# I Hate Oversized Loads, So . . .



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

We have 2 great resources a wild and scenic river, and a roadway. We are putting them at risk for a very low cost by allowing this company, perfect saftey record or not through those resources. This risk does not benefit U.S. manufacturers and with the exception of 1 part out of 300 does not benefit U.S. oil refining.

Why is this risk acceptable to anyone? Send them through a different route which does not put our resources at risk. Better yet, send it through the country who is actually going to profit from the load the most. 

You want to send giant turbines, I feel the same way about that. What is the risk for America, Idaho and Montana, what is the reward?


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

glenn said:


> We have 2 great resources a wild and scenic river, and a roadway. We are putting them at risk.


I agree that the river and highway are priceless resources. I just don't see them being hurt by this.

Exactly what is the risk? The Whitebird Grade was not damaged by the transportation of the Brownlee turbines. The hundreds of wind turbines in Eastern Oregon and Washington were transported without damaging the roads.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

That would be bogus arguement.. transportation of their food is worse for roads. Moving big objects requires a team which they utilize.. I don't see problems just emotional issues as well


----------



## catboatkeith (Jun 11, 2010)

I feel oversized loads are some of the safest trucks on the road. They travel with a escort front and back, and are required to only drive during daylight hours. Fuel jockies, and hasmat haulers flying down the highway on to little sleep or log trucks worry me more.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

I'm a little leery of any big trucks travelling small river corridors, especially after 2 tar filled tankers rolled into the Poudre last year. I am not sure the risk is worth it.


----------



## catboatkeith (Jun 11, 2010)

Yeah, Jen...Once trucks start heavily using a corridor, the State starts thinking it needs to make the roads wider


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

catboatkeith said:


> Yeah, Jen...Once trucks start heavily using a corridor, the State starts thinking it needs to make the roads wider


Yes, potential scenario: Road collapses, during rebuild planning they decide to make it winder to accommodate such things. Anyone that knows the Lochsa knows that any widening is going to mean part of the river is filled to create a road.

Big rigs do less damage? Not according to Washington Engineers

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/mats/Folios/TruckLoadsFolio.pdf

Mega rig accidents by the company hired for Imperial's hauls:

Hired transport company reported accident this year | TradingMarkets.com

Only minor injuries in collision that closed highway - Drayton Valley Western Review - Alberta, CA

Some people oppose this specifically because of the Tar Sands. To each his own.


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

lhowemt said:


> Potential scenario: Road collapses, during rebuild planning they decide to make it winder to accommodate such things. Anyone that knows the Lochsa knows that any widening is going to mean part of the river is filled to create a road.


Logic 101. You are stating a false premise and then speculating what will happen if your false premise happens. Essentially, you are implying that a road collapse is inevitable, and then saying that the road will rebuilt wider than before at the expense of the river. Really? Sounds like hysteria to me.

Roads, especially roads alongside rivers, collapse every year, someplace in the country. Nearly always, it is because of natural events (flooding, earthquake, landslide, etc.). And nearly always, the roadway is reconstructed and the adjacent waterway restored. If you're going to get your undies in a wad over roadway collapses, maybe you should outlaw floods and earthquakes. They're the main culprits.


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

lhowemt said:


> Big rigs do less damage? Not according to Washington Engineers.


Nice try, but this report talks about something entirely different from what we're talking about. In fact, this report supports what I said in opening this thread. Namely that normal truck traffic does more damage to highways than permitted "mega" loads.

The mega loads are hauled at walking speed, not at highway speed. The impact loading imposed on the highway surface increases exponentially as a function of speed.

Oh, and for the record, I _wrote_ a report very similar to this one for Oregon Department of Transportation about six years ago, explaining how Oregon's bridges came to be in need of replacement, and on the basis of my report the legislature funded replacement of the bad bridges.

I know whereof I speak, so don't try to baffle me with your bull.


----------



## studytime (Oct 4, 2010)

I don't think aybody hates oversized loads. What most don't like is...


jpbay said:


> The Buzz is about Route selection! They have freeway routes they can use, it will cost them more. That is it..


Nobody seems to want to address this. There are alternate routes that would be better suited but guess what THEY'RE MORE EXPENSIVE for the CORPORATION who just happens to be BIG OIL. Who just happens to try and do everything as cheap possible at the EXPENSE of everyone and everything else whenever they can. 

Corporations with shareholders and boards of directors are designed to make money at the expense of anything. Thats not news to anybody. Hopefully.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

The Mogur said:


> Nice try, but this report talks about something entirely different from what we're talking about. In fact, this report supports what I said in opening this thread. Namely that normal truck traffic does more damage to highways than permitted "mega" loads.
> 
> The mega loads are hauled at walking speed, not at highway speed. The impact loading imposed on the highway surface increases exponentially as a function of speed.
> 
> ...


