Pages: 1 2 |
|
 Print This Post
|
Consider what appears to be his titular point:
We’ve had strange weather lately, as you don’t need me to tell you. A big tree blew over over [sic] on our property. That was an act of God. Parts of it landed on my neighbor’s property. Another act of God. It was my responsibility to pay for its removal. If I’m going to go around growing trees, I have to pay if they get blown over. You can be sure my neighbor will pay if one of his trees blows this way. And if my neighbor could prove that I was trying to cut the tree down (for fuel, let’s say) and it fell the wrong way, he’d have grounds for a lawsuit. Especially if it fell on his house and he could no longer live there.
BP had a very big tree that blew down in the Gulf. It was not looking after it properly. It ignored or evaded safety regulations. It possibly bore criminal responsibility. The tree fell on my property. BP should have to pay to remove that tree, right?
Yes, BP should pay, if they are found culpable in a court of law! See, we have this thing called due process which entitles parties to something resembling a fair trial. It can be awfully inconvenient, especially for plaintiffs who have been harmed and feel entitled to restitution and a pinch of revenge. Still, it has the virtue of bolstering civilization by dispensing with the injustice of lynch mobs, family feuds, and duals with pistols at dawn.
I get that Ebert wants BP to pay. I get that Ebert hates corporations. I get that Ebert is not terribly fond of capitalism, profit motive, and the unwashed masses roaming free. However, none of that justifies circumventing the rule of law, as the administration did when it shook down BP for a $20 billion escrow fund to pay for damages not yet found as legal fact.
Bolstering his sophomoric arguments, Ebert spouts questionable assertions as if they were self-evidently true. He claims to be privy to a litany of facts which convict BP, citing sources for none. He meanders off-topic for nearly half his post, as he acknowledges. Yet, his blog is regarded for its “clarity and depth” which will cement his “literary legacy” in “lasting value.”
Please.
Ebert may be a fine film critic, and is certainly as entitled to express his opinion as anyone. However, let’s not confuse his ability to string words together with “clarity,” or his capacity to put a lot of sentences on a page as “depth.” Ebert is a Leftist. His accolades are nods to that alignment, in honor of his place in pop culture, and indicative of nothing else.
—
Walter Hudson is a political commentator, activist, and Tea Party coordinator from the Twin Cities. He runs a blog and internet radio show, both entitled Fightin Words. He also contributes to True North, a hub of conservative Minnesotan commentary. Follow his work via Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.
