:::: CONSOL Energy Inc.

CNX Gas

CNX Gas Corporation, incorporated on June 30, 2005, is engaged in the exploration, development, production and gathering of natural gas primarily in the Appalachian and Illinois Basins. The Company is a developer of coalbed methane (CBM). CONSOL Energy Inc. (CONSOL Energy) owns 81.5% of the Company’s outstanding common stock. In August 2005, the Company acquired all of CONSOL Energy’s rights associated with CBM from 4.5 billion tons of proved coal reserves owned or controlled by CONSOL Energy in Northern Appalachia, Central Appalachia, the Illinois Basin and other western basins. As of December 31, 2007, the Company has 1.343 trillion cubic feet equivalents of net proved reserves, including its portion of equity affiliates. The Company’s proved reserves are approximately 99% CBM and 50% proved developed. The Company is a gas producer in the Appalachian Basin with net sales of 58.2 billion cubic feet for the year ended December 31, 2007.

Prior to August 2005, the Company conducted business through various companies that were subsidiaries or joint ventures of CONSOL Energy. Those companies include CNX Gas Company, LLC, Cardinal States Gathering Company (CSGC), Coalfield Pipeline Company, Knox Energy LLC, Buchanan Generation, LLC and various other joint ventures. These companies are responsible for the exploration, production, gathering and sale of the Company’s gas. Buchanan Generation, LLC uses the Company’s gas to generate electricity from a generating facility located near its Virginia gas field. Approximately 27% of the Company’s gas production is produced in connection with coal extraction by CONSOL Energy. In the eastern United States, conventional natural gas fields typically are located in various types of sedimentary formations at depths ranging from 2,000 to 15,000 feet.

Central Appalachia

The Company has the right to extract CBM in Virginia Operations region from approximately 368,000 net CBM acres, which cover a portion of the coal reserves owned or controlled by CONSOL Energy in Central Appalachia. The Company produces gas primarily from the Pocahontas #3 seam, which is the main coal seam mined by CONSOL Energy in this region. This seam is generally found at depths of 2,000 feet and generally ranges from 3 to 6 feet thick. The gas content of this seam is between 400 and 600 cubic feet of gas per ton of coal in place. In addition, there are as many as 50 thinner seams present in the several 100 feet above the main Pocahontas #3 seam. Collectively, this series of coal seams represents a total thickness ranging from 15 to 40 feet. The Company coordinates some of its CBM extraction with the subsurface coal mining of CONSOL Energy. Frac well accounts for approximately 73.0% of the Company’s daily production. The Company drills vertical wells called gob wells into the gob to extract the additional gas that is released. Approximately 26% of the Company’s gas production comes in the form of gob gas. As of December 31, 2007, the Company has drilled 15 of in-mine horizontal wells, some of which have been extended to lengths of 5,000 feet.

Through a joint venture known as Knox Energy, LLC, the Company controls oil and gas rights (including the Chattanooga shale) and CBM rights on approximately 102,000 net leasehold acres in Anderson, Campbell, Morgan, Scott, and Roane Counties, Tennessee. The Company’s overall Chattanooga shale acreage position is 132,000 net acres. It also controls other property in east Kentucky and Tennessee that represents approximately 225,000 net CBM acres.

Northern Appalachia

The Company has the right to extract CBM in this region from approximately 684,000 net CBM acres, which contain most of the recoverable coal reserves owned or controlled by CONSOL Energy in Northern Appalachia. CNX Gas Corporation has acquired all of CONSOL Energy’s rights associated with CBM in this region. It produces gas primarily from the Pittsburgh #8 coal seam. This seam is generally found at depths of less than 1,000 feet and generally ranges from 4 to 7 feet thick. The gas content of this seam is typically between 100 and 250 cubic feet of gas per ton of coal in place. There are additional coal seams above and below the Pittsburgh #8 seam. Collectively, this series of coal seams represents a total thickness ranging from 10 to 30 feet. The Company has access to over 7,000 core samples that allows it to determine the amount of coal present, the geologic structure of the coal seam and the gas content of the coal.

