Legal Issues/Lawsuits
Donnie Wahlberg In Plain Site (USA Network) Interview Transcript Added
Mar 31st
UPDATE: I must mention, I haven’t watched this episode yet. In fact, I have the series waiting for me, so I haven’t watched any of them yet (so much school work!) Do be sure to check out Donnie in one of my favorite series, BOOMTOWN…the first season of that show is available on DVD. He’s fantastic in it.
I’ve attached the transcript from the chat we had with Donnie Wahlberg who guest starred on tonight’s season 3 premiere of In Plain Sight on USA.
They cut off some of my banter with Donnie, which sucked, as it had to do with the question I asked him…Click the link for the full transcript. Here’s my question:
Moderator: Our next question is from Josh Bozeman, The Bluesite.com. Please go ahead.
J. Bozeman I’ve actually been going through the Boom Town on DVD the first and second season, great work there. I wondered is it hard for you to transition, you do two seasons a show or three seasons here or a movie there, and there are gaps in between it. Is it hard for you to transition between character to character?
D. Wahlberg It depends. It’s always easier if you like the material. If I read a character that just jumps of the page at me, then that usually gets my juices flowing and gets me really excited about wanting to do it. Sometimes I can read a script and just really ideas and idiosyncratic behaviors are just popping in my mind about a character.
But the reality is we work in a business where we’re at the mercy of a lot of outside factors. With Boom Town, I had a great time. I loved going to work every day. I loved my character, I loved the show. I loved the people I worked with. But there’s an audience that has certain demands. There’s a network and sponsors and all these different people who have certain demands. If we can’t meet them, which is really beyond my control, then the show stops.
I think I do a pretty good job of letting go of that which I cannot control in this business. It’s my obligation and responsibility is to bring as much realness to whatever character I play, to be as committed as possible to the project and the character. That’s why I gravitate towards material that I like. If I read a script and I don’t like it or I don’t find something that I think would be fun or challenging in a character, I generally walk away from it. I think giving my all to what I do is really the only thing I can control and what’s what I try to focus on.
It’s easy to change gears and go from character to character if I’m committed and focus. It’s not easy if I don’t care about what I’m doing. It becomes a burden and a drag. So I try not to do that.
911/Dispatch Calls Released Shows No Race Mention in Prof Gates Arrest
Jul 27th
As suspected by any rational, sane human- the woman who called 911 to report, what looked to be a possible burglary at the home of Professor Henry Louis Gates, never mentioned anything about the two men barging in being “black.” She did mention, when asked about the men, that one MAY have looked hispanic, but that’s all. There’s not a shred of evidence to think race played any role in sending police to investigate.
Listen to the 911 call here:
Also released was the police dispatch conversation. You can clearly hear race is never mentioned in the conversations between police and dispatchers, and that the officer on scene mentioned that the man who owns the house (Gates) was “not cooperative.”
Listen to that audio here:
It was obvious from the start that Gates, a man who has made his career obsessing over race, was never a target of any racial profiling, and there was never a shred of evidence to suggest racism on part of any of the officers involved, dispatch, or anyone else BESIDES Professor Gates himself.
Police investigated a possible crime that was called in through 911, they ran into instant resistance from a man filled with anger at whites, and they told him to calm down. When he refused to calm down (all officers involved, including a black officer himself) back the account that Gates was ballistic and refused to calm himself), they arrested him, took him down, booked him, and let him go. Charges were dropped, and that should have been it. Gates, however, like other race hustlers (Jackson and Sharpton, and even Obama’s own spiritual mentor, Rev Jeremiah Wright), turned it instantly into a racial issue, and the president stupidly followed suit by attacking police.
This story is finished, Gates needs to publicly apologize. If he refuses, he needs to immediately resign his post at Harvard University. President Obama needs to finally make a public apology to Officer Crowley and the entire Cambridge Police Department. He needs to admit he acted stupidly and move on. He also needs to stop pushing his way into issues of race altogether, as his own past sins of being a part of a virulently anti-white church for 20 years renders him ineligible to even speak to the subject.
Blowback Against Obama for His Attack on Cambridge Police
Jul 24th
Beautiful. I have a feeling America is waking up to the radical that is Barack Obama. His offensive statements attacking the Cambridge officers who arrested Henry Louis Gates as acting “stupidly” in this matter needed a swift and loud response.
Racial demagogues like Gates and Obama (who, as you will recall, spent 20 years in a radical, racist, anti-american church) need to get off the national stage now, and they need to stay off for good.
