[Vision2020] My Column / Megaloads & Hippies
godshatter at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 8 09:05:13 PDT 2011
There are concerns in this debate that are not related to environmentalism,
anti-capitalism, and other concerns that relate directly to Exxon-Mobil and the
Kearl oil sands project. I acknowledge that, and I even agree with some of
these other concerns that have been brought up. There are also a lot of
concerns being expressed that *do* relate to those topics, though, which is what
I'm taking issue with.
Remember that I'm not the one that called you all a bunch of hippies. I just
happen to agree with his main point.
From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
Cc: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>; vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Wed, June 8, 2011 7:21:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] My Column / Megaloads & Hippies
Paul you're missing the point that a lot of the outrage has nothing to do with
environmentalism. In truth, there is a lot at stake environmentally speaking (as
Ted and others have noted) but I don't want to get into that because my main
gripe in this issue is the way its been handled by council. Some people -- many
people in Moscow I bet -- think this is an important issue worthy of discussion
and opportunities for genuine public discussion on the matter have been (so far)
thwarted. The council didn't let the public talk and ask questions about the
issue, they steamrolled it. Now both you and Hank are trying to sweep a whole
set of diverse and meaningful concerns under the same offensive heading -- the
concerns of "hippies" and radical anti-environmentalists. The fact that friends
of mine don't like the traffic early in the morning less than 1 block from where
their two kids sleep -- just to name one concern that I've heard (a concern that
has been raised on the V as well) -- is all covered because these are the
concerns of radical, communist hippies. What an offensive, arrogant bunch of
You and Hank should read the posts by Carl and Saundra and others, which raise a
spectrum of non-environmentalist concerns, a bit more carefully. Otherwise I get
to sweep you, Hank, and the council under the heading of "offensive idiot." I
don't see why you get to use that rhetorical trick -- sweeping a set of diverse
arguments and opinions under one offensive heading -- but somehow it is off
limits to me. As I've always said, politics is a game the rules of which are
determined by your opponent.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:45 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2011 12:18 AM, Ted Moffett wrote:
>> Note he does not address any of the objections expressed on
>> Vision2020, to the facts or logic in his column, in his response on
>On the other hand, I haven't seen anyone here address his main point,
>i.e. that the highways are public and the need for a special permit
>because of large load size shouldn't be used as an excuse to
>discriminate against businesses that some people disagree with.
>I'm not necessarily behind giving the megaloads a free pass, since I
>think that Sunil's points about the noise and the lack of public input
>at the council meeting are good ones, but I do think that if people here
>object to the Kearl oil sands project there are better ways of
>expressing that opinion than to throw bureaucratic roadblocks (no pun
>intended) in their way just because we have the opportunity to do so.
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Vision2020