In 2007, the Company drilled 62 vertical-to-horizontal CBM wells in Mountaineer. The Company has the right to extract CBM in Nittany region of Pennsylvania from approximately 248,000 net CBM acres. In 2007, the Company drilled 14 wells and connected 10 wells, which are producing CBM. The Company has 161,000 net acres of Marcellus shale potential in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and New York. As of December 31, 2007, it controlled approximately 300,000 net acres of rights to gas in the New Albany shale in Kentucky, Illinois, and Indiana.

Illinois Basin

As of December 31, 2007, the Company controlled approximately 573,000 net CBM acres, including 92,000 net CBM acres, which contain most of the recoverable coal reserves owned or controlled by CONSOL Energy in Illinois.

The Company has the right to extract CBM on 139,000 net acres in the San Juan Basin, 38,000 net acres in the Powder River Basin, 41,000 net acres in eastern Ohio, and 51,000 net acres in central West Virginia. It also has the rights to extract Oil and Gas on 43,000 net acres in the San Juan Basin, 9,000 net acres in the Powder River Basin and 53,000 net acres in various other areas.

http://www.consolenergy.com/
http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=CNX.N

Coal miner Consol 2nd-quarter profit slips

Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:43am EDT

NEW YORK, July 31 (Reuters) - Consol Energy Inc (CNX.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) on Thursday posted a drop in second-quarter profit versus a year ago, when it recorded a gain from the sale of an asset.

Net earnings fell to $101 million, or 54 cents per share, from $153 million, or 83 cents per share, in the year-earlier quarter.

Revenue for the Pittsburgh-based mining company rose 14 percent to $1.21 billion.

In 2007, Consol recorded a $59 million gain in net earnings from an asset sale and swap, the company said.

Total coal sales climbed to 17.5 million tons from 17.1 million tons, while the average price rose to $48.50 from $41.64.

However, rising costs to produce that coal limited Consol's operating margin growth to $16.47 per ton from $16.18. (Reporting by Matt Daily; Editing by Maureen Bavdek)

/. http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUKN3129537720080731?symbol=CNX.N

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Coal-to-Liquids — West Virginia ready to become a global leader

Bluefield Daily Telegraph
An $800 million investment by mining giant CONSOL could position the Mountain State as a global leader in modern coal technology. CONSOL announced this week that it plans to build a coal gasification plant capable of producing 720,000 metric tons of methanol that can be used as feedstock for the chemical industry. Officials also expect the project will be capable of converting methanol to about 100 million gallons per year of 87 octane gasoline.

CONSOL, and Synthesis Energy Systems are planning to develop the plant in northern West Virginia in the Benwood community in Marshall County by 2012.

Gov. Joe Manchin said the construction of the nation’s first modern coal-to-liquid plant will help to propel the state of West Virginia to the forefront of national energy leadership.

U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said the project will give West Virginia an opportunity to show the world that the state is a global leader in energy issues and modern coal technology.

With the nation in the midst of a serious energy crisis, Rockefeller said the development of the $800 million coal gasification plant tells the world that West Virginia is no longer waiting around for someone else to solve the growing energy woes of the nation and the world.

Rockefeller said the CTL plant will create jobs, meet modern environmental standards and develop the state’s most abundant domestic resource — coal.

U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd said West Virginia has the coal, the brains and the determination to meet the energy challenges of the nation. Byrd said the Mountain State is demonstrating to the world that it intends to be a part of the solution.

While we regret that the historic and resource-rich coalfields of southern West Virginia were not selected as the site of this all-important project, we still join in the enthusiasm of our state and federal officials.

The creation of the nations’ first modern coal-to-liquids plant right here in the Mountain State does in fact send a message to the nation and the world.

The historic announcement puts the nation on a path to using clean coal technologies as a way to address our national energy needs. We are taking an important first step toward meeting this goal — and sending a unified message to the nation and the world — by developing our most abundant domestic resource.

