Fuck Mark Wahlberg

[lepercolony 275]

i'll admit it's been refreshing to see some local backlash against a hometown hero -- usually if you have roots in this state you're an automatic saint.

 

 

http://www.boston.com/entertainment/celebrity/2014/12/04/mark-wahlberg-applies-for-pardon-boston-assault-case/gDp9nX8sfbZo5G2Xb8VcbM/story.html

 

 

"Wahlberg wrote that the easiest answer as to why he’s applying for this pardon is that his record generally keeps him from obtaining things like a concessionaire’s license—hindering his personal involvement in various restaurant ventures—and from obtaining positions in law enforcement to help at-risk youth."

 

he's missing out on business ventures like his brother's burger chain.  single tear.

 

http://www.boston.com/entertainment/celebrity/2014/12/11/johnny-trinh-mark-wahlberg-would-like-see-him-get-pardon/qxjLVcSVAxs3O8QOK1UJcI/story.html

 

somewhat telling that, despite his significant resources and access to his victim's identity via court documents, Wahlberg failed to reach out to this dude before applying for the pardon.

 

 

all of that's secondary though.  what it comes down to for me is the message this would send.  one more celebrity getting a pass for being a celebrity.  i think the message that would be sent by denying his pardon is a better one -- that no matter what you do in life, you're accountable for your actions.

 

so, in closing, fuck Mark Wahlberg. 

 

and while i'm at it, fuck Transformers -- i hope he's saddled with that shitty franchise for the rest of his life.  (or they can just stop making those movies -- that would work for me too.)

 

 

 

that's it, Happy Friday guys.

[deterioration 443]

Here, here! Fuck him!!! Scumbag Masshole! So not a fan.

[Drifter 851]

Normally I agree that famous people should not be treated special over anyone else, but in this case I think you are looking at this from a different angle than what the nature of the "pardon" actually is. This isn't what most people think of when they hear the word pardon. It's not a pardon for someone that is trying to get out of prison or someone trying to hide a crime. Pardons like these happen all the time and not just with famous people but everyday people as well. Prime example would be myself. Because I was stupid when I was younger and have DUI's on my record if I ever want to go back to Canada I would be forced to petition the Canadian Gov for a pardon just so I could legally cross the border into Canada. Walberg is simply having to do somewhat of the same thing so he can go more into the restaurant business, so he's having to jump through the hoops because of something he did 26 yrs ago. He's changed his life drastically since then so I have no problem with him seeking a pardon for business reasons.

[Sennex 1,903]

I have a problem with how some of the Ex-convict population in this country is treated in comparison to other countries.

I honestly think we should be a shade more forgiving in some areas and a shade less in others.

I'll just leave it at that, as I don't want to derail this thread

[deterioration 443]

Beating people is a lot different than having a few and driving.

On the CA thing: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?q=143&t=8

$ talks

[BO7H B4RRELS 2,453]

I don't think that beating someone up is worse than driving while intoxicated.  I'd rather be beat up than hit and killed by a drunk driver. 

[deterioration 443]

I don't think that beating someone up is worse than driving while intoxicated.  I'd rather be beat up than hit and killed by a drunk driver. 

 

You bump your head? That's just silly. Driving while intoxicated does not automatically mean you're going to KILL someone. Keep in mind you're on the road with people everyday that are on prescription medication which impairs their driving worse than alcohol. Physically beating someone is far worse than what ever version of impaired driving law enforcement chooses to enforce in order to generate conviction quotas, revenue and sell the public a false sense of saftey.

[Docwagon 856]

You bump your head? That's just silly. Driving while intoxicated does not automatically mean you're going to KILL someone. Keep in mind you're on the road with people everyday that are on prescription medication which impairs their driving worse than alcohol. Physically beating someone is far worse than what ever version of impaired driving law enforcement chooses to enforce in order to generate conviction quotas, revenue and sell the public a false sense of saftey.

 

Shooting into a crowd doesn't automatically mean you're going to kill someone either, but you are unacceptably increasing your risk of doing so and thus its illegal.  The level of risk is commiserate with the level of punishment.  Shooting the hypothetical gun into a crowd is a bigger risk, so its a bigger punishment.  Driving impaired is a smaller risk, and is a smaller punishment.  At least in my state, drugs (legal or illegal) are a grounds for an impaired driving arrest, but its generally harder to detect and requires a blood draw as it won't show on a breath test.  

 

Over 10,000 people killed in drunk driving crashes in 2012.  678 killed by "personal weapons" (punches, kicks, pushing, violent shaking, etc.)  I think DUI enforcement is over politicized due to MADD and the like, but saying working on a problem that kills 10k Americans a year its based on quotas and revenue is ignorant.  About 300 are killed with rifles, and the country goes fucking nuts about banning certain styles of rifles, background checks, etc.  10k die to drunk drivers,  and enforcement is about quotas and revenue?  Come on.