Golly, if only I could baffle a super duper smart engineer! And one that walks really fast too! The mega rigs will be travelling at 30 mph, according to the latest from an ITD guy (I think previously they claimed 20). Actually they don't really know, because the speed they state changes. When the quoted speed can not meet the max 15 minute delay, suddenly they will be able to go faster. Sure 30 isn't 60, or 75, but it's not walking speed (3mph).

Wow, your wonderful new thread starts with a false premise (this will shut down traditional oversized/weight loads), with a liberal slathering of hysteria thrown in that we'll stop wind power development! Then you disparage me for stating what I think is going to happen. Perhaps you haven't noticed, or maybe we're more "advanced" here in Montana, but virtually every highway of comparable poor modern design gets completely rebuilt eventually. We are losing our nice meandering backroads, it seems no roadway rebuild escapes becoming widened and straightened. 

Perhaps some people are only familiar with Hwy 12 along the boating sections of the Lochsa, most of which isn't too bad. Head up to Lolo pass and you'll see some roads that have been dying for 20 years.

Then there's also the impact to people that live along the road. This will limit their emergency services. It's not like there are back ways out of a lot of the places along the road. If a rig is blocking a path, it's blocked for at least 15 minutes, likely more. Those are the people suing in Idaho. I'd be pretty uncomfortable with the plan if it were me. Remember, they are now looking at nearly 300 of these loads, and with the return trips that's almost 600 times the road is repeatedly blocked.

I don't care what the original title of the thread was, I'll just keep posting there with info as I come across it. Have fun here!


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

lhowemt said:


> They are now looking at nearly 300 of these loads, and with the return trips that's almost 600 times the road is repeatedly blocked.
> 
> I don't care what the original title of the thread was, I'll just keep posting there with info as I come across it. Have fun here!


 
This is the claim we can not let them get away with.
It will NOT be 600 loads, once this investment is in place 
this will be a long term industrial corridor.


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

studytime said:


> There are alternate routes that would be better suited but guess what THEY'RE MORE EXPENSIVE for the CORPORATION who just happens to be BIG OIL. Who just happens to try and do everything as cheap possible. Corporations with shareholders and boards of directors are designed to make money.


Your contempt for "CORPORATIONS" and "BIG OIL" has completely eradicated logic from your argument.

I personally would not want to do business with any company that did not attempt to produce and market their product at the lowest price. Do you really believe that those "shareholders and boards of directors" pocket all of the money they save? If so, they you are in some kind of fantasy land. 

Sure, they have profit objectives. They wouldn't be in business if they didn't. But all of their profit objectives hinge on sales, because that is where all of the money comes from. And if the price is too high, sales go down.


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

lhowemt said:


> Wow, your wonderful new thread starts with a false premise (this will shut down traditional oversized/weight loads), with a liberal slathering of hysteria thrown in that we'll stop wind power development!


You are proving the point that I made before, namely that the root of your opposition is that *Big Oil* would be the beneficiary. If you are not in fact lobbying for the ban of ALL big hauls (including the ones I posted photos of), then you _have to be_ focusing only on the ones related to your boogey man, *Big Oil*. And that invalidates your argument.


----------



## studytime (Oct 4, 2010)

This is super pretty.









This too. I love corporations. They love you. Especially when you shut up and let them destroy everything for profit.


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

studytime said:


> [Big corporations] love you. Especially when you shut up and let them destroy everything for profit.


You are making my point. You are all wrapped up in emotion at the expense of logic. Of course businesses do what they do for profit. If they didn't make a profit they wouldn't exist and you wouldn't have the option of buying their product. And "option" is the key word. If you don't like the "big corporations," don't patronize them.

I don't know what your photos show. A paper mill, perhaps? I don't know when it was taken, either. I do know that scenes like that were not uncommon in the paper industry forty years ago, but they are entirely different today. 

The thing is, I could find a photo like yours that evoke an emotion; but if I want to make an argument, I'll tell you what the photo is, when and where it was taken, and maybe suggest what you should do about it.

Your only point is that we should all hate "big corporations" (which, by the way, you haven't made any effort to define) based solely on the emotional appeal of a couple of photos. That is manipulation, not debate.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

Perhaps if the oil and fossil fuels energy companies had a conscience this would not be an issue... but they don't have a conscience.

If the rigs are allowed to use the corridor and something bad happens to prevent recreation or travel they will have to spend a little more money (the cost of which will be passed on to the consumer) to use a different route. They won't care about the locals or the recreational users that will miss out on a classic river corridor, the corporation will pay a fine (also passed onto the consumer) and continue to rake in record profits.

