AFL-CIO Sells Out Those They "Represent"

[Night Strike]

I don't get what the big deal is. These illegals are already working here, and you're not going to get rid of them. It seems to me that it's better to bring them into the fold than to pretend that the problem isn't already there.

Nope, their deal is bringing in more workers from Mexico, not giving work to illegals who are already in the country.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't get what the big deal is. These illegals are already working here, and you're not going to get rid of them. It seems to me that it's better to bring them into the fold than to pretend that the problem isn't already there.

Furthermore, who are the labor experts here, if not the AFL-CIO, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? American business already had their say when they imported all of these workers. Now thanks to the Chamber of Commerce we're getting documentation and taxation, among other things. And the voters? If they care so much then why do they continue to support American businesses that rely on Mexican Labor? And did we not see what happened when dumbass voters tried to reform illegal immigration laws in Alabama? Our crops withered in the field, with Alabamans preferring to stay on unemployment.
And if this deal wasn't struck, who among you had the bravery and patience to actually tackle this ginormous problem? To me, it seems, the only other choice is to shut down all the American industry's that hired the illegals. And then we'd be b*tching about something else. There is good in this.

What we should do is role these workers into our unions, give them the voice they've never had, then use their strength to force big business to play by the rules. We can't do that when they hire out so many undocumented workers.

A lot will depend on implementation. For example, the rule that a citizen has to be hired before a non-citizen applying for the same job is supposed to still be enforced, but the truth is it is not really enforced right now.

Per the Alabama issue, it is partially real. Then again, I can point to more than a few unemployed Mississipians who won't be hired. I hesitate to get off track, but its a combination of racial prejudice, reverse racist pride (we are beyond THOSE jobs now...) and practical factors like folks not having a way to get to those fields, not having someone to care for their kids while they are there. etc. And, I can point to more than a few farmers who are paying well, well below anything like minimum wage.
(and note that the agricultural minimum is generally well below the "standard" minimum, for one thing housing is often included).

[thegreekdog]

It's a big deal in that situation as well. The difference between those situations and this one is that no one thinks this situation is a big deal. Pretty much everyone thinks the big business hurting the environment through lobbying is a big deal (or at least know that it happens). I just like pointing out hypocrisies.

Except when I argued as much regarding drilling in the Allegheny Forest, specifically pointing out how the large companies were subverting many jurisdictions, you took the opposite track. You have in ohter cases as well.

Actually, I didn't take the opposite track. What I did was explain to you why the result was the legal result (whether right or wrong). You confused that for arguing that I believed the frackers were in the right.

No, you actually did not even do that. You just looked at one side of the argument and dismissed the other side as being without grounds.

In fact, I made multiple references in that thread about how I found any government eminent domain claims that went to private individuals as antithetical to my political views. Ultimately, the reason the Allegheny forests are going to be destroyed is because of rent-seeking. I understand that and consistently argue against it in all facets of political argument. It is actually people like YOU who only arguing against rent-seeking when it's something you don't like and it is actually people like YOU who argue in favor of rent-seeking when it's something you do like.

No, by trying to "explain" an compare the Allegheny Forest situation to "those other issues of eminent domain" you pretty much ignored the issue and simply lapsed into standard rhetoric. "its government ... all government is the same" is basically your argument. In fact, we don’t have just one big unified government. We have multiple agencies and entities that not only don’t have a unified goal, they actually work very much in opposition to one another.

I value people’s individual rights over any supposed right of others to just make money. That is the real issue. As long as you hold the ability to earn money as above any other right, then we have no society, we have merely a corporation that pretends to be a nation. That is what I see and you have not effectively argued against that.

The situation in the Allegheny is about subverting the very reasons the forest was established to benefit the financial gain of a few. The immigration issue is similarly about benefitting a few at the expense of society.

Honestly, I'm still not convinced you understand the term "rent-seeking." There are definitely opposing forces at work in government. My argument on that subject is dependent upon what it is we're talking about (for example, I believe that politicians on both sides don't want to tax the rich). That is not what rent-seeking is. You're confusing your concepts.