Sotomayor’s Disturbing Race-Based Adjudication
May 28th
By now, we’ve all heard about Sonia Sotomayor’s view of race and deciding issues of law as a jurist. No doubt, most find it disturbing.
As the NY Times reports:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
Off course, this brings up all sorts of issues. Isn’t it a tad bit racist to think a latina woman is somehow superior in matters of law than a white man? What life is it exactly that a latina woman has lived that a white male has not, and how does it improve her ability to decide matters of law?
Like most liberals, Sotomayor has an obsession with gender and race. Racial and gender politics are old, and most Americans have grown weary of both. If a conservative justice had made such a comment that as a white male he could better decide cases than a latina woman, there would be national outrage, and he’d never have a chance at being confirmed by any senate on earth. This double standard is old, tired, and disgusting. Yet, the left consistently uses these arguments and is never held accountable.
The biggest problem of all with Sotomayor’s comment? Notice lady justice below. Check out her eyes. Yeah, that’s right, in case you didn’t recall, justice is SUPPOSED to be blind. Not so with liberals like Sotomayor, and not so with liberals like Barack Obama.
The media will turn this into an argument against conservatives, and they will, no doubt, make it out to be a racial issue. Hispanics nationwide will rejoice that someone sharing their skin tone is nominated, to hell with the disturbing values Sotomayor seems to have regarding the role of the courts. Liberal hypocrisy will win the day again, and Americans will be just as dumb as they ever were.
Barack Obama Should Have Had the Decency to Reject Notre Dame’s Speech Offer
May 17th
Barack Obama- the one thing people often say about him, seeminly more than anything else, is that he’s a mystery. You never know where he truly stands on many issues. He seems to take the position that stands to gain him more power in his very very short pursuit of the highest office in the land. This is why people from both sides of the aisle sometimes say they like him- it’s so easy to project onto him your own personal views, mainly because he’s seemingly so wishy washy on his own views, and he often refuses to take a firm stance on much of anything.
We do, however, know where Obama stands on abortion. He is radically pro-abortion, despite his insistence that we have fewer of them. In his time in the IL State Senate, we know he voted “present” several times on state bills to help infants born alive after botched abortions. Infanticide is a very radical stance, even among most liberals, but Obama had no problem, again refusing to take a firm stance with a vote. We know that his first couple of acts as president reversed federal rules in place to limit abortions and the use of stem cell lines. Thanks to Obama, your tax money goes to fund abortions overseas now, a rule put into place under George W Bush.
Obama’s radical stance on abortion is why he should have rejected Notre Dame’s offer for him to be their commencement speaker. Notre Dame is arguably the most important Catholic institution in the West. It’s a sacred place for the Catholic Church, and with Obama’s background on abortion, he should have had the decency to politely decline the offer to speak. His address to the students was a slap in the face to Catholics across the nation. Notre Dame’s administration should also be ashamed for its actions in this whole ordeal. Honoring a man whose views contradict basic Catholic teachings with an honorary degree from the nation’s premiere Catholic institution is a disgrace. It shows that some among the university’s administration easily toss basic doctrinal issues aside. One has to wonder what other core beliefs Notre Dame will ignore for political points?
The fact that many of the students chanted, “yes we can” is, in itself, a disgrace to the university as well. Apparently, young people are out to prove the stereotype- to hell with rules, I’ll make them up as I go along. Forget what the Bible teaches, we can ignore the parts we don’t like as long as it makes us feel good. This do-whatever attitude is at the root of our nation’s moral breakdown. Embracing a president whose values completely contradict the very basic values that all life is sacred will, no doubt, lead to the downfall of Notre Dame as a premiere Catholic institution, and as well it should. When even many of the administrators toss aside doctrine on a whim, you know there are serious foundational problems. Obama should have had the decency to thank Notre Dame for its offer and politely said, “no.” Unfortunately, that’s just not the kind of man our new president is.
Doesn’t the FDA Have Better Things to Do Than Warn Cheerios?
May 13th
Stupid of the day. The FDA has sent a warning letter to General Mills, saying that the claims that Cheerios can lower cholesterol by 10 points in a month makes the food a drug, and no drugs can be sold without the proper FDA drug application. They have given the company 15 days to explain how it will change the advertising.
They’re not disputing the claims that it helps lower cholesterol (the science seems to be on Cheerios’ side), but it’s all about making health claims. A food product maker is apparently not allowed to make truthful claims about its products!
This is what happens when government gets so big and so powerful, you get career idiots in there, living off of large sums of taxpayer dollars in posh offices, totally clueless as to how the real world works. This is why we fight for smaller government. It makes people go mad when they have too much power. This is the sort of thing you hear and you just have to ask yourself, “what on earth are these fools thinking?”