I don't hate all big corporations, just ones who view the people of the world as objects to be dominated, which turns out to be most corporations in the U.S.

It is possible to make decisions based on the right thing not cost effectiveness but it's far more difficult for a business to stay in the black when doing the right thing. This doesn't mean it's impossible to run a successful business with a conscience though.

I haven't seen any information to make me believe any oil company is basing their decisions on what is good for people, they only think of their bottom line.

Is there a specific reason you're defending the Big Oil corps?


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

Jensjustduckie said:


> Is there a specific reason you're defending the Big Oil corps?


Thank you for making my point. For most of the people who have voiced opposition to the big haul, it always comes down to your hatred for *Big Oil*.

And yes, there is a specific reason I defend the oil companies. It is because I buy their products with hypocricy. The lifestyle I choose is supported by the people who bring the products I want to the marketplace at a price I am willing to pay.

I strongly suggest that all of you who hate *Big Oil* just stop using it. If you don't like the lifestyle that depends on "*Big Corporations*," move to the third world hell hole of your choice and become a primitive.


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

The Mogur said:


> Thank you for making my point. For most of the people who have voiced opposition to the big haul, it always comes down to your hatred for *Big Oil*.


Here's 20 reasons that I oppose the big haul, that have nothing to do with big oil.

*Top 20 Reasons U.S. 12 Is Special*​
Runs through the Nez Perces' ancient homeland.
Features several sites the the headquarters and museum of the Nez Perce National Historic Park.
Nationally designated the Northwest Passage Scenic Byway.
Nationally designated 1 of the nation's 27 All-American Roads.
Crosses and parallels for 80+ miles the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail.
Crosses and parallels for 80+ miles the Nez Perce National Historic Trail.
Runs for 70+ miles beside 2 nationally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers, the Middle Fork of the Clearwater and the Lochsa, and provides access to a 3rd, the Selway River.
Travels beside and provides access to the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, one of the nation's most cherished wilderness areas.
National - even international - reknown of the Lochsa River for its world-class spring whitewater.
Named by _Motorcycle Magazine_ as the #1 recreational motocycle route in the nation (many curves, much beauty).
Comprises a segment of the nationally recognized TransAmerica Bicycle Route.
Bisects the old growth Bernard Devoto Cedar Grove.
Crosses the Pacific Coast Disjunct Area, which includes rare plants for Idaho environs.
Lies within yards of USFS campgrounds, dispersed campsites, USFS and Nat'l Park Service interpretive sites, beaches and picnic sites.
Provides access to suspension bridges and dozens of trails used by hunters, fishers and wilderness trekkers and horseback riders, including access to the Idaho Bicentennial Trail and the Lochsa River Historical Trail.
Provides access to the Lochsa Historical Ranger Station, the McBeth House, historical churches, Big Eddy Marina at Dworshak Reservoir, and Spalding Park.
Runs alongside streams providing habitat of vital importance to salmon, steelhead, eel, bass and trout fisheries.
Runs through the wild habitats of a myriad of birds and other wildlife.
Runs for miles as a narrow, winding, shoulderless roadway within feet of rivers that provide domestic water supplies for 3 towns: Kamiah, Orofino and Lewiston.
Provides both an access route and a destination for travelers/tourists and recreationists who spend millions of dollars annually at over 150 small businesses, Lewiston to Lolo Pass, as part of the single growing industry of the corridor communities which comprise an economically depressed region of Idaho.


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

The Mogur said:


> I strongly suggest that all of you who hate *Big Oil* just stop using it. If you don't like the lifestyle that depends on "*Big Corporations*," move to the third world hell hole of your choice and become a primitive.


WOW, the ultimate capitalist putdown, "if you don't like the shit we have to sell you, get the fuck out of OUR country. 

Sure glad there are still some people willing to stand up to the corporate powers.


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

The Mogur said:


> And yes, there is a specific reason I defend the oil companies. It is because I buy their products with hypocricy. The lifestyle I choose is supported by the people who bring the products I want to the marketplace at a price I am willing to pay.


As a supposed river runner, I am amazed that you are not willing to pay an extra few pennies a gallon to protect a wonderful river corridor.

The corportions have you right where they want you...good luck with "that lifestyle you choose".

Sorry, but your last post was so pathetic, it has taken me three posts to respond.


----------



## mttodd (Jan 29, 2009)

Mogur, large loads are necessary in this day and age, this is an undisputed fact. They do not necessarily need to be shipped on this particular river corridor. There is much public sentiment to that effect. The affected companies can and will afford to ship them elsewhere to their destinations if they are made to. (with the understanding that the cost will be passed to the end consumer anyway) Many, including myself, are not willing to take the word of those who promote their own interests to endanger something so irreplaceable. This is neither an irrational or emotional response, but common sense. I mean this in the most benign way, with respect to your engineering expertise. I hope that you see where many are coming from.