Clean coal technology is a major part of the future of our nation. That future begins now in the Northern Panhandle on West Virginia.

The $800 million project is a historic first step in solving our nation’s energy crisis.

/. http://www.bdtonline.com/editorials/local_story_212160804.html


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

______________________________________________

CONSOL Energy Inc. (CONSOL Energy) is a multi-fuel energy producer and energy services provider that primarily serves the electric power generation industry in the United States. CONSOL Energy has two principal business units: Coal and Gas. The principal activities of the Coal unit are mining, preparation and marketing of steam coal, sold primarily to power generators and metallurgical coal, sold to metal and coke producers. The Coal unit includes four segments: Northern Appalachian, Central Appalachian, Metallurgical and Other Coal. The principal activity of the Gas unit is to produce pipeline quality methane gas for sale primarily to gas wholesalers. On July 31, 2007, CONSOL Energy acquired AMVEST Corporation and certain subsidiaries and affiliates (AMVEST). The coal reserves acquired consist of approximately 160 million tons of low sulfur steam and high-volatile metallurgical coal. In October 2007, CONSOL Energy acquired Tri-River Fleeting Harbor Services, Inc. and Tri-River Marine, Inc.

Coal Operations

During the year ended December 31, 2007, the Northern Appalachian aggregated segment included Blacksville #2, Robinson Run, McElroy, Loveridge, Bailey, Enlow Fork, Mine 84 and Mahoning Valley. In 2007, the Central Appalachian aggregated segment included Jones Fork, Mill Creek and Wiley-Mill Creek. It also includes the mines acquired with the AMVEST acquisition: Fola Complex and the Terry Eagle Complex. In 2007, the Metallurgical aggregated segment included Buchanan and Amonate. The Other Coal segment includes its purchased coal activities, idled mine cost, coal segment business units not meeting aggregation criteria, as well as various other activities assigned to the coal segment but not allocated to each individual mine.

During 2007, CONSOL Energy had 17 active mining complexes, including a fully consolidated, 49% owned, variable interest entity, and a 49% equity affiliate, all located in the United States. At December 31, 2007, CONSOL Energy had an estimated 4.5 billion tons of proven and probable reserves. CONSOL Energy’s proven and probable coal reserves fall within the range of commercially marketed coals in the United States. CONSOL Energy’s reserves are located in northern Appalachia (63%), central Appalachia (13%), the mid-western United States (18%), the western United States (4%) and in western Canada (2%) at December 31, 2007. In 2007, 96% of CONSOL Energy’s production came from underground mines and 4% from surface mines. During 2007, 88% of its production came from mines equipped with longwall mining systems.

Gas Operations

The Company's gas operations are primarily conducted by CNX Gas Corporation (CNX Gas). CNX Gas primarily produces coalbed methane. In the Appalachian Basin it operates principally in Central Appalachia and Northern Appalachia. The Company also operates in the Illinois Basin. During 2007, the Company drilled in the aggregate, 370 net development wells, all of which were productive. During 2007, the Company drilled in the aggregate nine net exploratory wells. Most of its development wells and acreage are located in Central Appalachia.

Other Activities

CONSOL Energy provides other services both to its own operations and to others. These include land services, industrial supply services, terminal services (including break bulk, general cargo and warehouse services), river and dock services, and coal waste disposal services. The Company is developing property assets previously used primarily to support its coal operations or property assets not being utilized.

Fairmont Supply Company, a CONSOL Energy subsidiary, is a general-line distributor of mining and industrial supplies in the United States. Fairmont Supply has 15 customer service centers nationwide. Fairmont Supply also provides integrated supply procurement and management services. Fairmont Supply offers value-added services, including onsite stores management and procurement strategies. Fairmont Supply provides mine supplies to CONSOL Energy’s mining operations. Approximately 52% of Fairmont Supply’s sales in 2007, were made to CONSOL Energy’s mines.