More Proof Unions Don’t Care About Workers: CA Union Sues Governor
Dec 23rd
Governor A’hnald of California has demanded state employees take 2 unpaid days starting in February as a cost-saving measure. According to new reports, the state of California could be broke in 2 months. So, they save money or peoplee start losing jobs (more jobs than have already been lost), what’s a union boss to do? Well, he sues, of course, saying the governor has no authority to make such a demand.
I’m no legal scholar, and the complicated union rules would confuse most of us. I do know one thing, however, and that’s unions are interested in one thing– lining their pockets with union dues. Most of these couldn’t care less about the workers, rather the money the workers pay (and are sometimes forced to pay) them in dues and fees.
Save the state from financial ruin, or whine like a baby? In the end, these fools make these demands, but they’re still forced to take the days off and a lot of people lose their jobs because some idiot said to hell with cost-saving measures, I’m all about getting mine and getting it now!
People amaze me.
Is Alexandra Van Horn the Devil?
Dec 21st
So, The California Supreme Court has 3 possibly sane justices and 4 bat shit crazy justices. In their infinite wisdom, they decided it’s now legal for people to sue those who come to their aid in an emergency. The ruling is the result of a suit brought by the world’s biggest idiot (and possibly the devil in human form), Alexandra Van Horn who sued her friend after they were both involved in a high speed car accident. The friend says she thought she saw smoke and had a feeling the car would catch fire. So, she pulled Van Horn from the vehicle. Van Horn’s (scumbag) lawyers argue that the friend yanked Van Horn out of the car like a rag doll. Van Horn is now paralyzed– from all the information I could find, she’s probably in this state because of the crash itself, but of course her whores for attorneys want the dough, and they argue the friend caused the paralysis.
Let’s hope karma is real…here’s hoping the next crash Van Horn is in causes serious injury, someone hears about the case and decides not to help her for fear that this bitch will sue them like the piece of shit she is, the car explodes and she burns to a crisp. I’m sorry, but wouldn’t that be the ultimate irony?
Van Horn– perhaps you need to look into acquiring a life? And maybe a soul while you’re at it?
CA Supreme Court– maybe you idiots can get your heads out of your asses with inane legal rulings like this? As if your state isn’t enough of a national embarassment already, you go and pull shit like this.
This world is going to hell in a handbasket in a hurry.
This link here shows us why lawyers cannot be trusted, and why most of them need to be taken out back behind the shed and put down like ol yeller. How these dirtballs sleep at night is a mystery.
UPDATE: I found more information on this story, and it seems it was two cars. Van Horn in one and the friend in the second car. 4 co-workers…they went back to one of their houses to smoke pot on Halloween then went out to a bar. I take it back– I hope they all die for being so f’ing stupid. Here’s a question– were the drivers arrested for driving while intoxicated? Are young people (and people in general) really this stupid? If there’s one thing I truly despise, it’s a pot smoker. Dear Lord, it’s scary to be surrounded by idiots on all sides.
Dumbest Anti-Prop 8 Argument? “Human Right” to Have State Recognize Your Marriage?
Nov 23rd
One of the dumbest arguments I hear from supporters of gay marriage, and lately protesters of proposition 8 in California- marriage for ALL people is a human right. To oppose proposition 8 is to somehow stand up for human rights.
Jesus H Christ, this is the dumbest argument on the planet.
So, let me get this straight. Marriage is as old as mankind itself. Marriage, recognized by leaders of various communities throughout history has been 1 man and 1 woman. That has been the inherent definition of the entire institution. Gay marriage, which has existed for a couple of years (in some states) is somehow a basic human right? Nonsense. Clearly if a ”right” has only existed in any form for a mere handful of years, it isn’t much of a right to begin with. Human rights? To claim gay marriage is a human right is a slap in the face to all people. It’s offensive to the very idea of human rights. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are the basic human right as spelled out in the US Constitution, and they pretty well sum up human rights themselves, as they encompass a plethora of rights in general.
But a right to gay marriage? People have the basic human right to love whoever they choose to love, but to have the state recognize a union between two people. One, not only is that not a human right in any sense of the word, it’s surely not a right to be extended to any group of people, whether they be 2, 3, 4, or more together, just for the sake of supporting “human rights.” Two– allowing any group of people to join in any union they so choose and demanding that the state recognize it as a “marriage” degrades the instution of marriage and the right to that institution for one man and one woman. Marriage is sacred in that it IS unique. It is solely between one man and one woman. To allow gay marriage would, in theory and surely eventually in practice, demand that we extend this right to all people who join together in some sort of union, no matter how weird most of us think it is. Being weird shouldn’t exclude someone from gaining legal status under certain laws, but to come into a system thousands of years into the process and demand that the world kowtow to your demands that you completely and irreversibly change the very basic definition of that system is ludicrous.