----------



## studytime (Oct 4, 2010)

Mogur reminds me of the homeless people walking around yelling irrational thoughts. No matter how logical you are he screams Big Oil Big Oil! Why do you hate Big Oil! While you're thinking to your self...I didn't say anything about Big Oil. 

haha. Comedy hour in here.


----------



## catboatkeith (Jun 11, 2010)

How many "Big Hauls" are we talking about? One?, Ten?, A hundred? Who gets to make the final decision? 

I used to work the oil patch, but don't tell my mother. She thought I was a piano player in a cat house.


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

catboatkeith said:


> I used to work the oil patch, but don't tell my mother. She thought I was a piano player in a cat house.


*Awesome!* Best post in the thread!


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

catboatkeith said:


> How many "Big Hauls" are we talking about? One?, Ten?, A hundred? Who gets to make the final decision?
> 
> I used to work the oil patch, but don't tell my mother. She thought I was a piano player in a cat house.


 
Take a look at the one of the oppositions websites, www.FightingGoliath.org .

Lots of evidence that this will become a permanent "industrial corridor".
Most of the equipment needed for the Alberta oil fields is manufactured in Alberta or the Great Lakes Region. But "Big Oil" can buy cheaper by out sourcing to Korea, Vietnam and China. The cost of developing the "wide and high" corridor only makes sense it spread out over the long term.

One of the oil companies (Imperial Oil) stated that they outscourced to Korea because it was a better "total value". Apparently, the tourism and recreational value of Idaho and Montana were not put into the equation.


----------



## JustinJam (Mar 18, 2009)

*External Costs*

My apologies if I have missed a post on this already. 

If you need more logic addressed to this issue one way to look at it through external costs. These are cost(or benefits) that are not transmitted to the customer. The classic example is destruction or pollution of air or waterways.

You could look at these costs being taken on by the local communities that support recreation and recreation businesses (outfitters, hotels, restaurants, etc.) that are supported by this natural area. The loss of tourism dollars due to one summer (300-600 big hauls) can affect tourism dollars for several years afterwards. The effect of these costs are typically not passed onto the consumer and then in turn given back to the community. 

Another idea you can look at is the intrinsic value that can be placed on a scenic area. This is one area that has baffled people/business/government for time on end. How do you place a value on an area that people(tourism) value for being itself in terms of scenic recreation. This is difficult to put dollar value. For an extreme case you could look at what the cost/benefit of placing a powerplant in a area of the grand canyon that could be seen from viewpoints.


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

Rich said:


> Here's 20 reasons that I oppose the big haul, that have nothing to do with big oil.


 
At last! Someone finally got away from emotional hysteria and came up with the REAL reasons this is a bad idea. A bonus for Rich!

To all the rest of you, take notes. Base your argument on sound, documentable facts. Don't try to win support by denigrating some abstract evil entity you call *Big Oil*. That just shows you to be ignorant, shallow and hypocritical; and in the end you will destroy your own argument and alienate people who might otherwise have supported your cause (unless, of course, your real cause is to destroy *Big Oil*).

There really are valid reasons to kill the mega-hauls on this highway, and Rich stated 20 of them. A couple of other writers in this thread (and others) have stated good reasons related to safety, road damage, and traffic obstruction, but have muddled their message by attacking *Big Oil* and evil* Corporations* instead of focusing on the real, tangible arguments.

Don't show me photos of oil-soaked pelicans and expect me to join a crusade against the mega-haul. I can't sign on to a cause that tries to manipulate ideas through emotion. Give me substance and demonstrate that there is integrity in your approach and validity to your cause.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

These threads are comical to me. A bunch of river rats that think they know everything, coupled with the typical American "it's all about ME" attitude make for some entertaining drivel. OK, maybe not that entertaining.

Go ahead, oopose big oil. Oppose corporate America. Oppose industry. If that's what you stand for, then I expect you to stop driving your car, and get off the highways. Haul your raft or kayak to the river on horseback. Otherwise, you are supporting big oil.

Stop buying manufactured goods, make that shit yourself, by hand. Get out your hand tools, harvest the land. That kayak you haul by horseback to the river better be carved out of a large tree, by hand. Otherwise, you are supporting manufacturing as well.

If you're not willing to stop using the products you are opposing, then you're just bitching....


