[Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work

[g. crabtree]

1. My business is not located in Whitman county.

2. Predatory? All business competes with other business. This is the nature 
of the game. Will Idaho lose some tax revenue? Some, but probably not as 
much as you think. Those same tax dollars are lost when Idaho residents go 
to Spokane to shop or make purchases through the intertubes because what 
they seek is unavailable in Moscow.

3. Water. We've been over this one repeatedly. Whether it is delivered by 
the City of Moscow, pumped from private wells, or provided by the City of 
Pullman, it's all the same water. The folks who are working and shopping at 
the new mall would be using the same amount of water if they were working in 
Moscow, Pullman, Troy, or Colton. You don't uptake or download any more just 
because you're at the Hawkins development. I suspect that your vegetable 
production facility uses far more water than any individual business will 
and provides far fewer jobs. If the Hawkins property were to be turned into 
a truck farm the same argument you attempt to use applies. Competition with 
Moscow business. (you) No tax dollars for Idaho. Far higher water 
consumption. Perhaps you would prefer the land lay fallow?

4. I am willing to accept any legal, legitimate business operation located 
on private property in Latah or Whitman Co. Pullman or Moscow, miles away or 
right next door to my shop. Period.

5. I think that my answer regarding your questions concerning FOCA were to 
the point. One third of all hospitals in America are Catholic. If a doctor 
or nurse hired on with one of these facilities they would have a reasonable 
expectation of working in an environment that did not promote a culture of 
death. Forcing institutions such as these to provide a service that they did 
not originally is to force every person employed there to do something that 
was not in their original job description. I am not talking about the 
mythical minority that might have hired on at an abortion mill that suddenly 
don't want to perform their  job. In my example I'm talking about thousands 
of real health care professionals, in yours you talking about a tiny handful 
(if that) of hypothetical employees. I stand by my red herring assertion.

It seems that you are arguing in favor of an employers right to can a 
hypothetical fraction of his work force rather than the rights of the very 
real thousands of doctors and nurses who will be adversely impacted by BHO's 
very bad decision.

g
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work


>
> g writes:
>
> "I'm confused. I thought you said you were a Moscow resident... I like our 
> neighbors to the west, I don't feel a need to meddle in their affairs, and 
> I'm willing to let them purchase "our" water at reasonable rates."
>
>
> I'm not sure why you're confused. I live in Moscow. I try to support 
> locally-owned stores, even ones in Whitman County. Like you, I have 
> nothing against Whitman County, or the employers and people there in a 
> general sense. I want their lives to prosper as much as anyb
ody's. But when they are doing so by competing with Moscow's interests, it 
only seems natural to want to defend Moscow.
>
> You are free to feel the way you state. The fact is, a Boise developer 
> plans to build a predatory mall next to Moscow. Their intent is to compete 
> with Moscow businesses. To me, I'm not thrilled at that prospect, and I 
> consider it meddling with Moscow in that they aren't in this to help 
> Moscow. More than likely, some businesses in Moscow will suffer, and thus 
> Idaho sales tax revenue will decrease. So in some sense, they are meddling 
> with Moscow by intently wanting Moscow business, thus reducing state 
> coffers. I see nothing wrong with defending Moscow's interests from 
> private developers who don't care if they hurt Moscow.
>
> We aren't talking about one store, but a mall twice the size as Moscow's 
> largest mall. That isn't minor as you stated earlier. The fact that they 
> want to draw from the same aquifer as Moscow is another way they are 
> meddling with Moscow.
>
> Moscow shouldn't be in the business of facilitating out of state 
> mega-malls that don't have Moscow's best interest at heart, meaning Moscow 
> shouldn't sell them water, and should not have offered to provide them 
> sewer services, as well. That isn't meddling, that just making sure we 
> aren't letting Moscow be ill-served.
>
> Should I take from your position, g, that you are willing to accept 
> anything that may come to Whitman County, or even to Moscow?
>
> How about a nuclear waste depository? A chemical company with a known 
> history of polluting and leaving the waste to be cleaned up by taxpayers? 
> A strip club a block down from your lock shop, perhaps with a topless 
> car-wash (out of public view, of course)?
>
> Do you have limits, or is it an anything goes kind of growth?
>
>
> Regarding the conscience rule questions I asked. I understand the specific 
> cases you are defending. I had in previous replies to the thread taken a 
> similar position. From what I remember, Sunil asked you to document cases 
> where someone was forced to perform an abortion, and you wrote, "To the 
> best of my knowlage they have not." Meaning to me, no one has been forced 
> to perform an abortion against their will. So it seems that to bring up 
> something that is not an issue as an answer to my question is a red 
> herring.
>
> I wasn't answering a question with a question. The question you asked was 
> addressed to someone else, and it was answered. I thought of the questions 
> I asked you to further the discussion on the issue, and since you were the 
> person supporting the conscience rule as is, I merely was hoping you'd 
> answer them.
>
> My questions were about the overall implications of the law, not specific 
> parts. Since the original article was about modifying the order, not 
> repealing it, I was trying to get to the meat of the issue. I'm sorry you 
> interpreted them as red herrings, but that was not my intent. I think they 
> are questions that supporters of the rule should think about.
>
> If I were to call anything a red herring, it is the answer you just gave 
> to my questions. If you want me to consider that your "neglected reply," 
> then I'll just assume you don't have a reasonable answer those questions, 
> copied here for references sake:
>
>
> Why should a business be obligated to pay an employee who doesn't do their 
> job?
>
> Shouldn't the business have the right to not spend its money on an 
> employee who won't perform their job? If not, then how could a business 
> continue to function if there doesn't seem to be a way to prevent 
> employees from over-enjoying their supposed right to not do their job 
> because of such a broad excuse as it goes against their religion? Are we 
> talking about every single religion?
>
> Does the government have the right to force a business to pay an employee 
> who doesn't do their job? If so, why should government intervene in such 
> an intimate way since that seems rather socialistic?
>
> Doesn't passing a law requiring businesses to pay an employee who doesn't 
> do their job because of religion violate the 1st Amendment? If not, how 
> can a law which essentially is regarding the establishment of religion not 
> be illegal, particularly when it also seems rather anti-capitalistic?
>
> g's answer:
>
>> 1. If you reply to my question with a question (and no
>> actual response) am I honor bond to reply? If so, should it
>> be in the form of another question?
>>
>> 2. Your questions were specious in that we were not talking
>> about the nurse at a planned parenthood clinic suddenly
>> deciding that she didn't want to be involved in the
>> tgaking of a life or anyone who contrived to be hired,
>> knowing full well what their job would entail, and suddenly
>> opting to not perform their duties. We are talking about
>> personnel hired at private facilities that had no
>> involvement with abortion suddenly being forced to perform a
>> procedure they never hired on for. We are talking about
>> private sector pharmacists being forced to sell products
>> they in good conscience find abhorrent.
>>
>> This, and Donovan's "emergency save the
>> mother" arguments are red herrings tossed out to cover
>> the stench of forcing private individuals to bow to the whim
>> of others against their will and conscience.
>>
>> Please consider this my neglected reply. Sorry for my lack
>> of alacrity.
>>
>> g
>
>