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.<br>
<br>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."<br><br>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.<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>I'm not a hippy, although I'd like to be one.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Paul Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
I'm literally heading out in an hour on a four-day long trip, but I
just wanted to clarify something here.<div class="im"><br>
<br>
On 06/09/2011 08:40 AM, Art Deco wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><font size="2">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.</font></div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
</div>
<br>=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br>