[Vision2020] Moscow's Muscular Megalod Embrace

Sun May 29 06:09:56 PDT 2011

The idea that those complaining have power over big oil is absurd. You can't abuse power you don't have.

On May 28, 2011, at 2:35 AM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>> =======================================================
> 
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================