PA's Dept. of Homeland Security Shared Oil-Shale Protester Info With Companies 293
Western Pennsylvania's shale oil deposits have lately attracted interest not only from companies who have been extracting some of that oil, but from locals who object to what they perceive as sharp dealing by the companies involved, favorable treatment by the state government, and environmental degradation as a result of the extraction. Some of the most visible of those protesters, it turns out, have been tracked (including "Web traffic") by Pennsylvania's own Homeland Security department, and that information about them has been shared not only within the department, but with the oil companies themselves. Homeland Security director James Powers defended the information shared with the oil companies as part of a triweekly bulletin, saying "We want to continue providing this support to the Marcellus Shale Formation natural gas stakeholders while not feeding those groups fomenting dissent against those same companies."
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tell me again... (Score:5, Insightful)
When you create the legal fiction that an intangible conglomeration of people, united solely in their desire to exploit other people for monetary gain, counts as a human being under the law, weird shit starts happening.
If you ask me it's time we brought back the death penalty for unruly corporations.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ask me it's time we brought back the death penalty for unruly corporations.
No, because the psychopaths responsible for the decisions, will find a way out, leaving their customary trail of destruction and misery after them: they will manipulate their way out of the to-be-killed corporation that they corrupted and abused, and into a leading position in another company. Which is, btw. what they do today already, even without your proposed "death penalty for unruly corporations".
Instead, we should introduce death penalties for unruly executives, and start recognizing corporate psychop
Re:Tell me again... (Score:5, Insightful)
the psychopaths responsible for the decisions, will find a way out, leaving their customary trail of destruction and misery after them: they will manipulate their way out of the to-be-killed corporation that they corrupted and abused, and into a leading position in another company.
Imagine you're on the board of directors of company x. Suppose the CEO of company y, known to be ruthless and to dramatically increase profits, -
but also known to have caused the "execution" of company y, i.e., caused the immediate liquidation of company y, meaning that all of company y's "going concern" value is lost and only the value of its liquid assets are recovered by shareholders,
- wants to be the CEO of your company, company x. Would you want him to be your CEO?
The imposition of an actual "death penalty" for criminal corporations would have an enormous impact on the way business is run in this country... because people would lose money as a result of criminal behavior by a company they have invested in.
Re:Tell me again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, why not? He'll help me and my fellow directors loot the company and jump ship before it sinks. Then we'll help him get a new CEO position in whatever companies we've spread to, and repeat the process.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hurd did not cause HP to cease to exist as a corporate entity. Hurd did not cause all of HP's going concern value to evaporate.
In other words, Hurd is an excellent example of how not having corporate capital punishment* encourages the recycling of aggressive/ruthless executives from one company to another. If executives' criminal behavior did cause massive loss to shareholders, I think the 'old boy' network would disappear in a hurry. People value their money a lot more than they value the friend of frie
Re:Tell me again... (Score:5, Interesting)
No. Corporations can't die. You can try to kill them, but they just won't die. It is true that they are anti-social, greedy, selfish, single minded, manipulative, and basically fits every criteria for being classified 3213 by the American Psychological Association (Schizophrenia & Psychotic States). Its illegal for a board member of a company to do anything that diminishes the profits of shareholders. I've seen CXO's of pharmaceutical companies lie after being sworn in -To Members of the US Congress-.... Why? Because if they didn't lie, then they would be sued by shareholders, unemployed, and never get a job again. Somewhere, we gave away too much. This nameless, faceless entity (Hello Enron, Hello WorldCom, Hello Tyco, Hello Freddy Mac, Hello Fannie Mae) who doesn't even know what hungry is, is somehow worthy of the status 'too big to fail', yet millions of people who do know what hungry is, are less worthy and are completely subjected to failing. The pendulum has swung too far in one direction. Both political parties say 'Yes Mr. Corporation Sir, can I get you another?'. Its made worse by corrupt politicians who place personal gain over 'the good of the people'.
back to the future (Score:4, Insightful)
If you ask me it's time we brought back the death penalty for unruly corporations.
That's exactly as it used to be. Pennsylvania was notorious for shutting down banks that were misbehaving in the 1810's and 1820's. All corporations of the time were for limited terms and for public benefit.