Let's start out with this - I'm against rent-seeking. Now let's apply that "rent-seeking" idea to the fracking problem.

- The government has historically had the ability to take private property for the benefit of the general public.
- in the early 20th century, the government agreed with private individuals that the land the private individuals owned would be given to the government, but the private individuals would retain the rights to the minerals. This was not rent-seeking per se, although the government certainly could have asserted that they were entitled to all the land and mineral rights.
- In 1981/1982 a case was decided whereby the procedures were in place for the government to permit the private individuals to access their mineral rights. Again, this seems above board.
- In the 2000s, as the Marcellus Shale was "discovered," the private companies began to petition the government to gather their mineral rights from the land.

And this last bullet is the problem. What should the government do here? What the government should do is conform to the 1981/1982 case law. What does the government do? The government, against my wishes and yours, decides to let the private companies extract their minerals without applying the agreed-to standards. Why? Because of rent-seeking. The private companies are able to get the result they want by lobbying, donating to Congress, and getting their people into adminsitrative positions at a government level.

I'm against this sort of rent-seeking. I'm not against votes deciding a matter, but I am against soft money, lobbying, hard money, and administrative appointments deciding an issue. You, however, are not, unless it's something you don't agree with. In this instance, you don't agree with the ability for the frackers to gain access to their minerals. In other instances, for example, the AFL-CIO/chamber of commerce example from this thread, you are entirely in favor of rent-seeking. As I indicated earlier, I'm in favor of the AFL-CIO/chamber of commerce agreement. In fact, I think anyone should be allowed in the U.S. at any time and think that this agreement doesn't go far enough. However, I'm not in favor of the way this law would be created. And that's the difference between my political views and yours. That doesn't make me right, but it certainly makes me less of a hypocrit than you are.

You have two options to protest the fracking stuff:

(1) Private companies shouldn't be able to influence the government in this manner.
(2) This is just a bad result.

If you had chosen (2), I would not have a problem with your position. But you chose (1) as your basis for arguing the eminent domain issue, which is gignatically hypocritical in the context of your views on, for example, this AFL-CIO/chamber of commerce deal.

[_sabotage_]

With a gate comes the gatekeeper, and the gated area, who controls those, who are writing and directing the policies?

As for workers, why are there unemployed debt ridden people across the nation but the jobs aren't considered an opportunity for them? Why are we sidelining that issue?

[BigBallinStalin]

Employers mention a skills gap, and foreigners also offer a better price in exchange for their labor too. Many locals either lack the skillz or refuse to bump down their higher offers.

In short, too many dumb Americans got undergraduate in degrees that hardly anyone else finds useful.

[PLAYER57832]

It's a big deal in that situation as well. The difference between those situations and this one is that no one thinks this situation is a big deal. Pretty much everyone thinks the big business hurting the environment through lobbying is a big deal (or at least know that it happens). I just like pointing out hypocrisies.

Except when I argued as much regarding drilling in the Allegheny Forest, specifically pointing out how the large companies were subverting many jurisdictions, you took the opposite track. You have in ohter cases as well.

Actually, I didn't take the opposite track. What I did was explain to you why the result was the legal result (whether right or wrong). You confused that for arguing that I believed the frackers were in the right.

No, you actually did not even do that. You just looked at one side of the argument and dismissed the other side as being without grounds.

In fact, I made multiple references in that thread about how I found any government eminent domain claims that went to private individuals as antithetical to my political views. Ultimately, the reason the Allegheny forests are going to be destroyed is because of rent-seeking. I understand that and consistently argue against it in all facets of political argument. It is actually people like YOU who only arguing against rent-seeking when it's something you don't like and it is actually people like YOU who argue in favor of rent-seeking when it's something you do like.

