Their Royal Majesties, Inc.

“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.” So wrote Pennsylvania State Homeland Security Director James Powers, as quoted in our story “Terrorist bulletin rankles local man” (September 23 issue).

The “support” in question was a list of areas and events considered to be potential targets for terrorist acts, which had been sent out to local law enforcement agencies and natural gas drilling companies. Included on the list were Damascus, PA and the September 20 meeting about its proposed zoning changes with regard to gas drilling.

Governor Rendell subsequently delivered an apology for the regrettable affair of the so-called terrorist watch list, which also included such diverse “threats” as an anti-tax protest and a rally supporting Rendell’s education budget and finally, last Friday, Powers resigned. But Powers’ statement constitutes such a serious affront to the American ideals of free speech, democracy and the sovereignty of the individual that it is worth investigating in more depth.

The first problem is that the statement, taken together with the restricted group to whom the memo was sent, makes it clear whom Powers considers Marcellus Shale natural gas stakeholders to be: “those same companies” that stand to make money from it—few of which are actually headquartered on the Marcellus Shale, many of which are not even American and none of which are individual human beings.

We propose a radically different view: the primary stakeholders are all those individuals who live and work over the Marcellus Shale. To be sure, that includes some who support drilling. But it also includes a great many who are concerned about its negative effects on their health, property values and livelihoods. It also includes the people who live in areas that may not lie directly over the Marcellus Shale, but who depend on watersheds in the Marcellus area for potable water—a group that numbers in the tens of millions. And given the climatic consequences of natural gas production, which a recent Cornell study says could be at least as negative as those of oil or coal ((tinyurl.com/24pzubn)), the stakeholders could even be taken to include every human being on the planet who is vulnerable to the consequences of proliferating greenhouse gases.

Yet for this government official, “stakeholders” equals big corporations that stand to profit from something, regardless of their location or nationality. The government, in short, is seen as being a servant and facilitator of big business.

Funny, we always thought the American people were supposed to be the boss.

The second offense lies in the bizarre phrase “fomenting dissent.” Merriam-Webster defines “fomenting” as “instigate or stir up (an undesirable or violent sentiment or course of action).” What troubles us is that what is “fomented” in this case is “dissent.”

So dissent is undesirable? In the United States of America? The country founded on political discourse and free speech? The country that declared independence from England because the king wouldn’t listen to the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence?

But it gets worse. The dissent isn’t even against our elected government. This grievous dissent being fomented by “terrorists” is, horror of horrors, against the gas companies. Dare to disagree with a gas company and presto, you become a traitor.

Powers’ statement is the statement of a man who owes his allegiance to big business, who believes that it must be protected against all who dare to disagree with it or threaten its profits, and who is willing to use the mechanisms and power of the state in order to protect it. The name for that kind of system is “police state.”

We would like to think Powers represents a rare exception; but from what we have observed of the national security state in Washington, we don’t think it would be wise to become complacent in this regard. The incident is a reminder that we who live over the Marcellus Shale, in an area where most of the land will soon be under the control of large multi-national corporations, must remain vigilant in protecting the individual freedoms that underpin our democracy. (See “Who’s watching who?” in news].

(Not a scientific poll)

Last week's results:

Should the UDC stick to the RMP with regard to pressure in natural gas lines?

Yes, it's its mandate to stick to the plan: 68.00%

No, those details don't matter: 30.00%

Not sure: 2%

Dr. Punnybone

That Reminds Me...