Come around towards 1870 and John D. Rockefeller finds he can use his "influence" in Congress to get corporations made permanent, and soon in Santa Clara a footnote to an unrelated case finds that corporations have human rights, and all three branches of government heartily embrace this bizzare idea.
Soon after the "Trust Busters" decided to break up Standard Oil and implemented the break-up plan that Rockefeller himself crafted (as he had found Standard Oil by that time to be too unwieldy to compete nimbly). They showed him, right?
Witness the transformation of the Wall Street banks in the 1990's from partnerships (where the owners' money is directly at risk) to corporate ownership and the resulting shenanigans that ensued.
Corporations remove that direct responsibility, and are, in essence, an agreement between the government and the managers to protect the managers from the People when they engage in malfeasance. Typically, those managers see to it that the representatives in Government are well taken care of, and thus the positive-feedback loop is complete.
Partnerships are the natural structure of companies that need to grow to a large size. There is a limit on their size, in contrast to giant multi-national corporations. Some will argue that the big multi-nationals are essential to provide some kind of product at some kind of price, but the evidence against them is far too compelling to support those arguments of a net-utility benefit.
I'll get a bunch of responses here that we need a big government to protect us from corporations (from well-meaning folks educated in government education centers) but I hope I've given enough of a kernel of information to lead you to read up on how government action is the root problem here, and that corporations exist only at its pleasure.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, what? Who's losing rights when we say enough to the abuse of a poorly designed vehicle for business activity?
Libertarians are statists like the rest of us, it's just that in their language "state" starts with C and ends with N.
Re:Tell me again... (Score:5, Insightful)
and to think those of us who objected to PATRIOT, state fusion centers, and the rest of the expansion of the surveillance / police state were called wingnuts: after all, if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear, and so what's the harm in letting the government spy on you? oh wait. and to think that this is merely the tip of the police state iceberg. i foresee far darker days ahead on our society's current path.
Re:Tell me again... (Score:5, Insightful)
People only tend to appreciate the evils of government when the party they dislike is in power.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Show me a sane person who likes evil.
Do you think all the War protesters suddenly A-OKed the war after Obama was elected?
Re:Tell me again... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but a lot of them stopped talking about it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I realize that the right needs to invent conspiracies to drive it,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"winding down" here having the value of :s/US military/mercenaries/g
oh, i'm sorry we call mercs "security consultants" these days. i almost missed that memo.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot of them did. It's for two reasons, one the biggest protesting point was that Bush was involved and anything to rail on Bush seemed to be acceptable. Another reason is that once obama was elected, they had some sort of trust that the wars were somewhat necessary seeing how he didn't end them or anything. (fun fact, Obama's ending of the Iraq war was little more then renaming the support and training troops that were
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that's right, enforcing the no fly zone is just a
Re: (Score:2)
fun fact, Obama's ending of the Iraq war was little more then renaming the support and training troops that were scheduled to be left behind from Bush's SOFA agreement that was created about a year before the elections.
Way to twist it. He campaigned on those plans - that they were substantially SOFA is no big deal - for one thing Obama was campaigning on that general strategy at roughly the same time that the Iraq SOFA was being negotiated. No one with half a brain could listen to Obama's campaigning and take away that his goal was an immediate pull-out of troops upon inauguration. Although a dumbass who listened to the PR machine of his political opponents rather than think for himself would probably come away with th
Re:Tell me again... (Score:5, Informative)
Well you didn't cite, so I had to use wikipedia to find the information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement [wikipedia.org]
The last SOFA before bush left said combat troops would be removed only from cities, not from the country.
The SOFA also stated that non-combat troops would remain up to 2 years later.
The entire agreement was renewable
So you could say Bush set it in motion, however you could also say there's no guarantee we would have left.
If people wanted to get out, Obama clearly pushed that as his platform
Another fun fact (from wiki, 'cause I'm too lazy to follow their citation trail): Apparently in the SOFA agreement if the Iraqi interim government says GTFO, the US has 1 year to leave... They haven't requested the US leave yet
Re: (Score:2)
Show me a sane person who likes evil.