No, by trying to "explain" an compare the Allegheny Forest situation to "those other issues of eminent domain" you pretty much ignored the issue and simply lapsed into standard rhetoric. "its government ... all government is the same" is basically your argument. In fact, we don’t have just one big unified government. We have multiple agencies and entities that not only don’t have a unified goal, they actually work very much in opposition to one another.

I value people’s individual rights over any supposed right of others to just make money. That is the real issue. As long as you hold the ability to earn money as above any other right, then we have no society, we have merely a corporation that pretends to be a nation. That is what I see and you have not effectively argued against that.

The situation in the Allegheny is about subverting the very reasons the forest was established to benefit the financial gain of a few. The immigration issue is similarly about benefitting a few at the expense of society.

Honestly, I'm still not convinced you understand the term "rent-seeking." There are definitely opposing forces at work in government. My argument on that subject is dependent upon what it is we're talking about (for example, I believe that politicians on both sides don't want to tax the rich). That is not what rent-seeking is. You're confusing your concepts.

The confusion is when you try to assert that New Jersey taking someon'e property for someone else's private gain is justification for saying that a private company taking land owned by the American people as a whole is OK and reasonable. Also, your claim that it would just be returned and so was OK ignored the fact that a return to prior conditions is just not possible, for the surface and absolutely not for the water table.

You also ignore the benefit provided by natural forests and joined with several others in basically agreeing htat logging and fracking were similar and both proof of lack of protection, when the truth is that logging, properly managed (a big caveat, that) is sustainable and preotective of water resources.

Let's start out with this - I'm against rent-seeking. Now let's apply that "rent-seeking" idea to the fracking problem.

- The government has historically had the ability to take private property for the benefit of the general public.

A complete misunderstanding on your part, in regards to the Allegheny. First, the land was purchased, not taken. In many cases, the land was left abandoned, companies that had owned it run out of business, etc. The land was mostly considered useless, no one considered that trees could be regrown and the land was pretty poor for farmland. (note... NOT talking about the Kinzua reservoir region which lies within part of the forest. That was native land that was flat out taken with very little compensation given).

People DID know enough to realize that all that heavy logging was disasterous to streams and water resources, thus the week's act. That act was specifically to allow the government to buy --not take, but buy land to protect water resources for the public -- a public, I might add that very much does include you, living in Philadelphia.

SOOO,..... from the start, you begin with false assumptions. You plain ignore the difference between the government buying land to protect water resources, a true public need and public resource, as opposed to some guy wanting to build whatever -- shopping malls or whatever to provide a temporary short term tax gain for a few. AND, you refuse to differentiate between the government buying land that was considered worthless, essentially abandoned at the thime of purchase and condemning property being used for private gain.

- in the early 20th century, the government agreed with private individuals that the land the private individuals owned would be given to the government, but the private individuals would retain the rights to the minerals. This was not rent-seeking per se, although the government certainly could have asserted that they were entitled to all the land and mineral rights.

This again, is bull. In the case of the Allegheny, the mineral rights were never purchased. There are complex reasons for this, but the primary reason is that the goal of the weeks act was to protect the forest and water table. Not as much was known then about groundwater and its significance, how far it traveled, etc. then as now. Simple measures were enough to protect streams and such from both logging and traditional natural gas drilling operations.

- In the 2000s, as the Marcellus Shale was "discovered," the private companies began to petition the government to gather their mineral rights from the land.

And this last bullet is the problem. What should the government do here? What the government should do is conform to the 1981/1982 case law

Not really. For thing, you have a big question of precedence. That 1981 case was specific and built up on a series of other cases. I don't have space here to get into all of that, but you did not even really read through the judge's assertions or the other articles I posted.

-hat does the government do? The government, against my wishes and yours, decides to let the private companies extract their minerals without applying the agreed-to standards. Why? Because of rent-seeking. The private companies are able to get the result they want by lobbying, donating to Congress, and getting their people into adminsitrative positions at a government level.

