[Vision2020] Moscow's Muscular Megalod Embrace

Sun May 29 06:14:29 PDT 2011

I'm angry about the arrogant and underhanded way that Dan, Wayne, Walter, etc. dealt with the matter.

Is that OK? Save your answer because I don't give a rip what you think. That's MY opinion.

On May 28, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> First, this is all opinion based on what I've read here.  I don't feel particularly inclined to try to figure out exactly where and how I formed.  Feel free to disagree with them.
> 
> I think that this issue should be about the technical details of moving a large load across local highways.  I don't think it should be used as an opportunity to inconvenience a corporation people here disagree with.  I think that some people here are doing so merely because the opportunity to do so has presented itself.
> 
> That's what (I think) Dan Carscallen was trying to say when he mentioned that a large megaload from a corporation that is well liked on this list (like one making eco-friendly items) would not have the troubles that this particular company is having.
> 
> I see this as an abuse of power because people (here on the list and in the papers) have made this into an issue based on what this corporation does and not whether or not they are following the regulations regarding the moving of large loads along our highways.  Thus, it doesn't matter how evil they are or how many people they screw over on a daily basis.  Thus "too many people" refers to the number of people on this list who are treating this as an oil company or an environmental issue.  I'll let you count them.
> 
> This is all just my opinion, feel free to disagree.  Do you understand the point I'm trying to make?
> 
> Paul
> 
> From: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 11:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Moscow's Muscular Megalod Embrace
> 
> 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
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110529/0c8fc611/attachment.html 