<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 06/09/2011 11:22 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTins=qKEVOJcZbosJWhNVucHN7hrJg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">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>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't disagree. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTins=qKEVOJcZbosJWhNVucHN7hrJg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
You're right, I should have used an example that involved City,
State or Federal workers. The librarian at the public library
shouldn't refuse to lend them books, and the nice lady at the
Chamber of Commerce should not refuse to give them a local map.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTins=qKEVOJcZbosJWhNVucHN7hrJg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
They did appear to railroad it through the Council, which is not
right. I agree with you there. I'm not trying to stop anyone from
protesting the megaloads, I'm just recording my opinion about it
here, on this list, for posterity.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTins=qKEVOJcZbosJWhNVucHN7hrJg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>