[Vision2020] My Column / Megaloads & Hippies

[Paul Rumelhart]

On 06/09/2011 11:22 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
> Thanks Paul. I wanted to post on some other threads. In general, I 
> know little about the oil sands project. My horse is really in the way 
> council handled it -- WS teaming up with GR on a day when Tom Lamar 
> was missing and deliberately deceiving the Mayor about what was going 
> to happen that evening. The interests of the people who voted for Tom 
> and Nancy were not served that evening. This is a wild abuse of power, 
> as I see it. That's the real issue as far as I'm concerned -- the one 
> that won't get reported in the MP Daily News.

I don't disagree.

>
> One quick comment. You write: "I don't know about Henry, but I'm not 
> saying 'it's not my business, I don't live there' about the oil sands 
> project.  I'm saying that it should have nothing to do with whether or 
> not we allow megaloads to travel our highways.  In the same vein, the 
> waiter at Starbucks should not refuse to sell coffee to the people 
> driving the trucks and the local motels should not refuse to allow 
> them to stay there, all in the name of saving the people affected by 
> the Kearl oil sands project."
>
> Doesn't Starbucks have the right to say who it will or will not do 
> business with? If they wanted to refuse service to particular 
> individuals they could. And for that same reason, the waiter has the 
> right to refuse to serve certain people. It might cost him his job, 
> but he gets to decide with whom he wants to do business. And the 
> waiter can try to rationally persuade his employers not to serve the 
> truckers, for purely political reasons. I'm not saying anyone should 
> do this. Why take it out on the poor truckers, who already have 
> stressful jobs in an anti-union era.

You're right, I should have used an example that involved City, State or 
Federal workers.  The librarian at the public library shouldn't refuse 
to lend them books, and the nice lady at the Chamber of Commerce should 
not refuse to give them a local map.

>
> The fact is people have the right to draw a line in the sand here and 
> now on the oil sands project. I say this as someone who is in complete 
> ignorance about the oil sands project and many other environmental 
> issues. I have no position on the matter but I have the right to hear 
> these arguments from these people before the city takes a position of 
> approval; a right to see that debate played out in front of me, not 
> behind closed doors. At least I thought we had these rights until they 
> were recently taken away by Walter Stead, Dan "the Man," etc.

They did appear to railroad it through the Council, which is not right.  
I agree with you there.  I'm not trying to stop anyone from protesting 
the megaloads, I'm just recording my opinion about it here, on this 
list, for posterity.

Paul

>
> I'm not a hippy, although I'd like to be one.
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com 
> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>     I'm literally heading out in an hour on a four-day long trip, but
>     I just wanted to clarify something here.
>
>
>     On 06/09/2011 08:40 AM, Art Deco wrote:
>>     The Henry Johnsons and people of similar ilk who say of the oil
>>     sands projects "It is not my business, I don't live there" and do
>>     nothing are not much different from those who would ignore a
>>     child with gasoline and matches.  Due to the blasé ignorance and
>>     arrogance of the pro-megaloaders, the eminent danger of  the oil
>>     sands projects is not so temporally and visibly near as a field
>>     fire, but in the long run the oil sands projects are much more
>>     likely to have long range, wide spread, extremely adverse impacts
>>     than a child dying and a neighborhood being destroyed in a field
>>     fire.
>
>     I don't know about Henry, but I'm not saying "it's not my
>     business, I don't live there" about the oil sands project.  I'm
>     saying that it should have nothing to do with whether or not we
>     allow megaloads to travel our highways.  In the same vein, the
>     waiter at Starbucks should not refuse to sell coffee to the people
>     driving the trucks and the local motels should not refuse to allow
>     them to stay there, all in the name of saving the people affected
>     by the Kearl oil sands project.
>
>     I'm all for everyone here going to the Imperial Oil main offices
>     and protesting what they are doing.  I just don't think that
>     trying to stop them from moving down the road merely because the
>     chance to do so has fallen into our laps is the right thing to
>     do.  If they fail the permit process, fine.  But to restrict their
>     movements only because they are an evil corporation goes against
>     the idea of public highways in the first place.  Open that door,
>     and you'll regret it.
>
>     Paul
>
>     =======================================================
>      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 <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>     =======================================================
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110612/77292bf5/attachment.html