Show me anyone, sane or insane, who "likes evil". I think there's a few performers and serial killers. It's not a useful observation.
Do you think all the War protesters suddenly A-OKed the war after Obama was elected?
No, but most of them did suddenly A-OK it. My take is that the issue wasn't that the US was killing innocent people, but rather who would have benefited from winning the war.
Re:Tell me again... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Tell me again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Eh? Both Republics and Democrats have been pushing this shit. Who the hell is standing against it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much do you want to bet that National Security Letters were involved here somehow?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take that bet, seeing as it was a state government involved, and not the feds.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The state Department of Homeland Security is a "fusion center" serving to "facilitate" cooperation between state and federal authorities. Given that, I wouldn't rule out federal involvement.
Re:Tell me again... (Score:5, Insightful)
They could...
If the people actually cared about ethics in government and business...
Instead everyone wants to get rich by any means necessary, including cheating and reality tv shows.
What is the government? Its you... Its me... Its the people. Its our country. If we cant trust the government, we cant trust each other or our country.
If we want a better government, elect better people and be a better person yourself. Be vigilant
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If you look around there are all sorts of different definitions of fascism. You might look at the wikipedia summary on this. I use a deviate definition. Admittedly I am a little vague on the details. Try this.
Austerity on the general population. Think of it as looting their living standards, their lives, and ultimately their bodies.
A financial structure that needs that loot to keep going a little longer.
A big economic crisis.
I sort of think we could include the late roman empire under this rubic as fas
Gasland (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't new. There are youtube videos of the water coming out of people's kitchen faucet catching on fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRZ4LQSonXA [youtube.com]
The process to remove natural gas and oil from shale is extremely complicated. Many companies won't even tell you what chemicals they use; they claim it's a "trade secret". They tell you that everything's okay, but you know for a fact that some of that cocktail they're pumping into the ground simply must be a carcinogen. And if they're drilling on your land, and you get your water from a well (and that's a lot of people in western PA), then you better believe that their fracking chemicals (hydraulic fracturing) are leeching into the local water table.
Naturally, there are also plenty of loopholes in the regulations to make sure that Corporate America can continue to rape and plunder low-life commoners like you and me.
For lots more information, go watch Gasland.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/613/index.html [pbs.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I encourage people interested in the issues here to go out and research BOTH sides of the issue. Watch Gasland. And then go read the criticisms of the information presented in the film.
Many of the claims like those made in the parent don't stand up to research.
For example the following discusses the trade secret issue:
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100913/fracking-chemicals-will-be-disclosed-drilling-companies-say [solveclimate.com]
Re:Gasland (Score:4, Insightful)
lol, are you for real? Try reading the article you cite as evidence. Last time I checked, ultimatums are generally issued after significant resistance.
The Obama administration urged gas companies to voluntarily disclose the toxic chemicals they inject in the ground in a type of natural gas exploration that uses hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
If companies rebuff the request — a seemingly unlikely event — environmental regulators could get tough.
I also find it absolutely hilarious that you're trying to use an article that was printed this week as evidence that these companies haven't been fighting to keep these chemicals secret for the past several years.
Re:Gasland (Score:5, Insightful)
Oil naturally leaks into the oceans. That doesn't mean all oil leaking into the oceans is natural. Lightning naturally starts forest fires. That doesn't mean all forest fires are natural.
Yes, it can happen naturally that a well might be contaminated with oil or natural gas. But, when it's the case that a well wasn't contaminated then suddenly becomes contaminated after recently drilling near or on your property, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about it being natural. Nor, really, would I find it "beyond a reasonable doubt" simply that it was contaminated from recent drilling.
However, if it's the case that the recent drilling involved pumping a trade secret mixture of chemicals into the ground and you can find it in your well, that's a pretty strong link. So, the situation becomes finding out, in some fashion, that trade secret mixture to perform a simply comparison. I think that's all that people who feel they are effected are really demanding. Of course, if they find that fingerprint mixture, I'm sure they'll want to file lawsuits, have passed regulation changes, and/or see criminal charges to be pressed. But, all of that's pretty reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to guess from your reply that you didn't bother watching Gasland, because your reply does nothing to address the use of secret chemicals that are pumped underground where humans draw their drinking water from. Did your grandma have such companies trying to extract that gas by hydraulic fracturing without fully disclosing the types of chemicals they will be injecting into the ground that she drew her drinking water from?