In 2007, approximately 6.9 million tons of coal were shipped through CONSOL Energy’s subsidiary, CNX Marine Terminal Inc.’s exporting terminal in the Port of Baltimore. Approximately 55% of the tonnage shipped was produced by CONSOL Energy coal mines. The terminal can either store coal or load coal directly into vessels from rail cars. It is also one of the few terminals in the United States served by two railroads, Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation, Inc.

CONSOL Energy’s river operations, located in Monessen, Pennsylvania, transport coal from the Company’s mines, coal from other mines and non-coal commodities from river loadout facilities primarily along the Monongahela and Ohio Rivers in northern West Virginia and southwestern Pennsylvania. Products are delivered to customers along the Monongahela, Ohio and Allegheny rivers. At December 31, 2007, the Company operated 25 towboats, five harbor boats and more than 750 barges. In 2007, its river vessels transported a total of 21.7 million tons of coal and other commodities, including 7.3 million tons of coal produced by CONSOL Energy mines. CONSOL Energy provides dock services for its mines at Alicia Dock, located on the Monongahela River in Fayette County, Pennsylvania. CONSOL Energy transfers coal from rail cars to barges for customers that receive coal on the river system.

The Company operates an ash disposal facility on a 61-acre site in northern West Virginia to handle ash residues for coal customers that are unable to dispose of ash onsite at their generating facilities. The ash disposal facility can process 200 tons of material per hour. CONSOL Energy has a long-term contract with a co-generation facility to supply coal and take the residual fly ash and bottom ash. Bottom ash is disposed locally at the co-generation facility for road construction and other purposes.

:: Fannie and the Shruggers

End Of The Road (624 posts)

Tue Jul-15-08 12:43 PM Response to Original message

43. Question about Fannie for you smart people

Edited on Tue Jul-15-08 01:05 PM by End Of The Road I used to keep up with Fannie, back in the days of the Franklin Raines scandal. I suspected that she was insolvent then, and that was, what, seven years ago? So I've wondered since then if the whole sub-prime lending thing was a strategy to keep the cash coming in -- more mortgage-backed securities to sell to meet obligations -- with the hope that she could 1) turn things around before the bubble burst, or 2) steal more money before the bubble burst. Could this strategy have worked if the economy, otherwise, remained strong? Or am I totally off my rocker? (Please be gentle -- there's a whole lot of economics (most of it, frankly) that I don't understand.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Tansy_Gold (1000+ posts)