No, and this is where you really show a lack of understanding in how the government really works, I am afraid, at least in this arena. For one thing, the Forest is mandated to manage for multiple uses. For another, the initial legislation that allowed for the purchase of the Allegheny Forest was directed to protect water resources. In the case of he Allegheny, it was partly an experiement that allowed Gifford Pinchot to demonstrate that forests could be regrown and become productive.

In this case, your primary misunderstanding, though, is the belief that the company IS complying with agreed upon standards. Frackers are not and that is the issue.

The problem is that the fracking industry has come in with utterly new technology, to a large extent slipped in with slick advertisements claiming that this is an old industry, proven safe, etc, etc. ... but they not only are not the same as the old technology, they now are ignoring even the most basic measures that traditional operations must follow. They claim they don't need to listen to anyone else... not local municipalities, not federal law, no one.

The only part of the picture that you have correct is that this is being done to fill the pockets of a few people, in PA the Corbett administrations is very complicit in this.

-m against this sort of rent-seeking. I'm not against votes deciding a matter, but I am against soft money, lobbying, hard money, and administrative appointments deciding an issue. You, however, are not, unless it's something you don't agree with.

That is utter bull. I am not sure what your reasons are, but lately you have tried to claim many times that I have argued basically the opposite of anything I actually have said.

-In this instance, you don't agree with the ability for the frackers to gain access to their minerals. In other instances, for example, the AFL-CIO/chamber of commerce example from this thread, you are entirely in favor of rent-seeking.

No, I am not. The problem with rhetoric and catch phrases is that while they may sound nice, they are as true as a stereotype is true of humans. Sure, you can find examples of people who match any stereotype, but to claim that is "the truth" or that those few who match the stereotype somehow justify the label for all is ridiculous.

In regards to the AFL/CIO, I have merely stated why they have changed their position. As far as it goes, it makes sense... They realized that pitting average workers against immigrants was helping no one, was hurting everyone, but the real problem is that "as far as it goes" doesn't address the real problems. The real problem is that the focus is still on employees and not on the employers. I don't necessarily agree with this particular piece of legislation. I don't know enough yet about it. I have concerns about what I do know so far.

-As I indicated earlier, I'm in favor of the AFL-CIO/chamber of commerce agreement. In fact, I think anyone should be allowed in the U.S. at any time and think that this agreement doesn't go far enough. However, I'm not in favor of the way this law would be created. And that's the difference between my political views and yours. That doesn't make me right, but it certainly makes me less of a hypocrit than you are.

Bull and double bull.
I am not in favor of how this happened, but you have declared such things to be fine in the past, particularly when it comes to your favorite.. taxes. Your entire argument against the Allegheny was to say "hey, so what, the government takes, so who cares if a company takes back". MY argument is that harm should not be allowed. You want to categorize everything as "taking" and "rent seeking", apparently the popular term of the day. Its really just another phrase saying "special interest" and "greed". Except... caring for clean water for about a third of the country into perpetuity is a tad different than some local tax benefits. That you want to claim they are the same is, well, not exactly reasonable.

Even in the AFL-CIO deal, I want to know more details. I know that the union has gone from being pretty much opposed to immigration to seeing that rules targeting illegal workers wound up actually harming citizens AND not stemming the illegal tide at all. Employers able to basically blackmail workers into taking whatever conditions they want doesn't help anyone. Now, we are actually seeing another kind of blackmail... the threat of immigrant workerrs taking jobs from citizens. That is a classic threat, with the ultimate goal of making workers fight each other instead of fighting for overall better conditions. IF the AFL-CIO agreement was part of that overall movement, it might be OK. I am not convinced it is, but again.. trying to claim my saying I want to see more details means I am "endorsing" or agreeing with this is well, a cute attorney tactic, but not truth.

-You have two options to protest the fracking stuff:

(1) Private companies shouldn't be able to influence the government in this manner.
(2) This is just a bad result.

If you had chosen (2), I would not have a problem with your position. But you chose (1) as your basis for arguing the eminent domain issue, which is gignatically hypocritical in the context of your views on, for example, this AFL-CIO/chamber of commerce deal.