Re:Gasland (Score:5, Interesting)
The fracking you did previously is quite different from the fracking gas companies are doing right now. The EPA has asked the drilling companies to disclose the chemicals. Of course, they don't want to. Of course, they also claim none of the chemicals are known to get into the water.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0909/EPA-to-natural-gas-companies-Give-details-on-fracking-chemicals [csmonitor.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I am forced to conclude that you work in a psychiatric ward, or possibly as a comedian, because I can't think of any other contexts where you might constantly hear that kind of claim uttered.
The usual reasoning for why we give money to government is not that they protect us from corporations, but that they provide us with services that corporations wouldn'
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I hear all the time about how government protects people from corporations, and that's why we have to keep giving government more and more power.
Merely giving government the power is not enough. You also need to hold it accountable for the use of said power.
This is actually true of anyone, not just the government. The reason why government is still preferable over corporations is that we do have some means of holding the government accountable in a democracy - even if they are growing more and more theoretical in a malfunctioning one such as yours. Corporations do not have any such means even in theory.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's especially bad considering PA has a 2nd term Democrat for governor, Rendell.
Same guy pushed landfills from the cities onto farmland (he's from Philadelphia, you know, just over the river from NJ literally). While NJ was cutting down their use of landfills, he pushed PA into accepting the business. Where I am, we have an incinerator that was built in the county (before Rendell) that's rarely used on route 441. Instead, we've opened up yet another landfill outside of Elizabethtown, since it's cheaper
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hear all the time about how government protects people from corporations
Corporations are people too!
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." -George Orwell, Animal Farm
why? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cos they are working for the companies. Not for you. Think directorship, member of the board. that kind of thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture [wikipedia.org]
hth.
Re:why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Some politician got a contribution to his reelection campaign. How we consider that anything other than bribery I will never understand.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If we put every politico that did this in jail for bribery then virtually all of them would be there......hmmm.........
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but the downside would be..?
Re: (Score:2)
And we'd all be better off.
payback at later date (Score:4, Interesting)
Because James Powers will probably receive a FAT consultant job with Marcellus Shale Formation after he "retires" from his "public sector" job. Very popular thing with DoD generals and military contractors/suppliers in the past.
Re:payback at later date (Score:5, Insightful)
The Marcellus Shale Formation is a geological feature. It's not in any position to be buying politicians. The companies extracting gas from the shale - that's a different story.
Re:payback at later date (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Pennsylvania Department of Homeland Security doesn't benefit from disclosing the names of protesters. However, the politicians in the Pennsylvania state legislature and the Pennsylvania governor's office most certainly do. Therefore, they start pressuring the Homeland Security Department to collect this information and share it with the oil companies involved.
Pennsylvania is a fascist state? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who knew...
I bet the trains run on time though.
Re:Pennsylvania is a fascist state? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not me. I thought it was a classic kleptocracy.
Most definitely not.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet the trains run on time though.
Nope.
Because they were too busy searching people at the stations [nbcphiladelphia.com] without a valid reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet the trains run on time though.
See, they found a way to weasel out of this while keeping everything else: so long as you can convince the citizens that they're living in a democracy, they will expect the government to screw such things up! ~
Someone needs to be kicked out of office (Score:5, Insightful)
This is terribly interesting, the worst nightmare posible. The entrenched law inforcement and investigatory agency, tax payer funded being used to unabashedly help business over the general welfare. Someone should be going to jail here.
Re:Someone needs to be kicked out of office (Score:5, Funny)
Calm down, these things take time. They have to identify all the dissidents before they can start rounding them up,
"Formenting dissent"? (Score:5, Insightful)
I had to re-read this a few times. Are these guys taking their cues from North Korea newspapers? Whoever this guy is he should be 1) reminded of what the 1st amendment is about 2) fired.