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

BoilermakerU said:


> _Go ahead, oopose big oil. Oppose corporate America. Oppose industry. If that's what you stand for, *then I expect you* to stop driving your car, and get off the highways. Haul your raft or kayak to the river on horseback. Otherwise, you are supporting big oil._
> 
> _If you're not willing to stop using the products you are opposing, then you're just bitching...._






> Originally Posted by *The Mogur*
> _I strongly suggest that all of you who hate *Big Oil* just stop using it. If you don't like the lifestyle that depends on "*Big Corporations*," move to the third world hell hole of your choice and become a primitive._


 
_I had no idea that the Corporate takeover of the USA had progressed so far....if someone suggestes that a Corporation could take better care of the envirnoment...fellow citizens (hell, fellow river rafters) tell them to STFU, obey the corporate rules or get the fuck out, because it is all about corporate profits. It's a sad world you two live in, glad there are still some people willing to stand up to the Corporate powers._


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

Again, my opposition is to the large loads and not the contents of the loads.

However, I do have a general problem with oil and some morally reprehensible industry. Understandably I have to cave at times, simply as it has been pointed out because living in the society we do, I can't live without many of the things I dislike. I have however made personal life changes to the point of reducing my gasoline usage by 75+% of what I used 4 years ago. I moved to a location where I could bike/walk commute to nearly everywhere except the mountains (which are close) to play. I buy local food when it's available directly from the farmers to cut out shipping costs and fuel usage. Yes I play in the mountains. Yes I use a plastic kayak, which has a long life span, but I avoid packaging that uses 1 time use plastic which is a far greater issue than anyones play toys.

I don't need to leave the country and I'm not hypocritical for using oil, and simultaneously opposing the negative aspects of oil production. It's not nearly as black and white as those in this thread are painting it.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

BoilermakerU said:


> These threads are comical to me. A bunch of river rats that think they know everything, coupled with the typical American "it's all about ME" attitude make for some entertaining drivel. OK, maybe not that entertaining.


Uhm, so "river rats" are uneducated pinheads who aren't entitled to opinions? And caring about a river corridor is "it's all about ME"? You didn't take much time to think this out, did you?



BoilermakerU said:


> Go ahead, *oopose* big oil. Oppose corporate America. Oppose industry. If that's what you stand for, then I expect you to stop driving your car, and get off the highways. Haul your raft or kayak to the river on horseback. Otherwise, you are supporting big oil.
> 
> Stop buying manufactured goods, make that shit yourself, by hand. Get out your hand tools, harvest the land. That kayak you haul by horseback to the river better be carved out of a large tree, by hand. Otherwise, you are supporting manufacturing as well.
> 
> If you're not willing to stop using the products you are opposing, then you're just bitching....


It's possible to be a "modern American" and oppose big bidness. You can choose to spend your money with mom 'n' pops vs. the big box corporations that are destroying small business, buying our politicians and raping our environment. It's fine to oppose big oil companies that don't give a rat's ass about our environment. To them, it's all about profit and the next quarter. It's OK to hold these people accountable for their actions. We get to vote with our dollars. I'm sorry you feel like you gotta lick the boots of the corporations that are busy buggering you. You've rolled over and that's pretty pathetic. Take off that skirt and put on some manpants, dude.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

Yes Riparian, you are an uneducated pinhead. You don't know the first thing about big corporation. You ASSUME (and we all know what happens when you ASSUME) that big corporations don't give a rat's ass. It may not be true for all big corporations, but a lot of them (in the US anyway) spend more money on taking care of the environment than you'll ever see in your lifetime. And we also employ more people than will ever be employed by mom and pop stores. Big corporations also spend a LOT of money to build infrastructure that benefits the communities around them, not just them. Big oil is actually a good example of that, in both cases, as is the mining industry, another I am sure you'd love to crucify from your bathtub. These companies build entire comunities around their operations - roads, schools, hospitals, etc. They employ thousands (not just Mom and Pop) that might otherwise be living in a carboard shack eating beatles and drinking storm water.

You and Rich think you're standing up to Corporate America by going online and bitching about it? Yet, you use their products every single day. That's laughable to me. Like I said before, if think it's So bad, then stop using their products. That's making a stand. You hate big oil and what it does to the environment? Stop using it. Stop driving a car that uses oil and pumps the exhaust back into the environment. You're more guilty than they are, you're demanding their products. It's supply and demand. Oh, but wait. you're not willing to do that, are you. It would be too inconvenient for you. After all, it's all about YOU, now isn't it?


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

Our country has made it very difficult to live a life without supporting a corporate interest in every day life. We don't have sophisticated monorail systems to move people and products efficiently, quickly and cheaply across long distances. We also don't have an intermountain train system to do the same across the Rockies. Japan and Europe have invested in these technologies, why not the US?

We CAN make a small difference with our spending money, purchase locally raised and humanely processed meats that weren't raised in a tiny cage and slaughtered so quickly that all the meat has shit on it. We can choose to bike whenever possible, purchase locally grown veggies or better yet grow your own from heirloom seeds not genetically modified or hybrids.