No. You just made some snap judgements without bothering with details. And you continue to claim that is justifiable.

You are no more correct than someone arguing against "I met a white guy who was a jerk, so all whites are jerks" by saying " all whites are decent people". The truth is, of course, a mixture. The error is in assuming that the options you consider are the only valid and real onex.

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, you're confusing your concepts.

For example -

The confusion is when you try to assert that New Jersey taking someon'e property for someone else's private gain is justification for saying that a private company taking land owned by the American people as a whole is OK and reasonable. Also, your claim that it would just be returned and so was OK ignored the fact that a return to prior conditions is just not possible, for the surface and absolutely not for the water table.

You also ignore the benefit provided by natural forests and joined with several others in basically agreeing htat logging and fracking were similar and both proof of lack of protection, when the truth is that logging, properly managed (a big caveat, that) is sustainable and preotective of water resources.

Both of these paragraphs have nothing to do with my point or post at all.

And then we have this -

A complete misunderstanding on your part, in regards to the Allegheny.

Which is also completely irrelevant to the post I made, which said -

- The government has historically had the ability to take private property for the benefit of the general public.

I was giving you a sentence on eminent domain. You gave me a diatribe on Pennsylvania forests. It's like you didn't even read my post.

This again, is bull. In the case of the Allegheny, the mineral rights were never purchased. There are complex reasons for this, but the primary reason is that the goal of the weeks act was to protect the forest and water table. Not as much was known then about groundwater and its significance, how far it traveled, etc. then as now. Simple measures were enough to protect streams and such from both logging and traditional natural gas drilling operations.

It's in the case law from that thread - the mineral rights were retained by the private individuals. I can go by your statements in this post or I can go by the case. I choose the case, as would everyone else.

And then we have this, which confirms that you didn't actually read my post -

In this case, your primary misunderstanding, though, is the belief that the company IS complying with agreed upon standards. Frackers are not and that is the issue.

Here is my post. I've bolded the important words.

The government, against my wishes and yours, decides to let the private companies extract their minerals without applying the agreed-to standards. Why? Because of rent-seeking. The private companies are able to get the result they want by lobbying, donating to Congress, and getting their people into adminsitrative positions at a government level.

So, clearly you have no idea what I'm talking about. Until you figure it out, there is no point in me continuing to bang my head against the wall.

[ooge]

Not that this has always been true but everything in the USA is politically motivated today.This will eventually lead to The USA demise.I will add Ayn Rand is key to understanding why things are the way they are.

[Phatscotty]

Not that this has always been true but everything in the USA is politically motivated today.This will eventually lead to The USA demise.I will add Ayn Rand is key to understanding why things are the way they are.

well, what else would you expect when the government has basically taken over everything???

CONSERVATIVES!!!!!

[ooge]

Not that this has always been true but everything in the USA is politically motivated today.This will eventually lead to The USA demise.I will add Ayn Rand is key to understanding why things are the way they are.

well, what else would you expect when the government has basically taken over everything???

CONSERVATIVES!!!!!

This will receive an extensive reply at a later date.clue?government regulated airlines or deregulation?do we have more government control? or less?

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah, you're confusing your concepts.

For example -

The confusion is when you try to assert that New Jersey taking someon'e property for someone else's private gain is justification for saying that a private company taking land owned by the American people as a whole is OK and reasonable. Also, your claim that it would just be returned and so was OK ignored the fact that a return to prior conditions is just not possible, for the surface and absolutely not for the water table.

You also ignore the benefit provided by natural forests and joined with several others in basically agreeing htat logging and fracking were similar and both proof of lack of protection, when the truth is that logging, properly managed (a big caveat, that) is sustainable and preotective of water resources.

Both of these paragraphs have nothing to do with my point or post at all.

Oh bull.
They hit the nail on the head.

And then we have this -

A complete misunderstanding on your part, in regards to the Allegheny.

