[Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 4 09:55:40 PDT 2011
Are you sure you want the police to start charging for their services on
a case-by-case basis?
As a property tax payer, I'd rather pay for general police coverage that
way than to have to have a credit card handy when I dial 911.
Paul
On 09/04/2011 09:22 AM, Donovan Arnold wrote:
> Well, the good news for both Jay and Paul is that they will get to
> exercise their belief that property taxpayers should fork out the
> extra cash to pay for the extra needed resources by the city to deal
> with the problems and expenses caused by Exxon Mobile driving all
> their megaloads coming through Moscow on their next tax bill or rent
> hike. (Boy was that a run on sentence or what?)
> Donovan Arnold
>
> *From:* Jay Borden <jborden at datawedge.com>
> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>; Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>
> *Cc:* Moscow Vision 2020 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 3, 2011 11:46 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?
>
> I fully agree with this... and before I get more of my opinions stated
> for me, I'm all about free speech, passion of a subject and protest as
> a method of showing disdain when diplomacy and negotiations fail.
>
> Knock yourselves out.
>
> But to pin the tail on Exxon FOR the protestors... that's too much.
>
> Jay
>
> /Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless/
>
>
> -----Original message-----
>
> *From: *Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>*
> To: *Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>*
> Cc: *Moscow Vision 2020 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>*
> Sent: *Sat, Sep 3, 2011 19:46:12 GMT+00:00*
> Subject: *Re: [Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?
>
>
> I fully support the right of people to protest about this issue. I
> fully support the idea of civil disobedience as a method to effect
> change. I have made no argument that the protests should be
> stopped or that the protesters be billed for the overtime hours
> worked by the extra police on duty.
>
> What I don't agree with is trying to fob the cost of the protests
> off onto Exxon/Mobil, who is abiding by the laws in how it has
> been moving it's megaloads. That simply doesn't seem right to me.
> Not because they are a large corporation and my hidden
> conservative sensibilities force me to support them, but because
> they are doing nothing technically wrong here.
>
> In your example of the tea partyers holding up traffic, would you
> think it fair if you (as a delayed motorist) were billed for the
> costs of the extra police presence simply because you were delayed
> by them? Because that's what billing Exxon/Mobil for the megaload
> protests would amount to.
>
> Paul
>
> By the way, it's nice to know that I have list members that are
> happy to tell me what it is I'm actually thinking and what my
> political views actually are - that way I don't have to rely upon
> my own inner dialog to find that out. Bonus!
>
>
> On 09/03/2011 10:36 AM, Art Deco wrote:
> > What I find appalling in this discussion is the apparent lack of
> > historical and contemporary knowledge of the importance and the
> > results that have proceeded from the right of free expression
> from > letters to the editor to demonstrations lasting years and
> involving > millions of people in this country.
> > Civil rights, environmental issues, anti-war issues, poverty >
> issues, pro/anti-abortion issues, etc allow citizens the right and
> the > opportunity to express their opinions and feelings. It
> should be > clear to all but the most ignorant and arrogant that
> demonstrations in > these areas have influenced public policy.
> > The right of free expression is one of the most important we
> have: It > allows us to struggle, sometimes haltingly and
> erroneously, towards > the truth and towards finding values that
> make this a more just and > habitable planet.
> > We pay taxes for police and allied services, one of these
> services is > protect our constitutional rights, including the
> right of free > expression. Except for a very nominal fees for
> parades and larger > demonstration permits whose purpose would be
> to inform policing > agencies and others that their services like
> enforcement, traffic > control, etc may be needed, I am opposed to
> requiring citizens to pay > fees, payments, and/or make other
> concessions of any legal kind simply > to exercise a fundamental
> and very important constitutional right.
> > Dissent (and agreement) has been a very important part of the
> history > of this country. I hope we do not try to stifle this
> dissent by > making it only the province of those able to pay well.
