Slashdot Mirror
PA's Dept. of Homeland Security Shared Oil-Shale Protester Info With Companies
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."
Some politician got a contribution to his reelection campaign. How we consider that anything other than bribery I will never understand.
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.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
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
:(){
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.
Member of American Sarcasm Society - Motto: "Like we need your help!"
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'.
How did this score insightful? The last vestiges of "We, the People ..." existed just prior to the Civil War, during which the right of Habeus Corpus was revoked (suspended, {snort}), the right of secession was abrogated (even Northern States reserved the right of secession in voting to approve the Constitution), Congressmen were stripped of office even after the war was over, and literally thousands of war crimes were committed. I'm former career military and I know exactly what constitutes a war crime. If we are going to delve into the historical record, at least get it right.
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.
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go