Which is also completely irrelevant to the post I made, which said -

- The government has historically had the ability to take private property for the benefit of the general public.

I was giving you a sentence on eminent domain. You gave me a diatribe on Pennsylvania forests. It's like you didn't even read my post.

BULL again.

you want to pretend this is about eminnent domain, when it isn't. This is not about the government taking land, it is about private companies ignoring standard protections that the Forest Service has historically been authorized to make becuase the mandate was to protect resources.

Some of the posters in that thread were under the illusion that logging was antithetical to that goal. It is not, when done properlty. BUT -- fracking very much is.

To understand the difference perhaps requires a basic understanding of natural resources.
Sadly, so has the judge in this case has feigned ingorance of the impacts of the frackers... and in this case, it will be your child who will be among those paying. But.. hey, you don't want to bother with the details.

-

This again, is bull. In the case of the Allegheny, the mineral rights were never purchased. There are complex reasons for this, but the primary reason is that the goal of the weeks act was to protect the forest and water table. Not as much was known then about groundwater and its significance, how far it traveled, etc. then as now. Simple measures were enough to protect streams and such from both logging and traditional natural gas drilling operations.

It's in the case law from that thread - the mineral rights were retained by the private individuals. I can go by your statements in this post or I can go by the case. I choose the case, as would everyone else.

Not when this case is being opposed and that opposition is the whole point.

Set aside the fact that I actually am something of an expert on this, have actually been cited and so forth, because I am not going to bring up my real information. I DID offer a lot more than what you want to pretend.

-
And then we have this, which confirms that you didn't actually read my post -

In this case, your primary misunderstanding, though, is the belief that the company IS complying with agreed upon standards. Frackers are not and that is the issue.

Here is my post. I've bolded the important words.

The government, against my wishes and yours, decides to let the private companies extract their minerals without applying the agreed-to standards. Why? Because of rent-seeking. The private companies are able to get the result they want by lobbying, donating to Congress, and getting their people into adminsitrative positions at a government level.

So, clearly you have no idea what I'm talking about. Until you figure it out, there is no point in me continuing to bang my head against the wall.

[/quote]
Oh bull. You decided you are right, I am wrong... but instead of arguing honestly, you decide to just pretend I am "not making sense."

The fact is that a JUDGE decided that the companies should get to ignore standards that have been existing case law for decades. IN fact, this particular judge went against some major rulings (which I referred to) that changed the entire direction of the Forest Service in 1978, as well as the act that initially allowed the PURCHASE of the land.(again, note.. this land was not taken, it was purchased. When it was taken it was because the land was abandoned by the prior owners as worthless and not worth even paying taxes on.. .it was relinquished to the government ).


Like I said, you pick out a couple of terms ... government =taking, and legal ruling = automatically correct, regardless of who made the ruling. (this was a lower level judge, not the Supreme Court or even a higher appelant court).

[thegreekdog]

So, clearly you have no idea what I'm talking about. Until you figure it out, there is no point in me continuing to bang my head against the wall.

[PLAYER57832]

So, clearly you have no idea what I'm talking about. Until you figure it out, there is no point in me continuing to bang my head against the wall.

Pretending that people who disagree "don't understand" might be popular in legal circles, but it doesn't work in science. Science requires you actually look at real data, not just ideas you like.

I don't dispute that the judge ruled as you claim, but the ruling is being appealed for all the reasons I stated.. you want to pretend that one judge's ruling ends it all and that that judge cannot be refuted.

You also want to compare personal, individual gain/harm to public gain/harm, along with denying any real standard of public harm.

[thegreekdog]

So, clearly you have no idea what I'm talking about. Until you figure it out, there is no point in me continuing to bang my head against the wall.

Pretending that people who disagree "don't understand" might be popular in legal circles, but it doesn't work in science. Science requires you actually look at real data, not just ideas you like.

I don't dispute that the judge ruled as you claim, but the ruling is being appealed for all the reasons I stated.. you want to pretend that one judge's ruling ends it all and that that judge cannot be refuted.