Tue Jul-15-08 01:58 PM Response to Reply #43

77. Not that I'm one of the smart ones, but I tend to agree with you

I think most of us would agree that there have been many conspiracies to make macro changes in the American way of life. We may call them "the civil rights movement" or "the gay rights movement," and we may totally support them and not consider them "conspiracies" at all, but those who are opposed to them have a different perspective. We hear all the time about the "gay agenda" as if it is some kind of conscious plan to do something horrendously evil. Just looking at some of the google ads that appear with this thread suggests that there is a culture in this country that celebrates "making" a lot of money without working for it. "I made a billion dollars last year and you can too!" or something like that. And certainly people like hedge fund managers and multi-millions-a-year CEOs didn't just accidentally get those paychecks: they had to have some kind of plan. Long-term that "plan" included such things as cutting taxes on capital gains, allowing banks and insurance companies and investment firms to merge, avoiding scrutiny of unregulating trading, etc. etc. etc. I mean, it's not like Phil Gramm just woke up one morning and said, "Hey, Wendy, I think it would be fun to overturn Glass-Steagal and see what happens!" So I think the big question is whether they just intended to suck all the wealth out of these institutions out of just plain avarice or if there was an underlying intention to bring the institutions to collapse. Rather like the goose that laid the golden eggs: did they kill it because they thought they could get more golden eggs that way, or did they kill it so no one else could? I'm not big on theories. On 9/11/01I was roundly denounced in a Theory of Social Movements class for dismissing Henry Kissinger's comments that 9/11 was commited by a huge and wealthy organization. We were sitting in the class, watching CNN coverage of the attack, and I insisted, "They didn't need a big organization. You could do this with maybe twelve, fifteen people. Four or five to a plane, one to fly it the others to hold the crew and passengers hostage." And when my classmates and even professor said it couldn't be done without a trained pilot able to take off and land, I just shrugged and said, "He doesn't need to take off if he's going hijack a plane already in flight and he doesn't need to know how to land it if he's just going to crash it into a building. All he needs to know is how to steer." But of course Henry Kissinger and all the CNN bots know far more than Tansy Gold!! I relate that because I think it's important to look at what the objective is and what it will take to accomplish the objective. A simple hijacking and suicide crash doesn't take a whole lot of preparation and it doesn't take the cooperation of a lot of people. Someone posted just this morning an item about the $43 million boooosh gave to the Taliban in the months before 9/11/01, and I suppose that in the almost seven years since the event, there are at least some who will read that headline today and gasp at the "discovery" of this evidence of a conspiracy. But there were many of us, especially those who had been following even tangentially the rise of the Taliban and its policies toward women, who knew about the $43 million a long time ago. We know the act occurred, but we don't know the motives behind it or what the ultimate objective was. Was it to control the growing of opium poppies, or was it to arm the Taliban against another enemy or was it to help finance bin Laden to bring down the WTC as part of a plan to wage war on Iraq and grab all the oil? The problem with big conspiracies is that they require lots and lots of co-conspirators. A single one who breaks ranks can destroy the whole plot. The bigger the conspiracy, the more chances for leaks. A conspiracy depends on secrecy, and it's really hard to keep EVERYONE from talking. And yes, I drop the whole Ayn Rand thing in from time to time, and I do like the term "shruggers" applied to the people whose actions are destroying both the U.S. economy and the world's. I think people like Greenspan and Paulson and Bernanke do believe in a kind of Randian ethic of greed is good and greedy people are good because they're greedy. I think they've adopted Objectivism, as Rand called her philosophy, in much the same way as the faithful of any religion adopt its tenets. Not only do they trust in "the markets" but they believe that propping them up with supports that are in fact "anti-market" will enable to markets to recover to a point where the supports aren't necessary. I think they honestly believe this, even though those of us on the outside can see that it isn't working, won't work, and indeed can't work -- at least not in the sense of keeping "the markets" healthy and viable in the way Greenspan and Bernanke and their ilk tell us. I think they've reached a point where they have believed their own message for so long that they just can't get their little heads around the fact of their error. And I further think they are so terrified of what would/will happen when they can no longer deny the error that they willingly continue the denial because not to do so is to embrace the catastrophe. The other option, of course, is that they did it all deliberately like their "heroes" Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden, with the conscious intention of destroying the economy and the peripheral institutions (including government) as a means to an end: re-establishing a wealth-based feudal aristocracy. It's a tempting philosophy. It promises unlimited rewards not for hard work but for the mental maneuverings to acquire unearned wealth. It also utilizes language to disguise ulterior motives. "Greed is good" becomes a fundamental truth, and once it's accepted, all manner of nefarious behaviors become sanctioned. Rand resolutely insisted "A is A" with ferocious Aristotelian logic, but in fact her A was only sometimes A. Her version of Robin Hood was that he stole from the productive rich and gave to the undeserving poor and such a cultural memory had to be erased and replaced with a NEW Robin Hood who returned wealth to its rightful owners. The legend, of course, was that Robin Hood stole from the UNproductive rich and returned oppressive taxes to the working, productive poor from whom they had been extorted. But in a culture like ours that puts so much emphasis on the sanctity of unearned wealth, it's easy for those who buy into that Randian picture to promote an economy in which the wealthy "earn" their right to be wealthy on the basis of how little they earn. I mean, wouldn't we all like to take home a billion dollars every year without having to work for it? Unfortunately, it means someone ELSE has to work for it and we just take it away from them. What happens when the feudal peasants just refuse to work? What happens when they no longer CAN work because of the machinations of the aristocrats? The ultimate goal, of course, is the destruction of the economy, but whether this is an intended goal or "collateral damage" is the question I can't answer. I do indeed like to think they're all just evil shruggers, but maybe they aren't. Tansy Gold, who has never trusted anyone named Hank