[Drifter 851]

When I was younger and got my DUI's I never blew lower than a .23 on any of them which means I was smashed every time I was rightfully pulled over. I had no business being behind the wheel of a car. I put the lives of anyone on the road at risk back then and never gave a second thought about it because I was an addicted idiot at that point in my life. I'm just lucky that I did not kill anyone and ruin the lives of innocent people as well as my own and my family. Hitting someone with a stick would have been much less of a risk than what I did back then.

[deterioration 443]

Shooting into a crowd doesn't automatically mean you're going to kill someone either, but you are unacceptably increasing your risk of doing so and thus its illegal.  The level of risk is commiserate with the level of punishment.  Shooting the hypothetical gun into a crowd is a bigger risk, so its a bigger punishment.  Driving impaired is a smaller risk, and is a smaller punishment.  At least in my state, drugs (legal or illegal) are a grounds for an impaired driving arrest, but its generally harder to detect and requires a blood draw as it won't show on a breath test.  

 

Over 10,000 people killed in drunk driving crashes in 2012.  678 killed by "personal weapons" (punches, kicks, pushing, violent shaking, etc.)  I think DUI enforcement is over politicized due to MADD and the like, but saying working on a problem that kills 10k Americans a year its based on quotas and revenue is ignorant.  About 300 are killed with rifles, and the country goes fucking nuts about banning certain styles of rifles, background checks, etc.  10k die to drunk drivers,  and enforcement is about quotas and revenue?  Come on.

 

 

Yes it’s the same here. What I was getting at is there are more impaired drivers than just the drunk ones. The person driving around on their newly prescribed anti-anxiety meds that they haven’t acclimated to is just as dangerous as me after 3 beers driving home from a friend’s house. Maybe more so considering factors which are not considered in the 0.08% law. If I kill someone on 3 beers I’m a fucking scumbag lowlife. If someone on prescription meds that shouldn’t be driving kills someone they receive pity. If actual factual data could be compiled I’m almost certain 80+% of all accidents, fatal or not, are in some way associated with impaired driving involving people not on illegal drugs or under the influence of alcohol.

 

To suggest the game of enforcing drunk/drugged driving is flawed is not ignorant. It’s morphed from working on a problem to annual report numbers and making money. “Safety” is a byproduct of the revenue machine. You don’t have to agree. Maybe you’re not aware that NY is or was talking about taking peoples cars if they get a DWI or of the ignition interlock devices which are now standard issue. That… fines, DMV driver assessment fines, lawyer fees, mandatory classes, insurance rate hikes etc... It's a money maker. I understand it might be different elsewhere. I happen to live in a terribly politically corrupt area. So my post was with bias not lack of knowledge. I’m 100% for alcohol enforcement. I just don’t agree with the black and white of the law and the gray area everyone impaired not driving with illegal drugs and/or alcohol in their system enjoys.

[Docwagon 856]

Yes it’s the same here. What I was getting at is there are more impaired drivers than just the drunk ones. The person driving around on their newly prescribed anti-anxiety meds that they haven’t acclimated to is just as dangerous as me after 3 beers driving home from a friend’s house. Maybe more so considering factors which are not considered in the 0.08% law. If I kill someone on 3 beers I’m a fucking scumbag lowlife. If someone on prescription meds that shouldn’t be driving kills someone they receive pity. If actual factual data could be compiled I’m almost certain 80+% of all accidents, fatal or not, are in some way associated with impaired driving involving people not on illegal drugs or under the influence of alcohol.

 

To suggest the game of enforcing drunk/drugged driving is flawed is not ignorant. It’s morphed from working on a problem to annual report numbers and making money. “Safety” is a byproduct of the revenue machine. You don’t have to agree. Maybe you’re not aware that NY is or was talking about taking peoples cars if they get a DWI or of the ignition interlock devices which are now standard issue. That… fines, DMV driver assessment fines, lawyer fees, mandatory classes, insurance rate hikes etc... It's a money maker. I understand it might be different elsewhere. I happen to live in a terribly politically corrupt area. So my post was with bias not lack of knowledge. I’m 100% for alcohol enforcement. I just don’t agree with the black and white of the law and the gray area everyone impaired not driving with illegal drugs and/or alcohol in their system enjoys.