You also want to compare personal, individual gain/harm to public gain/harm, along with denying any real standard of public harm.

Like I said, you have no idea what I'm talking about. You're confusing two different threads and two different issues. I've laid that you for you in a prior post in this thread; you've ignored it in favor of your trademark lengthy post that says nothing. This is not an example of "Player is ignorant." This is an example of "Player wants to argue about what she wants to argue about." I'm not playing that game with you anymore. I don't have the time or desire to go back and forth with you when you're not reading and comprehending my posts. So either read and comprehend or go away.

[PLAYER57832]

So, clearly you have no idea what I'm talking about. Until you figure it out, there is no point in me continuing to bang my head against the wall.

Pretending that people who disagree "don't understand" might be popular in legal circles, but it doesn't work in science. Science requires you actually look at real data, not just ideas you like.

I don't dispute that the judge ruled as you claim, but the ruling is being appealed for all the reasons I stated.. you want to pretend that one judge's ruling ends it all and that that judge cannot be refuted.

You also want to compare personal, individual gain/harm to public gain/harm, along with denying any real standard of public harm.

Like I said, you have no idea what I'm talking about. You're confusing two different threads and two different issues. I've laid that you for you in a prior post in this thread; you've ignored it in favor of your trademark lengthy post that says nothing. This is not an example of "Player is ignorant." This is an example of "Player wants to argue about what she wants to argue about." I'm not playing that game with you anymore. I don't have the time or desire to go back and forth with you when you're not reading and comprehending my posts. So either read and comprehend or go away.

LOL.

Not even close, but here we go.

THIS is the part you considered to show that I don't know of what I speak:

-
And then we have this, which confirms that you didn't actually read my post -

In this case, your primary misunderstanding, though, is the belief that the company IS complying with agreed upon standards. Frackers are not and that is the issue.

Here is my post. I've bolded the important words.

The government, against my wishes and yours, decides to let the private companies extract their minerals without applying the agreed-to standards. Why? Because of rent-seeking. The private companies are able to get the result they want by lobbying, donating to Congress, and getting their people into adminsitrative positions at a government level.

So, clearly you have no idea what I'm talking about. Until you figure it out, there is no point in me continuing to bang my head against the wall.

[/quote]

See, the part you put in red... THAT is the part that is just plain wrong. Not a misunderstanding on my part, but showing that you just gave a cursory glance at some things I posted and no real thought. Mostly, it seems you read just specificallly so you could pick some point to refute and make further claims about how idiotic and off-base I am.

The "government" did NOT decide to let private companies extract minerals without applying the agreed to standards.

The "government" in this case is multiple agencies each fighting against each other, for one thing. The minerals management groups (not laying out all the specific agencies and entities) partially represents one side, though the private interest here is in the litigation. (They are not overtly and directly in this particular set of lawsuits -- yet)
The Forest Service represents another side, in this case joined with a few environmental groups. ALL of the agencies involved have faced their own lawsuits and rules changes that have altered how they each operate. This ruling concerns WHICH of those changes are to be followed.

This particular judge took, not the government's side, as you like to claim, but the company side. They are stating that the private ownership rights outstrip the right of the government to set mandates. Whether those mandates were actually reasonable did not even truly come into play in this particular ruling. It was a ruling about who had jurisdiction, not the impact of the jurisdiction.

This is countered by, among other issues, the Week's act. That is just one argument in the case, but the one that most directly counters what you were claiming, which is why I brought it up. The Weeks act is important because it specifically established the right of the government to purchase land to protect water resources for the people. Because of that act AND a series of other laws/acts/rulings, the Forest Service has, up until now, been able to mandate activity on the Forest that impacted the surface water. They could not utterly prohibit drilling, because the wells predated the forest. That, too, is significant because it gets to part of why the mineral rights were never acquired by the government. The surface land was essentially abandoned (not getting into the tangled legal mess, but the owners had basically just taken what they wanted and then left). It was not just abandoned, but was considered "destroyed" by most measures. Natural gas rights persisted, though. That has always been a bit of an issue on the Allegheny. It means that even though there is a section called "wilderness" and a small section they have labeled "old growth", its nothing like the true old growth and wilderness out west. However, the forest service was able to place limits and restrictions on the company activities when needed to protect the forest. More limits were placed on logging, of course, but the point is that the Forest Service was able to restrict the private activities.