Re:"Formenting dissent"? (Score:5, Insightful)
3. Sued by every person whose information was "shared."
4. Prosecuted by the attorney general of the state.(and if he refuses to prosecute, by the US Attorney General.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Last I heard, there was an outright ban on natural gas fracking in NY due to their concerns over the damage to the underground aquifer.
Re:"Formenting dissent"? (Score:5, Insightful)
and aren't therefore connected to natural gas reservoirs
Yet. Fracking isn't exactly brain surgery. I've worked in the industry (micro-seismic monitoring) and know how poorly understood the rock mechanics of this process is.
Shale gas wells tap the gas from a tight shale that's completely separated vertically from the aquifer.
I'm curious how you managed to get to a deep shale formation without drilling through the rock on top. Once you've put a well in the whole "vertical separation" claim doesn't look so good, and it's not as if well linings never leak, so please don't bother to bring that one up. We're talking about facts here. Well linings leak, rather more than 1% of the time.
Nobody who has just spent $$$ on drilling a well wants the very gas they were after to piss itself away into an aquifer. You may doubt companies stick to regulations, but I'm sure you don't suspect their desire for not literally letting their profit evaporate.
Ok, now you're just being a moron. I guess you also think that no company would ever engage in the kind of systematic laxity that dumped a few millions barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico three months ago. I know being a corporate shill is mentally and morally damaging, but seriously, just how stupid do you think the rest of us are?
This bogus argument that "profit maximization in the long term will prevent the people who work for companies from ever engaging in risky behaviour that would limit long-term profits" is the corporate Stata Claus: it would be so NICE if it was true, but y'know what? It's false. Bringing wells/mines/whatever into production FAST is generally strongly incentived in the extraactive industries, and it is not at all uncommon for companies to lose long-term profits in the name of hitting short-term goals. Look up "high grading" [thesudburystar.com] if you're unfamiliar with this all-too-common corporate phenomenon.
The people who work for companies, as witnessed by the idiots at BPHTO (BP/Halibuton/Trans-Ocean), are more than capable of making bad, short-sighted decisions that result in pretty much unlimited environmental damage, and the proof of that is they already have. That is simple empiricism, and for someone to trot out that tired old corporate "just so" story about how profits will protect us all is sad.
Problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
If someone is shooting at
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you expect the appropriate authorities to be told about it. You might rightfully expect some information on the general nature of the threat (if any) but you should not expect to be told about specific persons which seems to be what is happening here.
That would be vigilantism.
Re: (Score:2)
This information is generally available in any local newspaper, there is no harm in directly bringing to the attention of a company during a briefing. It's only vigilantism if you actively hunt those people down and punish them ou
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone were to ruin your water supply, especially with poisonous, exploding kinda stuff, by drilling at an adjacent property, wouldn't you also expect to be told about it? Keep in mind that the locals depend heavily on well water. This is a serious issue.
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd expect to be told info about a group of people that are in no way implicated in the attack other than that they don't like you exploiting their state's natural resources? You'd expect to be privy to private information and e-mails and web traffic? Well...if you're connected politically you can evidently have those expectations fulfilled.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiwa_family_lawsuits_against_Royal_Dutch_Shell
It starts out with chats, then a closer working relationship, a two way flow of information on people of interest.
Soon the flow is one way as the local issues are solved - permanently.
Should be Fired (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe a re-naming is in order? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Natural Evolution (Score:2)
"Homeland Security" was sold as a defense of the "Homeland" against external enemies. Now we're seeing Homeland Security being used to investigate political activities of U.S. Citizens.
This is making me think of Flint in 1933. That's not good.
Oh, Good, my state is in the news again. (Score:2)
I was getting worried when the hubbub over the school spying on its students through webcams died off. Good to see we're maintaining our position as the fifth worst state in the Union.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly, that number was more indicative of my feelings about how my state is governed than anything else, and was an attempt at humor. The truth is that I know too little about most other states to make any intelligent comments about them unless their practices, good or ill, are revealed through news stories. I figure the ones I never hear much about (Idaho, Arkansas, the Carolinas) are better run than the ones that get publicized for dumb stuff like this.