These are small changes, if everyone made small changes in their everyday life we could eventually change the world too. 

But I'm in the minority so you guys keep on keepin' on with your corporate philosophy, yeah mass produced products are cheaper - it doesn't mean it's worth it.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

BoilermakerU said:


> Yes Riparian, you are an uneducated pinhead.


LOL. I know a pathetically submissive corporate bootlicker whose gonna get a lump of coal in his stocking if he doesn't lighten up real soon. 

_Oh, BTW, you do look pretty cute in that skirt!

_Jen - you're absolutely right. I raise a glass to you.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

Riparian said:


> LOL. I know a pathetically submissive corporate bootlicker whose gonna get a lump of coal in his stocking if he doesn't lighten up real soon.
> 
> _Oh, BTW, you do look pretty cute in that skirt!_


Wow. That was one of the most intelligent things you've said so far. Did you make that up on your own in your tub by candlelight, or did you actually get up onto the can for that one?

I hope Santa doesn't give coal to anyone. That wouldn't be very environmentally friendly, and he'd be supporting the big bad coal mining companies. I'd hope he'd support his own little Mom and Pop shop at the north pole, where he's employing elves instead.

I actually hope I get a gas card from one of the big oil companies a gift card from Walmart. I can always use the gas, because I'm as guilty as the next guy when it comes to wanting the convenience of jumping in my car and driving where I need to go. I really have no desire to buy a horse and travel in a more environmentally way that doesn't support big oil or big corporate car companies. I also don't have the tools or skills to manufacture the goods I desire, so Walmart works for me there too.

Jen, you're saying the same thing. If we, as a society, want to change what's happening, we have to do it with our wallets. It's simple economics really, supply and demand. They still teach that beginning in first grade, so just about everyone here should be able to grasp that, just volunteer in your kids' class when they cover economics... LOL

The problem is, we won't change our ways. This country is all about greed. Not just the big corporations, but more importantly, the citizens of this country. Everyone wants bigger houses, fancier cars, flat screen plasma high def TV's, iPhones, etc. Our greed provides the demand that the big corporations then use to earn their profits. Then the country wants to sit back and bitch about the big corporations rather than look in the mirror.

Bitch about the politicians. Bitch about big corporations. Bitch about the other guy that has more than they do. Bitch at the guy who has less than they do. Bitch, bitch, bitch. You don't see anyone actually doing anything that might actually make a difference.

And yes Rip, I do work for a big corpopration. I've worked for small familly owned companies too. And mid-sized companies. I'll tell you that the big corporation I now work for treats it's employees far better than any of the others I have worked for. We create far more jobs than any Mom and Pop store ever would. We pay much higher wages and have superior benefits too. Works out pretty well for me actually, so call it what you like, but I'm proud to work for one.

I wouldn't if they didn't treat the environment or non-employees the same way though. I do have standards. We do a lot in the communites around us - here and abroad. And again, we do far more for the community than any of the other companies I have worked for. Sure, big corporations make mistakes. And that's all you ever see on the news - the bad news. For every bird you see in the gulf photos, there is probably a story about a charitable event that BP did too, but you'll never see that on the news, that's not what this society wants to see, because it would ruin their image of big corporations and it would be hard to bitch about that (but we'd find a way LOL).

I think your little signature is very representative of the attitude of the American citizens that's more worthy of bitching about than any of this other stuff. Everyone just wants a handout. Just lead them to an ATM....


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

From my point of view (and I may not be edumacated), we do not produce anything of value. We have become a society of cheap disposable products. We exist for "today" and back that up with our credit cards. We perpetuate a belief in "things". We give handouts to the rich and to the poor, big companies and little companies, but are unwilling to pay for this out of our own pocket. We let "elected" politicians vote on important issues with out being responsible to us. We are apathetic except when it comes to ourselves. Were in BIG trouble. 

On topic, oversize loads should be transported on corridors that can withstand the load and the logistics. 

That pen and teller utube is BS. Buy locally, drive less, don't be a throw away individual and act as if you are not the center of the F'n world.

Christmas spirit: I am an equal opportunity hater. Happy Holidays


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

BoilermakerU said:


> The problem is, we won't change our ways. *This country is all about greed.* Not just the big corporations, but more importantly, the citizens of this country. Everyone wants bigger houses, fancier cars, flat screen plasma high def TV's, iPhones, etc. Our greed provides the demand that the big corporations then use to earn their profits.


 Your corporate overlords thank you for your obsequious servility!



BoilermakerU said:


> I think your little signature is very representative of the attitude of the American citizens that's more worthy of bitching about than any of this other stuff. Everyone just wants a handout. Just lead them to an ATM....


