shows us that there was  defiantly no such thing as “Free Love”.  AS we have just seen, Love  always has boundaries especially when family members or young children are involved.  


Netanyahus Body Language at the UN Shows Grace, Elegance and Strength as He As States “Have You No Shame!”

There was nothing more egregious than the UN allowing one of the most ignorant humans in the world, Holocaust denier and hate monger Iran’s Ahmadinijad to speak. The fact that such countries as Israel and Canada did not even attend while the USA, UK, Austrailia, Cost Rica, France, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Italy, and New Zealand walked out as an act of defiance was a testimony to how people all over the world will not tolerate such hatred.
Israel’s Prime Minister’s Benyamin Netanyahu’s powerful body language and rich resonant voice quality showed a true leader who handled the situation grace, aplomb, and firm strength as he addressed the members of the at the UN General Assembly in response to the Iranian President’s disgraceful speech. He also urged the international community to stop Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Here is Netanyahu’s powerful and moving speech.
Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland.
I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.
The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events.

Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth. Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.

Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments. Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie?

And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie? One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife’s grandparents, her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.

What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You’re wrong.

History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries. In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.

Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.

It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.

The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day. Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially.

It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.

I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances – by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after an horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind. That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction.

The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world’s most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn’t get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.

Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country’s civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians – Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.

That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances. Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas.

We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave. Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy’s civilian population from harm’s way.

Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice.

Delegates of the United Nations,

Will you accept this farce?

Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity. And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Here’s why.

When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense. What legitimacy? What self-defense?

The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us –my people, my country – of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

All of Israel wants peace.

Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein. And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace. In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples – a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it.

We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state. Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers.

Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more.” These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city, in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem.

We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland. As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity.

But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.

That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized. We don’t want another Gaza, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv.

We want peace.

I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order. The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the “confirmed unteachability of mankind,” the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the “want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”

I speak here today in the hope that Churchill’s assessment of the “unteachibility of mankind” is for once proven wrong.

I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history — that we can prevent danger in time.

In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.

MacKenzie Phillips Body Language on Oprah Shows She Was Absolutely Tellling the Truth

      McKenzie Phillips on Oprah

It is so unthinkable and so against society’s “mores” that it is no wonder that many may not want to believe MacKenzie Phillip’s story when she appeared on Oprah saying  that she consensual incestual sex with her late rock star father John Phillips . But according to her body language and voice charactertistics, MacKenzie Phillips  was indeed being honest and forthright and telling the truth.

In fact, her stepmother  Genevieve Waite as so appalled by the news that she released a statement denouncing McKenzie’s Phillips’ story by stating

“I am stunned by Mackenzie’s terrible allegations about her father. I would often complain about her overly familiar attitudes towards him, and he said it was just her way. John was a good man. … He was incapable, no matter how drunk or drugged he was, to have sexual relations with his own child.”

   Genevieve’s statement actually confirms the closeness between MacKenzie and John as she mentions that MacKenzie’s “overly familiar attitudes towards him”. When she  states “He was incapable, no matter how drunk or drugged he was, to have sexual relations with his own child.” She is clearly in denial as a) she wasn’t there or privey to what went on between them as only they knew and b) when someone is drunk or drugged, all boundaries fly out the window. People do horrible things under the influence. Having sex with one’s daughter is one of those things.

  No matter what anyone believes, according to her body language and voice and speech patterns MacKenzie showed no signs of deception. She expressed herself openly and never hesitiated. She looked directly at Oprah when she spoke. She was definite both in her verbal  statements as well as  how she confidently held her body as she made those statements. Her voice was strong and inflected as she expressed the  myriad of emotions  she felt as she described her horrific past. Her eyes were wide open, her posture was open and she  spoke in a strong deliberate resonant voice.

  It was clear that McKenzie was not proud of her past but is clearly dealing with it as best as she can . The fact that  she has openly accepted and admitted  her past including  her life of drug use and  the egregious behavior with her father speaks volumes. It took a lot of courage  for her to do this and it is no doubt going to help her on her road to healing