Gay can marry already. There are literally thousands of churches who will be glad to violate the basic tenants of their religion to marry you as a couple. Why the state has to recognize that union and has to recognize it with the words “marriage,” I’ve no idea. And to rebut the argument that we not support gay “marriage” but rather gay “unions”- that idea is insanity that doesn’t even pretend to make any sense. A marriage is, in the eyes of the state, nothing more than a union. Supporting gay unions but not gay marriage (I support neither) is a laughable attempt at obfuscation. Marriage is, no doubt, the foundation of our society. But the important aspect is the religious, cultural, and societal message it sends, as well as the impact the recognization has on all of us as a nation. Gay union is a slipperly slope magic trick. You call them unions, you get people to accept them with that name, then you simply come in with the obvious argument that the state recognizes the union in a marriage, they don’t specifically recognize the religious implications that go along with it. Soon enough people are realizing that gay unions are, in fact marriages, just without the same title, so they soon allow that supporting unions is, in both in theory and practice, the same as supporting marriage itself. Thus, gay marriage across the land.
Gay marriage is clearly not a basic right. It most certainly is not a human right in any sense of the word. It’s not hate or hateful to oppose the concept as a whole, and it’s not mean to support bans to make sure the concept doesn’t turn into actual process. The rabid and the not-so-rabid protesters alike are coming up with some crazy arguments in support of what they really demand (notice I said demand and not what they want), which is total transformation of society. Down with the old order that cherished traditional core values, basic rights as promised by the founders, and the rule of common sense and reason. In with the new progressive rule complete with anything goes morality, a refusal to have any basic core values out of fear of not being totally inclusive, and the idea that as long as it feels good, go ahead and do it. The latter spells doom for our nation, and balllot initiatives like that in California are the only way to stop the constant assault on our national idenity itself.
Are Fools Running Golden Colorado? Time for a “Holiday Tree”
Nov 13th
Saw this story from the AP. A rabbi in Golden, Colorado wanted to put up a menorah next to the city Christmas tree and light display. Problem is, the menorah was 8 feet wide. Call me crazy, but it sounds the rabbi is trying to cause trouble and prove a point. This thing was 6 feet tall and 8 feet wide- it’s huge. I wouldn’t want to place it either.
Worse than the size, the Golden city council wants to ban ALL religious symbols from public land. They’re going to start calling their Christmas tree a holiday tree in order to be more “inclusive.”
A few points- you simply cannot ban religious symbols, especially not jewish or christian symbols. This nation is, and has always been, a nation founded in Judeo-Christian beliefs. The first Americans to colonize here were deevout Christians, the founders were, for the most part, devout Christians (no matter what the atheists try to tell you). Those two value systems dominate, and they form a sacred tradition that provides a rich history for the nation. There’s no logical argument to conclude that religious symbols can be banned to begin with…what part of free exercise is so hard to understand? What part of not inhibiting that exercise, in whatever form, is so complicated?
You have to wonder about people who go on and about on being inclusive. What does that even mean? To be truly inclusive, you must set aside all judgement and allow whatever and whenever. The idea of being inclusive usually gets tagged with a positive connotation, but for me it’s sort of like the people that constantly talk about not judging others. Of course I judge others…we all do, and we do it all the time. And thank God we do! Value judgements between right and wrong tell us who to associate with and who not to (our next president seems to lack this inherent sense, but that’s another story), what actions to take and what actions to stay away from, etc. They guide us in our lives, and they help us choose which path to follow. I don’t want to be inclusive to all, because a lot of value systems and the people who follow them are clearly wrong, often an annoyance, and sometimes even dangerous.
And this whole idea of calling a Christmas tree a holiday tree is insanity. It’s infuriating, because there’s no reason to do it. Christmas is a federally recognized holiday, plain and simple. It’s a Christian holiday for a Christian nation. You will never make everyone happy, so why piss off so many with actions like this? Call it a Christmas tree, alllow certain religious symbols, and fight your way to the US Supreme Court if it comes down to it. Sure, it’ll cost money, but is it more important to save the taxpayers money while flushing the Constitution or more important to worry about what the fight will cost you?
In the end, this shouldn’t be an issue at all. It’s a sign of the times that we even have to discuss this matter to begin with, and that is, more than anything else, a depressing fact.
Recent Comments