I'm not familiar with the Harrisburg debt issue,
Full Circle (Score:5, Informative)
This is apropos because the Pennsylvania State Police began in the early 19th century as the private Iron and Coal Police of the mine and mill owners. The owners tired of paying for their muscle all by themselves and recruited the taxpayers of Pennsylvania to chip in by getting the State of Pennsylvania to ... what's the opposite of "privatize"? Publicize? Anyway, the State adopted the bosses' private security apparatus as a whole, changed its name to the State Police, and started to pay their salaries to do what they had been doing anyway: fighting the unions and communities that were struggling to improve wages and working conditions in the coal mines and steel mills of Pennsylvania.
This is all detailed in Kristian Williams's excellent history of the police in America Our Enemies in Blue [amazon.com] .
Re:Full Circle (Score:4, Informative)
what's the opposite of "privatize"? Publicize?
Socialize.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And just in case anyone was wondering what police forces would be like in a libertarian world, it would be just like this, only a million times worse. And frankly, I started to stop typing that and type "a thousand times" but I decided a million was not hyperbole.
Tom Ridge (R-PA) (Score:5, Informative)
Tom Ridge was the first Homeland Security chief, installed by Bush/Cheney. He's the guy who helped Bush/Cheney fake terror alerts [crooksandliars.com] timed to win elections. Ridge was [wikipedia.org] Pennsylvania's governor until shortly before he headed Homeland Security, after decades at the top of Pennsylvania politics and police.
The PA Homeland Security department is completely compliant with Tom Ridge's way of doing business.
Re:Those damn evil Republicans (Score:4, Informative)
Except the Democratic governor was "appalled", and halted the practice [onenewsnow.com] once he found out.
Republicans are never appalled, except by people exercising our rights, and never halt a tyrannical practice, even when found out.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Rendell wasn't appalled enough to fire anyone, though.
From the Inquirer article: "Rendell said that he will not fire or discipline anyone in the Office of Homeland Security, headed by director James F. Powers Jr., for the lapse. But he said he ordered the office to terminate its contract with Philadelphia-based Institute of Terrorism and Research Response, which he said has been paid $125,000 in the last year to gather data about possible security threats."
Unless heads roll it's hard to see what pounding th
Re:Those damn evil Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure they would too, but it's one of those issues where it really points out the hypocrisy of the party. It's like when a Republican violates family values and has a homosexual affair. It invokes a Nelson "ha ha" response.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is James Powers a Democrat? Seems more like he is a bureaucrat. When a new government is elected, all the existing people in various departments aren't fired and replaced with people from the new party.
Re:Those damn evil Republicans (Score:5, Interesting)
Is James Powers a Democrat? Seems more like he is a bureaucrat.
Bureaucrat? Possibly. Democrat? No way... his bio makes me think Republican for sure. He is former military, who are usually Republican (I make no judgment here). He formally worked/possibly still does for a large oil/mining company which usually means Republican (I am making judgment here). And through that career, it seems safe to assume he has gotten rich, which means Republican (again, judgment). If one takes those three observations (not necessarily in that order) I think Republican is a sure bet. And before I get the "troll label" A)most military members vote Republican, as they used to believe in small government and a strong defense force; and B) which party is fighting to keep the tax cuts for the richest 2.5% of our population? I'm not going to turn this into a political discussion, I'm just explaining my theory and answering the question.
Republican or Democrat, this policy stinks and really runs contradictory to "of, by, and for the people" and seems to me to be more fallout from the Citizens United verdict, which I still mourn.
Re:Those damn evil Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
I, also, forgot to mention that the Republicans are not fighting to keep tax cuts for the "richest" 2.5% of our population. They are fighting to keep the tax cuts for all, including those who earn in the top 2.5% of income. There is a difference between those with the highest income and those who are the wealthiest. Bill Gates is one of the richest men in the country, but he has nowhere near the highest income. The other point on this issue is that most of the top 2.5% of income according to the IRS are S corporations, not actual individuals.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Those damn evil Republicans (Score:5, Funny)
Hypocracy? What hypocracy? Total Government control is a party platform.
Hypocracy - government by people who are below average?