 

Here dedicated DUI enforcement is done by targeting high crash areas.  The state loses money on DUIs for the indigent.  The state pays for the jailing fees, pays the public defender, pays the prosecutor, pays the cop, pays the court staff, etc.  The convicted gets declared indigent, has fines and court fees waived, pays a $185 drug and alcohol fee for mandatory alcohol/drug rehab sessions...and that's it.  If it was about revenue, you'd just target upscale bars.  People who aren't indigent can pay fines instead of doing jail time.  There are only so many ways to influence human behavior, and since we aren't going to start caning people, financial loss or jail time is about all we have.

 

The 80% stat is way out there.  Most crashes don't involve any impairment at all, other than "head up butt" syndrome or misjudging distances.  The two leading causes of crashes are failure to yield on left turn and following too closely.  I don't have any breakdown on fatal vs non-fatal.

 

Like I said, the issue with prescription drugs is one of detection.  Alcohol is just easier to enforce.  You can smell it on the breath, it produces changes in the eyes that are easily observed, breath machines make for quick and accurate measurement, and there are a butt ton of studies about how impaired someone is at a certain level.  Prescription drugs are odorless, only detectable via blood test, AND require medical training to detect.  That's why fatal crashes here are mandatory blood draws.  Its just unrealistic to expect a cop to have the knowledge and equipment to detect prescription meds (although there are training classes called DRE (Drug Recognition Expert) that does this, a work up takes about 2 hours for one driver).  Absent statues that make a blood draw mandatory, probable cause must be developed, and given the limitations described its very difficult to do so.

[deterioration 443]

Here dedicated DUI enforcement is done by targeting high crash areas.  The state loses money on DUIs for the indigent.  The state pays for the jailing fees, pays the public defender, pays the prosecutor, pays the cop, pays the court staff, etc.  The convicted gets declared indigent, has fines and court fees waived, pays a $185 drug and alcohol fee for mandatory alcohol/drug rehab sessions...and that's it.  If it was about revenue, you'd just target upscale bars.  People who aren't indigent can pay fines instead of doing jail time.  There are only so many ways to influence human behavior, and since we aren't going to start caning people, financial loss or jail time is about all we have.

 

The 80% stat is way out there.  Most crashes don't involve any impairment at all, other than "head up butt" syndrome or misjudging distances.  The two leading causes of crashes are failure to yield on left turn and following too closely.  I don't have any breakdown on fatal vs non-fatal.

 

Like I said, the issue with prescription drugs is one of detection.  Alcohol is just easier to enforce.  You can smell it on the breath, it produces changes in the eyes that are easily observed, breath machines make for quick and accurate measurement, and there are a butt ton of studies about how impaired someone is at a certain level.  Prescription drugs are odorless, only detectable via blood test, AND require medical training to detect.  That's why fatal crashes here are mandatory blood draws.  Its just unrealistic to expect a cop to have the knowledge and equipment to detect prescription meds (although there are training classes called DRE (Drug Recognition Expert) that does this, a work up takes about 2 hours for one driver).  Absent statues that make a blood draw mandatory, probable cause must be developed, and given the limitations described its very difficult to do so.

 

I just had typed a nice reply and was searching information on how and what meds can trip breathalyzer readings, Flash crashed and I lost it. I'll just say thank you. The topic is interesting to me. O, and the caning ling gave me the giggles.

[lepercolony 275]

Normally I agree that famous people should not be treated special over anyone else, but in this case I think you are looking at this from a different angle than what the nature of the "pardon" actually is. This isn't what most people think of when they hear the word pardon. It's not a pardon for someone that is trying to get out of prison or someone trying to hide a crime. Pardons like these happen all the time and not just with famous people but everyday people as well. Prime example would be myself. Because I was stupid when I was younger and have DUI's on my record if I ever want to go back to Canada I would be forced to petition the Canadian Gov for a pardon just so I could legally cross the border into Canada. Walberg is simply having to do somewhat of the same thing so he can go more into the restaurant business, so he's having to jump through the hoops because of something he did 26 yrs ago. He's changed his life drastically since then so I have no problem with him seeking a pardon for business reasons.

 

yeah in this case i'm opposed because of his celebrity.  like i wouldn't be opposed to your pardon because it wouldn't be sending a message to anyone (no offense, you know what i mean).  more than that though, if i had any suspicions that he was doing this for any reason other than to make more money than he already does, i wouldn't have an opinion on this.  but i don't have those suspicions.  i just fail to see a good or important reason to grant one in this case.  in fact i could probably argue that this would hurt society more than help it.

 

 

 

though i will say in retrospect that he was one of the best things about The Departed.

[lepercolony 275]

also, i'd say one important difference between how prescription drugs and alcohol are viewed by the law in this case would be that no doctor is prescribing a "few drinks" for health reasons.  in other words, i think the legal difference as far as punishment goes is appropriate when it comes to being under the influence for recreation (knocking back some beers) vs. a prescription, all things considered.  i don't think that difference should be ignored, regardless of how you feel about prescription medications.