That CHANGED with Marsellus shale. They ignore virtually ALL rules. In that mix, there are a couple of positives. For example, one company hires a snake wrangler/educator, but that is not so much because of an outside mandate as because its more cost-effective to teach employees to deal with snakes apporpriately than it is to pay for snake bites and in a few cases fines.

Anyway, your point that the government just decided in a way I don't like is not accurate by any stretch. Nor is your claim that my thinking on this is inconsistant with my thinking in other cases. You want to pretend that the cases are the same.

Why? Because of rent-seeking. The private companies are able to get the result they want by lobbying, donating to Congress, and getting their people into adminsitrative positions at a government level.

Because your basic understanding of the situation is wrong, your reasoning here is off track as well.

Of course the private companies are seeking advantage. That is their "role" in the world, their "purpose" for being in existance. You can call it "rent seeking", "special interest lobbying" or plain "making demands" ... its all the same. People fight for what will benefit themselves. Calling it "rent seeking" doesn't make it bad or good, its just anohter meaningless rhetorical term. BUT.. this particular case is not about congress making rules I don't like. This was a judge interpreting things to placate the companies. Was there influence involved? Probably not directly, unless the judge is plain stupid. Still... there was a lot of background fighting over whcih judges are in place and where judges should be placed and which jurisdiction the case is ruled within.

AND, contrary to your claim, it is "the government".. aka the Allegheny Forest, that is suing to have that judge's ruling appealed.

Your claim that is is just rent seeking and that the government ruled in a way I don't like and that makes me a hypocrit is wrong on many levels, but go ahead with your "debates".

Now, on TOP of all that, there is the point that the state of Pennsylvania, aka the Corbett Administration, is quickly and effectively usurping ANYONE's right to in any way limit or control the actions of these frackers. Municipalities have largely been stripped and the Corbett administration is hand in hand with the companies in fighting federal rules that limit and promoting federal rules that give corporations more power. That is background and part of what makes this case nasty and important, but is not directly in this particular lawsuit.

Finally, there is your whole basic argument that this is "just rent seeking" is incorrrect and dismissive of the facts. Water, clean water matters. This company is not just fighting "the government" they are causing real and direct harm to all of us. When I say "you" and "your daughter", I meant directly, by-the-way. More remotely than the impact to me and my children, but real, none-the -less. Further, if these actions are allowed to continue, then it won't be just the Allegheny that is impacted.

The attack on environmental restrictions is very similar to the tactics used by the civil rights movement.. find friendly courts, push rulings, slowly and surely build up case law until the change is essentially already happened. It may be just frackers and the Allegheny in the lawsuit, but the mandate will be that any company can use private interests to usurp government limits. So, again, pretty much the exact opposite of the new Jersey situation. The New Jersey situation was, in fact, a case of the government taking land to support private interests. Both are wrong. But, contrary to your arguments, this case is going to exacerbate those situations, not counter them.

[thegreekdog]

Now, on TOP of all that, there is the point that the state of Pennsylvania, aka the Corbett Administration, is quickly and effectively usurping ANYONE's right to in any way limit or control the actions of these frackers. Municipalities have largely been stripped and the Corbett administration is hand in hand with the companies in fighting federal rules that limit and promoting federal rules that give corporations more power. That is background and part of what makes this case nasty and important, but is not directly in this particular lawsuit.

For the bold part - Why do you think that is? Why is Pennsylvania usurping municipalities rights to limit and control the frackers? Why are there various tax incentives, exemptions, and the like for fracking companies (who don't need to be enticed to come here)?