 |
| Still captured from videotape |
The 17-year-old had no business interfering with the lawful arrest of her friend, and shoving anyone, never mind a cop, is assault. The 17-year-old deserved to the arrested for what she did. But the punch was unnecessary to subdue the girl, whom was no physical match for the officer. He was facing the girl when he launched his punch.
Let me make myself clear: A police officer does not have a wild card option to use force out of context to the threat; the teenage girls were resisting an arrest, not attacking the officer. Officer Walsh should have responded coolly, proportionately, and professionally in dealing with a low-level offense--jaywalking.
In my judgment, Officer Walsh's behavior was unprofessional, over the line, and an abuse of authority. The knee-jerk defense of Walsh's response by the police chief and union representative is irresponsible; they have lost credibility with the community for trying to defend the indefensible. This may sound counterintuitive coming from a law-and-order conservative, but as an individualist, I am wary, in principle, of the imbalance of power between the individual and the collective and hence, the importance of negative rights and liberty. Whether we are talking about the Obama Administration's unconscionable intrusions into the private sector, killing the goose laying the golden egg, or the unnecessary use of force by local and state governments, the rights of the individual must be respected, and the exercise of authority and power must be commensurate with the situational context. [On a more personal note, I was not raised to punch teenage girls in the face...]
In Defense of Congressman Joe Barton
Tony Hayward, CEO of beleaguered BP, went to his public flogging, i.e., the Obama Inquisition, before the House as demagogues from both parties competed for televised sound bites and their politically courageous steps of making their feelings known about the most hated corporation in America and to speak up for small businesses, Gulf states and wildlife affected by the oil spill.
Before proceeding furthermore, I've been meaning to address Obama's BP scapegoating, constantly reminding us BP caused the spill. It is certainly true that BP was responsible for the drilling, and a fatal accident (of still undetermined combination of human error and mechanical failure) occurred, rupturing a pipeline and resulting in the spill occurred. However, Obama, as usual, engaged in nonproductive and unsupported rhetoric of BP's alleged "recklessness".
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990
improved the nation's ability to prevent and respond to oil spills by establishing provisions that expand the federal government's ability, and provide the money and resources necessary, to respond to oil spills...The Federal government is required to direct all public and private response efforts for certain types of spill events; Area Committees -- composed of federal, state, and local government officials -- must develop detailed, location-specific Area Contingency Plans.
Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the owner or operator of a facility from which oil is discharged (also known as the responsible Party) is liable for the costs associated with the containment or cleanup of the spill and any damages resulting from the spill ... Holders of leases or permits for offshore facilities, except deepwater ports, are liable for up to $75 million per spill, plus removal costs.Tony Hayward made it clear through numerous public statements and in a recent television ad that BP would honor all LEGITIMATE claims and assume all cleanup costs at NO COST TO THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER, despite the $75 million cap it is entitled to under the law. I leave it to the reader to reflect on how the Obama Administration has lived up to its part of the agreement, with Governor Jindal (R-LA) repeatedly screaming about building sand barrier islands while Obama, as his custom, dithered on decision making.
Among other things, Obama's 6-month moratorium on deepwater drilling was against his own experts, whom advocated a temporary freeze on NEW drilling permits. The experts never saw the politically-motivated 6-month moratorium document, and whereas they thought they were reviewing the final document, the administration claimed they were only reviewing the technical document. Also, Obama maintained an unwarranted double standard among types of drilling (production versus gas-injection drilling), which the experts thought were essentially the same in terms of risk, and most of the safety concerns in the document were under a 30-day (not 6-month) review process. And, of course, Obama has the utter audacity to demand that BP pay for other rig workers idled because of his own decision--the moratorium. This is grossly unethical.
Congressman Barton (R-TX) wanted to apologize to Hayward:
It is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case a $20 billion dollar shakedown.The point is, BP was already on the record of saying it would pay legitimate claims. The Democrats added to the set of demands, even though legally BP is only required to meet the first $75M. What is this? The all-knowing Big Government never understood its vulnerability to an oil spill under deepwater conditions? After the Valdez incident involving damages to other products, it did not already require the escrow distribution? All the best government experts, scientists and engineers never reviewed regulatory activities?
It's clear--Democrats want to use BP as a whipping boy. It's not like they have anything constructive to say to BP about, quoting our ever-eloquent President, plugging "the damn hole". But Obama had already laid down the conditions before Carl-Henrig Svanberg (BP chair) and Hayward could visit him in the White House and kiss his ring: suspend the dividend, pay the personnel costs of his moratorium decision, and set up an escrow account. (Gee and all Hugo Chavez needed to meet with The One was the gift of an anti-American screed!)
Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, could hardly wait for the reliably (?) pro-business GOP to jump on the side of a company with over an 80% disapproval rating. Gibbs attempted to make the escrow issue about resolution of the damages--which BP has constantly reassured would be paid. The issue of the escrow deals more with other people making arbitrary decisions over BP assets--including the possibility of fraud or excessive payments. The GOP leadership, worried about the Democrats trying to link the GOP with the vastly unpopular BP, forced Barton to back off. (Barton, by the way, was hardly a BP shill, calling the criminal inquiry "legitimate", with which I strongly disagree.) Never mind the governors affected by the Gulf spill are all Republican (or, in the case of Charlie Crist, elected Republican), and one could legitimately query whether Obama's abysmal response to date is related to the fact that the affected states are red states, not blue.
I called the President's actions extortion in yesterday's post, and I stand by that assessment. What Obama did yesterday didn't add anything to what BP had already agreed to do in principle (other than having an Obama crony administer the escrow fund). I am tired of Obama's anti-business attitude, and it's like, "I can't understand why banks aren't lending, why investors are sitting on their money, why employers aren't hiring..." Gee--you think it just might be due to a consistently anti-business orientation?
Political Cartoon
Chip Bok reminds us of the other victims of the BP oil spill--income investors (particularly senior citizens), now facing a halved stock price and suspended dividend payments.
Quote of the Day
You are going to let the fear of poverty govern you life and your reward will be that you will eat, but you will not live.
George Bernard Shaw
Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 1967
Lulu, "To Sir With Love" (Sigh--none of my students ever had a crush on me....)
The Beatles, "Penny Lane"
The Boxtops, "The Letter"
The Doors, "Light My Fire"
Herman's Hermits, "There's a Kind of Hush"