[lepercolony 275]

Reminder That Mark Wahlberg Allegedly Threw Rocks, Slurs, At 4th Grade Class in 1986

 

http://www.bdcwire.com/reminder-that-mark-wahlberg-allegedly-threw-rocks-slurs-at-4th-grade-class-in-1986/?p1=Topofpage:Carousel_sub_headline

 

 

 

again . . . single freaking tear for Mark Wahlberg and his obstacles.  my thoughts and prayers are with his family during what is surely a very difficult time for their franchise.

[Drifter 851]

Man you must really hate him lol

 

I dunno man. I mean there's not many people that haven't done some fucked up shit in their lives by the time they are in their 40's. It's just not everyone gets caught. If he did some shit recently that would be one thing, but to dig up stuff from 30 years ago when he was a kid. I have a hard time holding those types of things against people as long as they are no longer like that.

[techno 3,511]

Man you must really hate him lol

I dunno man. I mean there's not many people that haven't done some fucked up shit in their lives by the time they are in their 40's. It's just not everyone gets caught. If he did some shit recently that would be one thing, but to dig up stuff from 30 years ago when he was a kid. I have a hard time holding those types of things against people as long as they are no longer like that.

Reading about this I have to say those are my thoughts as well.

[jordie1892 681]

Man you must really hate him lol

 

I dunno man. I mean there's not many people that haven't done some fucked up shit in their lives by the time they are in their 40's. It's just not everyone gets caught. If he did some shit recently that would be one thing, but to dig up stuff from 30 years ago when he was a kid. I have a hard time holding those types of things against people as long as they are no longer like that.

My thoughts too. Someone would have to do something ridiculously bad for me to not forgive them after 28 years.

[lepercolony 275]

that's all fair, but in my opinion he's not asking for forgiveness, he's asking for a raise. 

 

if he was interested in forgiveness -- and i'm just spitballing here -- i'd think he would've contacted the guy he assaulted.  like, once.  just sayinnnnn.

[deterioration 443]

If it was about revenue, you'd just target upscale bars.

State Police do exactly this here. I've seen it many times.

 

 

I understand this might be interpreted as me trying to aggravate you but it isn't. I feel I should share this as days before I was trying to express how bad of an issue it is. *Coming up from the end after reading this again it kind of seems like one of those social media made up stories to produce a desired response but it isn’t. This actually happened.

 

A guy I work with was in my office the other day, he’s buddy-buddy with my manager, explaining how he complained to his Doctor that his pain management was no longer as effective and he didn’t “want to take 10 pills a day” so the Doctor gave him stronger meds. So strong he was slurring with eyes rolling up in his half shut eyes and swaying around. This is after the cocksucker drove to work mind you.

 

So Wednesday I leave to go to lunch and the local FD had a large stretch of the road shut off and was redirecting cars around an accident. Yeah he crashed driving to work. Cherry on top is this is the second car he’s totaled in the past three months. I’m so fucking pissed right now my heart is pounding. So he comes back to work after being bussed to the Hospital and I learn it was him in the accident that closed the road. So I hook in for information and manage to only get what kind of car he was involved in the accident with because he’s still high and side skirting any details relating to fault, scenario, etc... It’s the same color/make/model as my best friends Grandfathers car. He’s away for job training right now and I don’t have the heart to call him and ask if it was his Grandfather knowing his family probably hasn’t told him because he’s away from home. I pray it wasn't. This guy has been in two major wrecks and the Police haven’t checked him once for impairment. I know I have to call my friend. If it was his Grandfather I’m going to do whatever I can to make sure the Police know. In my mind I should either way.

 

Maybe I didn’t express my thoughts well enough earlier but never checking to see if driving while ability impaired is a reason behind an accident and only targeting Alcohol because its easier to detect and a great vehicle to generate revenue is a major problem.

 

 

 

that's all fair, but in my opinion he's not asking for forgiveness, he's asking for a raise. 

 

if he was interested in forgiveness -- and i'm just spitballing here -- i'd think he would've contacted the guy he assaulted.  like, once.  just sayinnnnn.

All through this I've been reminded of Leo's line in 2006 - The Departed. I think he was but I don't remember exactly if he was explaining Mark Wahlberg's character but the line "a slight air of scumbag entitlement" keeps playing in my mind when thinking of Mark. The dude is full on Hollywood now. Kissing asses and going out of his way to tell everyone how great they are. This strikes me as a joke considering his whole feel the bad ass thug underwear salesman vibrations. Now he's batting his puppy dog eyes trying to make more money. That’s how it seems to me, a cynic, on the outside looking in.