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

llmart (1000+ posts)

Tue Jul-15-08 02:14 PM Response to Reply #77

97. Terrific post and analysis......

I'm not a regular poster on this thread but I read it every day and when you claim you're not one of the "smart ones" - well, don't do that again! Give yourself some credit. Your post contains a lot of analytical thinking and we all know that's in short supply in America today. We are a nation being run by old, white men stuck in the '50's mentality that they were brought up with. The Democratic Party was always considered the progressive party - thinking towards the future and advancement - not stuck in the past. As a good friend once said to me, "People think they can go back and relive the times which are really only nostalgia, but things ALWAYS move on and change." I would love to see Democrats use the term "progressive" over and over again so we can get away from the word liberal which has been hijacked by the Republicans to be a bad word instead of what it used to mean.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Dr.Phool (1000+ posts)

Tue Jul-15-08 02:57 PM Response to Reply #97

112. I don't think it's the '50s mentality.

I call it the "Chickenhawk Government". My high school class was 1970. And about that time, a few years before, and a few years after, everyone I knew who could afford it, was running away to Kent State to avoid the draft. Most of them majored in some shit called "Business". Although most of them came from union households in Cleveland, they went away and came back with all the tools to break unions, screw workers, maximize short term profits, and basically run businesses into the ground. They eventually took over my company, and decided that new employees had to have at least 2 years of college to work there. Even though some employees with no education could work circles around them. I managed to get 31 years in, and a good Railroad pension, before they ran the place out of business. The decisions they made, didn't make any sense unless you looked at it in the context that they were trying to run the place into the ground.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

llmart (1000+ posts)

Tue Jul-15-08 06:44 PM Response to Reply #112

181. Well, there's that too....

I'm from NE Ohio also. Graduated high school 1967. I think Kent State and Cleveland State were both pretty liberal. Dennis Kucinich was at Cleveland State with my husband. It was and still is a very pro-union area. It was the Reaganites that started the anti-worker sentiment.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

End Of The Road (624 posts)

Tue Jul-15-08 03:30 PM Response to Reply #77

131. I loved your reply, thanks, but

I wasn't really trying to suggest conspiracy here, though making tin-foil hats is my favorite hobby. I was just wondering if the sub-prime lending program was a studied attempt to shore up an already insolvent Fannie Mae.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Tansy_Gold (1000+ posts)

Tue Jul-15-08 04:11 PM Response to Reply #131

142. The logical answer is "no."

At least IMHO. **IF** they wanted to keep Fannie and Freddie solvent only for a short term, then the answer might be a hesitant "yes," but as a long-term fix, there was no way it could work. As I've posted here before, in summer and early fall of 2002 I worked for a dept of one of the cities in the far west Phoenix suburbs, an area undergrowing horrendous development. The city was small and primarily lower-income. As developers came in and suckered these people into buying, my dept tried to put pressure on the city council to halt predatory lending. They refused, and ordered us NOT to counsel residents who feared being suckered. The city wanted the tax revenue. The long-term effects of foreclosures, delinquent taxes, vandalism, etc., were recognized but ignored, dismissed, denied, in preference for the short-term benefits. For investors, there was likewise far more money to be made in the short term by making the mortgages, taking the money, and running and doing that via investment in the mortgage brokers and banks. Investment in the GSEs wouldn't have had the quick return the other vehicles did. I think it's far more likely that the intent, if there was any, was to get the cash out of the subprimes and alt-a's, push them into the GSEs, then get the feds/taxpayers to bail out the GSEs and make a double killing, especially if FOREIGN investors could be brought in to shore up the GSEs with big bucks. I think that would be Kevin Phillips' analysis. The fact, however, that one bubble follows another -- S&Ls, dot.com, housing, commodities, etc., etc., etc. -- suggests that there is an element of the citizenry that has full knowledge of how bubbles are formed and how to profit from them AND has the financial ability to do so. The faster the bubble is blown and then burst, the faster they are able to pull out their profit; there is more risk and less return in dragging out the bubble. I probably still didn't answer your question, but my response is solely speculative anyway! Tansy Gold