> > I also find it ironic and hypocritical, but not surprising, that
> the > conservatives like Crabtree, Borden, and Rumelhart* are the
> anti-free > expression advocates on this list [along with pathetic
> Henry Johnson > in the /DN/]. [*Rumelhart claims not to be a
> conservative, but almost > all his posts here espouse positions
> touted by conservatives.]
> > I understand the position of the MPD to take steps to prevent
> serious > consequences of someone's breaking the law. That is part
> of their duties.
> > It's the little Napoleans/Hitlers who wish to stifle dissent by
> making > the dissenters pay to express their feelings that pose
> the greatest > threat to free expression.
> > Two years ago, I sat in traffic on Washington between 5th and
> 4th > while a large group of tea partiers crossed Washington, most
> of them > not in the crosswalks and hold up traffic a few minutes.
> I do not > agree completely with the tea party's analysis of the
> nation's > problems and with their solutions of them -- I think
> many of them are > ill-informed and delusional -- but I applaud
> their efforts to dissent > in a public manner, even if a few minor
> laws were broken. I would > have been very vocal and combative if
> someone had suggested that they > would pay for whatever extra
> police services might be needed.
> > Having been in on efforts to draft legislation to make megaload
> > permiting more open, with easier to appeal provisions, to
> mitigate the > inconvenience to other highway users and
> businesses, and to recover > the cost of issuing the permits and
> the costs of usage above normal > being picked up by the
> applicants, I can say that intense lobbying by > big oil and
> others certainly tilted the playing field in their favor > and no
> such legislation had a chance. Money does talk, sometimes in >
> very devious ways, both statewide and in Moscow.
> > w.
> >
> > *From:* Jay Borden
> > *Sent:* Friday, September 02, 2011 9:00 PM
> > *To:* Paul Rumelhart ; Donovan Arnold >
> > *Cc:* vision2020
> > *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?
> >
> > Personally, I find much of this lunacy hilarious.
> >
> > Subscribers here utilize the V20 service to help organize/update
> on > protester activity...
> >
> > ... which forces additional police response as a result of
> successful > organized protests....
> >
> > ... which causes the very same V20 crowd to blame Exxon for not
> > picking up the tab....
> >
> > ...... for the additional police....
> >
> > ... to handle the additional protesters.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bravo folks.... bravo.
> >
> > Jay
> >
> > /Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless
> > /
> >
> > -----Original message-----
> >
> > *From: *Paul Rumelhart
> > >*
> > To: *Donovan Arnold *
> > Cc: *vision2020 *
> > Sent: *Sat, Sep 3, 2011 01:13:28 GMT+00:00*
> > Subject: *Re: [Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?
> >
> >
> > Here's my take on the "who pays?" issue. Exxon/Mobil has the
> > proper permits, and is abiding by their use on a public highway.
> > If there were no protesters, then there would be no cops needed on
> > extra duty. Forcing Exxon/Mobil to pay is akin to a
> > denial-of-service attack in the computer world. All you need to
> > do, if you don't like someone or some company, is to stage a
> > protest outside their place of business. The larger the better.
> > Then the person or the business will have to pay for their
> > protection from the police, regardless of whether or not they've
> > done anything wrong. You might as well get a bunch of people to
> > write letters in protest and then force whoever is the current
> > target of their ire to pay for the paper, the envelopes, the
> > postage, and their time.
> >
> > The only way I can see a justification for Exxon/Mobil paying for
> > the policemen on extra duty is if they specifically contracted for
> > them in order to protect the safety of their drivers. Which leads
> > to the question: who authorized the extra duty for the police
> > officers - the city, the police department, Exxon/Mobil or some
> > other group?
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > P.S. I snipped Mayor Cheney and Councilman Lamarr's names from the
> > to: list. I'm sure they get enough spam as it is and can choose
> > whether or not to read the Viz on their own cognizance.