Re:Those damn evil Republicans (Score:5, Informative)
Here we are:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_region/20100915_Rendell__appalled__by_state_s_tracking_of_activists.html [philly.com]
Re:Those damn evil Republicans (Score:5, Informative)
James F. Powers, Jr, Director of Homeland Security for Pennsylvania, works for the energy industry. Since especially in Pennsylvania, the energy industry wrote every regulation that deals with coal, natural gas or oil, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the state's energy regulations required the release of personal information of anyone protesting fossil fuel development.
Further, here's the bio on Mr Powers:
The important part of this bio is the fact that from 2001 through 2006, Powers served as a "Special Operations" consultant with KWG Consulting of Waterford, Virginia. If you look up "KWG Consulting" you don't find much. A half-million dollar budget and "from 1-4 employees" and nothing more. However (and this part's important), KWG Consulting is affiliated with KWG Resources, a multi-national mining and energy conglomerate, that's heavily involved in coal, oil and gas pipelines and railroads that carry coal, oil and gas.
So, it appears we have a hot shot special forces colonel who took big money to sell his services to foreign corporate interests, got himself appointed to Pennsylvania's DHS (what a coincidence!) and is now working as a hit man for the fossil fuel industry.
The next time you want to argue with me when I say that corporations have become much more powerful than any national government in the world, remember this little story, all true. I believe the government of the United States, especially, has been replaced by corporate interests since at least 1980, and the stuff we see with elections and campaigns and political discourse is nothing but theater to keep us occupied while transnationals consolidate their position as the true government of the world. The only reason we still have something called a government here in the US is to provide an enforcement arm to the corporations and to keep some semblance of order to provide a conducive environment for corporate profits and growth.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Those damn evil Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think you're looking far back enough either. The civil war is when corporations went from time-limited, specific-purpose vehicles to "anything to make a buck" that last forever. Shortly thereafter in 1886 corporations gained personhood. It's been all downhill from there.
Re:Those damn evil Republicans (Score:5, Interesting)
It should be no surprise that America saw the rise of the various Trusts during the post-Civil War period, to be followed by national corporations during and after WWI, and finally the rise of the multi-nationals during and after WWII. Each cycle only results in a further power-grab and aggrandizement. Should it be any surprise after 9/11 we saw even more examples. Patriot Act? Consolidation of the various police agencies into one (monolithic if they get their way) department? Monitoring of the so-called 'dangerous and violent groups'? I would have thought that TPTB would have learned their lesson from the '60's FBI but I would be wrong. Santayana said "[t]hose who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. " I say those who do not know the past are condemned to suffer worse.
BTW, I am most definitely not a Southerner but the record of history speaks for itself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For satisfied people they sure whine a lot!
Re: (Score:2)
The local police department sounds like a great idea. This was the PA Department of Homeland Security.
Re:A what-if, for your consideration (Score:4, Insightful)
Vandalism is a crime. Protest is not. If the latter turns into the former, then by all means, prosecute, but we can't just make the assumption that it will.
What if the sign said "meet to discuss"? (Score:2)
Your analogy is far from what happened here. A lot of these people were simply attending meetings in an attempt to change official policy.
Just because Karl has a history of vandalizing the deli doesn't mean the state has a right to tell Joe which people share Karl's political viewpoints and are trying to lawfully shut down the deli through zoning changes.
In this case, you have state employees who have clearly violated federal free speech laws, does that mean that we should track the peaceful political acti
And you can trust those companies ? (Score:3, Interesting)
And speaking as someone who lives near PA, I don't want your refugees when the company fucks up on safety and starts a fire they can't put out and then it burns for the next 250 years. Great that they are fracking the Natural Gas, 'cause it brings in jobs, but I'm sure that's what those folks on the Gulf Coast thought too, just BEFORE Deep Horizon blew a gasket.
Point is: Sooner or later, they *will* screw up, and either start a fire, or poison the area so badly, that the jobs go away, hell, whole towns will
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
DHS provides information to a company about someone who poses a real security risk to them (the company).
I have an epistemological question: how do you know?
You're making claims as to the information that the people at DHS have, but seem to think that that information is necessarily sound. In fact, all the people at DHS can have is suspicions. If they had more, they would be charging people (unless they are incompetent as well as corrupt, which is always a possibility.)