[Vision2020] Moscow's Muscular Megalod Embrace

Fri May 27 23:35:13 PDT 2011

Please clarify and defend the basis for the following assertion, with
a definition of "too many people."  Does not democracy allow as many
people as want to to "stick it to" any corporation they believe is
abusing its power, as long as they "stick it to" them lawfully?  What
is the number you define as "too many" regarding these "people?"

Furthermore, explain how the aforementioned "too many people" are
engaging in an "abuse of power," as you phrased it, which would imply,
I think it is reasonable, that the operations of "big oil" as
referenced are being critically or unlawfully impaired by this
alledged "abuse of power," by "too many people?"

Do I need to quote the recent mega profits, or the millions spend on
lobbying the US Congress to promote their agenda, or the high gas and
diesel prices, connected to the operations of the "big oil"
corporation that you allege is being subjected to an "abuse of power"
by "too many people?"

Who has more power that they are abusing, the "big oil" corporation,
or Idaho citizens who are objecting to their highways and streets
being converted into industrial corridors with potentially long term
and unknown impacts, serving the profits of one of the most powerful
corporations ever to exist on Earth?

I trust you have followed the backroom "deals" with some in power in
Idaho government that appear to have been struck without consulting
the public or local government regarding these developments?  And that
the mega-load machinery could have been manufactured in North America,
though this might have been more expensive?  Why should Idaho or
Montana citizens suffer negative impacts to serve the profit agenda of
ExxonMobil?

Where is the "abuse of power?"

Economist Milton Friedman, one of the primary architects of modern
corporate captialism, wrote in "Capitalism and Freedom," (
http://www.umich.edu/~thecore/doc/Friedman.pdf ) "...there is one and
only one social responsibility of business- to use its resources and
engage in activities designed to increase its profits as long as it
stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open
and free competition without deception or fraud."

OK.  ExxonMobil's "one and only social responsibility" is to increase
its profits.  But anyone who thinks there is no deception or fraud
involved with Exxon/Mobil only has to trace the history of this
corporation's funding of junk fraudulent climate science, to
deliberately deceive the public regarding anthropogenic climate
change, to understand the corruption and abuse of power involved:

Union of Concerned Scientists

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

January 3, 2007

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of
global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused
lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists'
Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has
allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay
government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to
"Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change

---------------------------------
It is within the scope of the public in a democracy to decide if there
is deception or fraud or exploitation involved in a corporation using
public assets to promote its profits.  And those questioning whether
or not ExxonMobil is abusing its power to impose a burdon on the
citizens of Idaho or Montana or Canada, or all humans on our planet,
given the implications of tar sands development for climate change, in
the pursuit of its profit, are pursuing their rights as citizens in a
democracy.

And you assert this is an "abuse of power?"

WTF!
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 5/25/11, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I see too many people that see this as an opportunity to stick it to big
> oil, since they have the opportunity to do so at this moment in time.  I
> think that's an abuse of power, myself.
_______________________________
> From: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> To: Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Moscow's Muscular Megalod Embrace
>
> There is a significant number in the Moscow area who are ideologically
> pro-business/pro-corporate thus friendly to big oil's needs, those who
> might have supported Palin's "drill baby drill" mantra in the 2008
> presidential race, who view obstacles to the tar sands development as
> an impediment to lowering high gas and diesel prices and improving the
> US economy in general, who think the opposition to the mega-loads is
> really more about a progressive antipathy to big captialist economic
> power and supporting an environmental agenda, rather than damage to or
> blocking streets or highways, who therefore are "friends" of the city
> council members who rolled out the welcome mat for the mega-loads.
>
> This point of view was in part expressed by Moscow councilperson
> Carscallen May 17, 2011, Moscow-Pullman Daily News:
> http://finance.comcast.net/stocks/news_body.html?ID_OSI=85595&ID_NEWS=190774448
>
> "I wonder if there would be as much discussion about these loads if
> they were 24-foot-wide, 210-feet-long, and 30-foot-high solar panels
> or wind turbine blades," Carscallen said. "I have seen people that are
> honest that the Kearl Oil Sands are the reason they're against it."
> ------------------------
> I think it possible the local political "enemies" of this action by
> the council might not be greater in number than the "friends" of this
> action, though the enemies might be more publicly vocal in oppostion;
> therefore I question that the council's action is "a matter that earns
> politicians enemies but few friends" as the Trillhaase editorial
> quoted below states.
> ------------------------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
> On 5/25/11, Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Moscow's megaload embrace gets muscular
>>     * May 25th, 2011By Marty Trillhaase of the Tribune
>
>> > Which makes their eagerness to embrace a matter that earns
>> politicians enemies but few friends curious. The last thing you'd expect
>> from either Krauss and Carscallen is precisely the vote they cast.
>> Go figure. - M.T.
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================