> >
> > On 09/02/2011 05:27 PM, Donovan Arnold wrote:
> > > Wayne,
> > > It has already been confirmed that Exxon is not paying the cost
> > of the > permit. You can check the donation records of Idaho
> > Republicans if you > don't believe they are getting something for
> > this from Exxon. And the > US Attorney General office isn't going
> > to do anything about it either > or any other politician because
> > they are also owned and operated by > Exxon and a handful of
> > corporations.
> > > Donovan Arnold
> > >
> > > *From:* Wayne Price
> > > *To:* Donovan Arnold
> > > *Cc:* Bill London ; vision2020 > ; nancy chaney ; Tom Lamar >
> > > *Sent:* Friday, September 2, 2011 6:15 PM
> > > *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?
> > >
> > > Donovan,
> > >
> > > IF you can prove that, contact me off line and I'll give you a
> > point > of contact at the US Attorney's Office to get in touch with.
> > >
> > > WMP
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sep 2, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Donovan Arnold wrote:
> > >
> > >> Wayne,
> > >> No, they didn't. They paid the politicians to change the law
> > and make >> the people pay for the cost of the permit.
> > >> Donovan Arnold
> > >>
> > >> *From:* Wayne Price >
> > >> *To:* Bill London >
> > >> *Cc:* vision2020 > >; nancy chaney > >; Tom Lamar > >
> > >> *Sent:* Friday, September 2, 2011 5:35 PM
> > >> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?
> > >>
> > >> Bill,
> > >>
> > >> EXXON paid for the permit which gave them the right to
> > transport the >> loads legally.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Wayne
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sep 2, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Bill London wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> WMP-
> > >>> my point exactly
> > >>> Exxon wants to play, Exxon should pay
> > >>> BL
> > >>> *From:* Wayne Price
> > >>> *Sent:* Friday, September 02, 2011 4:21 PM
> > >>> *To:* Bill London
> > >>> *Cc:* vision2020 ; nancy chaney >>> ; Tom Lamar
> > >>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?
> > >>> Didn't advocate making them "so expensive that those rights
> > >>> disappear", but what is wrong with you play, YOU pay?
> > >>> WMP
> > >>> On Sep 2, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Bill London wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> WMP-
> > >>>> so your goal is to make freedom of expression and civil >>>>
> > disobedience so expensive that those rights disappear?
> > >>>> BL
> > >>>> *From:* Wayne Price
> > >>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 02, 2011 2:05 PM
> > >>>> *To:* Bill London
> > >>>> *Cc:* vision2020 ; nancy chaney >>>> ; Tom Lamar
> > >>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?
> > >>>> So, some protesters show up and the local police respond and
> > you >>>> want the folks that have the permits to pay?
> > >>>> WHEN the protesters break the laws, their fines should pay
> > for the >>>> disturbances they cause. Now, who decided some 25
> > additional >>>> police officers were needed?
> > >>>> That dog won't hunt!
> > >>>> WMP
> > >>>> On Sep 2, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Bill London wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> According to newspaper reports, about 25 local cops (17
> > Moscow, 9 >>>>> county) were at the latest megaloads confrontation
> > Thurs night in >>>>> downtown Moscow.
> > >>>>> Who is paying for all the overtime for those officers? I
> > called >>>>> David Duke (Moscow police chief) who said that we
> > are. The >>>>> taxpayers. You. Me. Us. We are spending money to
> > help the >>>>> world’s richest corporation (Exxon/Mobil) get
> > their equipment >>>>> delivered on time.
> > >>>>> Thankfully, Duke said that the city council will be
> > discussing >>>>> this issue on Tuesday (Sept 6) at their regular
> > meeting. I hope >>>>> the council tells Exxon to pay those costs.
> > >>>>> BL
> > >>>>> =======================================================
> > >>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > >>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > >>>>> http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
> <http://www.fsr.net <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 <http://www.fsr.net/> <http://www.fsr.net
> <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 <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 <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 <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 <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/20110904/984c4380/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list