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

End Of The Road (624 posts)

Tue Jul-15-08 05:19 PM Response to Reply #142

158. Wow. Yes, this answers it for me

and you ARE one of the smart ones!

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Demeter (1000+ posts)

Tue Jul-15-08 04:47 PM Response to Reply #77

151. I Share Your Viewpoints

It is hard for me to wrap my mind about any native son WANTING to destroy his motherland. Historically, I can't think of any. The closest we come are the crazy Caesars: Nero, Caligula, etc. They were either mentally deformed puppets of the Praetorian Guard or the Senate, or outright tyrants. Nothing existed in the world outside of themselves, and they acted accordingly. Shrub fits this to a T: he has the emotional development of a 2 year old, the mental stability of quicksand, and lots of people pulling strings behind him. It's a conspiracy of pirates. Our only recourse as a nation is some form of the French Revolution: to remove the "Aristos" and redistribute their loot. Nothing else will fix the problem. Demeter is going to have to learn how to knit. But she refuses to go gray for the occasion.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Tansy_Gold (1000+ posts)

Tue Jul-15-08 08:20 PM Response to Reply #151

202. But I don't consider him a "native son"

I think that's one of the phenomena to come out of the post-WW2 economy -- a destruction of nationalism in favor of corporate loyalty. Hitler (and Mussolini)tried to weld nationalism and corporatism into a seamless whole, but it didn't work. In order for the corporation to triumph, it must be made superior to the state, so that the corporations control the states rather than the other way around. Again, stepping into territory, remember that Prescott Bush was forced by the government to divest himself of lucrative investments in Nazi Germany. The state impeded his ability to make money, which is the only "morality" of the monied right wing. So why not go in AFTER the war, rebuild the German (and the Japanese) economy, establish corporations that can operate regardless what political regime is in power. Eventually, the regimes become subservient to the corporations. The whole Iran-Contra episode was a similar scenario, with bunches of the same actors as we see in the current farce, and it may in fact have been a trial run to see if they could get away with it. They did. As a result, by 2008 the corporations -- InBev's takeover of Anheuser-Busch being a PERFECT example -- are immortal and supra-national to the point where nations, national identities, etc., no longer matter. ONLY the bottom line. ONLY. I consider boooooosh to have reached the point where the nation comes a distant second to the corporation. He and his board of directors have been able to utilize rhetoric that appeals to the nation and nationalism, but the motives are solely corporate. Iraq and WMDs, Iraq and democracy, even Iraq and cheap oil for the masses -- it's ALL empty rhetoric. The whole thing is about grabbing the wealth and profits, establishing a new world order based on the morality of the dollar (or any monetary unit they choose, since eventually they will all be interchangeable/identical). Remember, too, that there are those who would eagerly establish a government based on the principles defined in religious texts: Look at the Taliban in Afghanistan, the ayatollahs in Iran, al-Sadr in Iraq, even Israel. We've seen many many examples here in the U.S. of the right wing christians who want public education, public morality, etc., based on biblical principles. Is it, then, such a stretch to think there are people who have taken the philosophical, quasi-religious writings of Ayn Rand as their blueprint for world domination? She was an avowed atheist, yet her proposal for a new world order requires an apocalypse, an end times to sweep away the evil so the savior(s) can return and reign supreme. And yes, it's very possible that unless/until there is a French- or Russian-style revolution, they will not be stopped. Tansy Gold, who is beginning to think she is going off the deep end. . . . . .

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top