[Vision2020] Two Seperate Issues

Art Deco deco at moscow.com
Thu Jun 9 10:49:59 PDT 2011

Both Johnson and Rumelhart argue that only so-called legal issues should be at stake in the megaload issue.

1.  No one would argue that there are not sound reasons within the law for the IDT to use their discretion to deny the permit, among them the disruption of traffic and inconvenience to local residents and the real and displacement costs to the state, cities and counties which will not be reimbursed.  For example, if you haven't seen the bridge over the CDA River, the signage at the north end of the bridge, and the 90 degree turn just a bit after that, the you do not begin to understand the total expenses to local entities - direct and displacement.  The IDT could have/can use their discretion to deny the permits.  

However, it was long ago decided that these permits would be issued by the IDT regardless of the facts, inconvenience, and costs. This decision was made long ago irrevocably behind closed doors out of and without consideration of public views.  However, Moscow could have easily exercised their discretion under the known facts to deny the permits.

2.  The fight for desegregation in the United States is a prime example of concerned citizens acting to right continuing and future wrongs by going outside the narrow, local so-called legal issues to effect meaningful change.  Except for the great amount of individual courage exhibited, there is little difference between what anti-megaload proponents are doing than what Rosa Parks and other brave people did in the fight for desegregation.  

If something is grossly wrong, then a wide range of actions ought be taken to correct or prevent that wrong.  I posted an article from the Calgary Herald recently showing that citizen concerns about the megaloads traveling in Idaho and Montana were having effects on the management of the oil sands projects, not for altruistic reasons, but for financial ones.  Continuing protests of all kinds might eventually retard or cause this project to be downsized or abandoned.

The Moscow City Council, in addition to sound legal and financial considerations, could have added their voices to this concern and protest.  Instead, Steed the Sneak and others decided to support First Nations genocide, to support aiding our biggest, most dangerous, and most unfair global competitor, China, and to support mammoth environmental damage.  They did this without allowing for the opportunity for hardly any public input intentionally; how anti-American is this?

So when Johnson and Rumelhart say that the so-called legal issues are the only considerations, they exhibit where their real values lie: so-called local legal issues are far more important that genocide, aiding and abetting the enemy, and environmental damage.  They may be comfortable with these values.  But when they claim they are "concerned" about the oil sands projects, what a bunch of hypocritical bullshit.  They made be "concerned" but hardly a whit's worth.

If people, including Johnson and Rumelhart, are really concerned, then they can act.  Most of us are limited to acting locally through influencing our elected representatives and other agencies, not globally.  That's what we are doing.  There is a big difference between Johnson, Rumelhart, and their ilk and Rosa Parks.  I hope most of us are of her image, though none of us will shine nearly, nearly as brightly.


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Carl Westberg 
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 9:43 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Two Seperate Issues

  "Can anyone on this forum say that you would still be opposed to loads of this size if they were large solar panels or wind turbine equipment?"  Yes.  I already have.

  Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 09:41:06 -0700
  From: hearseboy85 at gmail.com
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com
  Subject: [Vision2020] Two Seperate Issues

  I see that we're not going to make any progress here on this Megaload issue because some people can't get over the end result.

  I'm as concerned about the enviromental damage in Canada as many of you on this forum.  But those concerns cannot weigh into whether or not the permits are issued to move said loads through Moscow if the laws and rules exist for other loads of the same demensions (though not maybe owned by oil companies) to be permitted.

  The basis of my opinion is about the megaloads themselves - height, weight, noise, damage to roadways, etc... all of which were deemed null issues by our police and fire chiefs and the road concern was deemed null by our city streets supervisor.  Such loads are also permittable under current Idaho law/admin rules.

  Can anyone on this forum say that you would still be opposed to loads of this size if they were large solar panels or wind turbine equipment?  If you're opposed to the loads based on the size/noise/etc.. regardless of use then I respect and can see your point of view even though its different than mine.

  But I won't engage in a discussion about whether or not we should be some sort of heros to the people of Canada by stopping these loads for their well being.  It is my position that its not Moscow's position to do so.

  If that ends the discussion then so be it but all my opinions are now on the table.


  @ Joe - You're really hung up on this hippie thing and all I can say is get over it.  I've gotten over the fact you called me an offensive idiot.

  ======================================================= List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com ======================================================= 


   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...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110609/3fef728f/attachment.html 

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list