Google my signature line. Report back what you've learned. Hint: It's from an especially hilarious scene from an especially hilarious film. Second hint: So is my avatar.

 Have a lovely Christmas in _Thronton_! I hope Santa brings you lots of disposable consumer rubbish. 

Your pal,

Riparian


----------



## catboatkeith (Jun 11, 2010)

Let's all do a big haul and meet for Memorial Day Wknd on the Lochsa. After a day of play we can have a few beers and discuss this a little more civil like.
Merry Christmas all
Keith


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

catboatkeith said:


> Let's all do a big haul and meet for Memorial Day Wknd on the Lochsa. After a day of play we can have a few beers and discuss this a little more civil like.
> Merry Christmas all
> Keith


You're right, of course. I'm guilty of dickishly baiting Boilermaker. I'm going to go self-flagellate and meditate on my sins.


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

BoilermakerU said:


> Big corporations also spend a LOT of money to build infrastructure that benefits the communities around them, not just them. Big oil is actually a good example of that, in both cases, as is the mining industry. These companies build entire comunities around their operations - roads, schools, hospitals, etc. They employ thousands (not just Mom and Pop) that might otherwise be living in a carboard shack eating beatles and drinking storm water.


_You might want to give an example of "entire communities" built by oil or mining companies. Without you providing an example, people might assume you mean communities like Libby, Mt. or Anaconda, Mt. or Gilman, Colorado or some other Superfund site where a big corporation created an environmental disaster that they then abandoned when the profits ran out. _






> You and Rich think you're standing up to Corporate America by going online and bitching about it? Yet, you use their products every single day. That's laughable to me. Like I said before, if think it's So bad, then stop using their products.


 
_By this twisted logic, the only people that can criticize a corporations operations is someone that does not use their product. __Luckily there are people with more backbone than you who push to keep corporations accountable._


----------



## mr. compassionate (Jan 13, 2006)

Jensjustduckie said:


> Our country has made it very difficult to live a life without supporting a corporate interest in every day life. We don't have sophisticated monorail systems to move people and products efficiently, quickly and cheaply across long distances. We also don't have an intermountain train system to do the same across the Rockies. Japan and Europe have invested in these technologies, why not the US?
> 
> We CAN make a small difference with our spending money, purchase locally raised and humanely processed meats that weren't raised in a tiny cage and slaughtered so quickly that all the meat has shit on it. We can choose to bike whenever possible, purchase locally grown veggies or better yet grow your own from heirloom seeds not genetically modified or hybrids.
> 
> ...


Why the aversion to genetically modified seeds which may even help the environment by using less water?


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

mr. compassionate said:


> Why the aversion to genetically modified seeds which may even help the environment by using less water?


So far genetically altered plants have not produced more resilient crops, better producing crops, or drought tolerant crops. They have produced lawsuits against farmers who did not want to grow or pay for crops. They are also dominant in the way they reproduce, and they are eliminating the biodiversity of food.

I'm not against genetically altered plants. The way the business is being run right now is criminal. I understand the need to protect investments, but patenting life is mental. Suing people over natural pollination cycles and winning is mental. Gaining patents on decades old seeds, developed the old fashion way is mental. Our FDA and the same cooperations who are being governed by the FDA are run by the same people. That it fundamentally flawed.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

glenn said:


> So far genetically altered plants have not produced more resilient crops, better producing crops, or drought tolerant crops. They have produced lawsuits against farmers who did not want to grow or pay for crops. They are also dominant in the way they reproduce, and they are eliminating the biodiversity of food.
> 
> I'm not against genetically altered plants. The way the business is being run right now is criminal. I understand the need to protect investments, but patenting life is mental. Suing people over natural pollination cycles and winning is mental. Gaining patents on decades old seeds, developed the old fashion way is mental. Our FDA and the same cooperations who are being governed by the FDA are run by the same people. That it fundamentally flawed.


Exactly, thanks Glenn

Also in the near future we will most likely be unable to purchase ANY corn that is non-GMO as the open pollination of corn has made it almost impossible to find even heirloom seeds without any Monsanto modified genes. 

Farmers basically can't save their own seed anymore even if they don't buy from Monsanto because their crops have been contaminated with the GMO corn. Non-corporate farmers are being put out of business due to this genetic Frankenfood, please support small farms and farmers markets whenever possible, the small farmers have it hard enough already fighting corporate giants.


----------



## billfish (Nov 22, 2009)

*bitcing*



BoilermakerU said:


> This country is all about greed. Not just the big corporations, but more importantly, the citizens of this country. Everyone wants bigger houses, fancier cars, flat screen plasma high def TV's, iPhones, etc. Our greed provides the demand that the big corporations then use to earn their profits. Then the country wants to sit back and bitch about the big corporations rather than look in the mirror.
> 
> Bitch about the politicians. Bitch about big corporations. Bitch about the other guy that has more than they do. Bitch at the guy who has less than they do. Bitch, bitch, bitch. You don't see anyone actually doing anything Everyone just wants a handout. Just lead them to an ATM....


 
talk about bitching. you just complained about an entire nation. you are a jackass.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

Yeah Rich, it takes a lot of backbone to bitch about something, yet continue to be part of the problem. If you had a sack, you'd actually do something about it instead of just sit and bitch about it.

Rip, I did Google your little signature and avatar. Not that funny IMO, but to each his own. The signature still says a lot about your attitude, just by the nature of you so proudly displaying it.

And Bill, well, I guess you've already shown what you're made of with that response...


----------



## nmalozzi (Jun 19, 2007)

BoilermakerU said:


> Rip, I did Google your little signature and avatar. Not that funny IMO, but to each his own. The signature still says a lot about your attitude, just by the nature of you so proudly displaying it.


You had to google The Big Lebowski? Really? Then proceeded to not find it humorous? All of your future arguments are invalid.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

nmalozzi said:


> You had to google The Big Lebowski? Really? Then proceeded to not find it humorous? All of your future arguments are invalid.


In defense of Mr. Boilermaker, I gotta believe that being chained to a corporate cubical would make it hard for one to laugh. We should try to be compassionate... like Mr. Compassionate.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

Er, "cubicle." That last bong kinda messed up my spelling ability.


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

Getting back on topic, I am going to speculate on some of the ways this Mega-Haul issue is going to play out.

Let us suppose that Idaho withdraws its approval for the haul. Since they had previously issued the permit, which is a form of contract, the state will be in breach of contract. It is probable that the state will be sued for the costs incurred as a result of the breach. Who pays? Idaho taxpayers.

And what about the loads? From where they are stored now, in Lewiston, the nearest alternative route would be back to Pasco, up US-395 to Ritzville, onto I-90, through Spokane and Coeur d Alene and over Lookout Pass to Missoula. From there, it is the same as the original route. But the haul through Eastern Washington is going to involve a lot of overpasses that might not be high enough for the mega-loads. Whatever is done to deal with that, it is more cost. Who pays? We do, because it will increase the price of the product that we all use. 

Or maybe it will not be economically feasible to do anything with the loads that are in Lewiston other than cut them up for scrap. That's good, because that way nobody has to deal with the mega-hauls. But it comes at a price. Someone has already paid for that stuff, and the price will be passed on to consumers, whether the items are put to use or cut up for scrap. Once again, we pay--and get nothong for it.

In fact, we'll pay twice, because the oil company is certainly going to have new ones built to replace these, and the replacements will cost a lot more than the originals. Or, if replacement is cost-prohibitive, then the whole oil-sand project will have to be abandoned, and we'll just keep paying more to middle-eastern oil shieks.

What I'm saying is that there will be a cost to this, no matter what the outcome of this current debate; and we need to take that cost into consideration before we commit to any course of action. 

An engineer once told me, "Life is full of trade-offs." Ain't that the truth.


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

It appears from the timeline that they ordered the equipment, manufactured it, shipped it across the Pacific and sent the first loads up the Columbia, all without Idaho permits in hand.

It is also my understanding that they still do not have permits for the Montana portion of the haul.

Another option is load them back up float them down the Snake/Columbia, thru the Panama Canel, Up the St Lawarance Seaway to Duluth, Mn and then overland from there on Canadian Highways.


----------



## bradgoet (May 27, 2004)

Uh...or they could take the additional expense out of the billions in profit that they make each year. Since they decided to do this without proper research and the required permits in hand first. It's really their bad. 

If they have to pass the price onto the consumers let it happen. If petroleum gets expensive enough it will make other technologies economically viable. Which ultimately is the best solution.


----------



## studytime (Oct 4, 2010)

bradgoet said:


> Uh...or they could take the additional expense out of the billions in profit that they make each year. Since they decided to do this without proper research and the required permits in hand first. It's really their bad.
> 
> If they have to pass the price onto the consumers let it happen. If petroleum gets expensive enough it will make other technologies economically viable. Which ultimately is the best solution.


Exactly.


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

I love they way the impeccably logical busni- babble types pretend there is no correlation between who controls resources and critical systems and the range of choices people have.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

cayo 2 said:


> I love they way the impeccably logical busni- babble types pretend there is no correlation between who controls resources and critical systems and the range of choices people have.


Exactly. 

Or that they have to regurgitate elementary logic verbatim to try to dictate the terms of the debate (without presumably understanding the context for which such logic is to be used). 

<-------- Actually majored in philosophy.


----------

