For the past 8 years, Bush and McCain have been deaf, dumb and blind to the special interests of the middle class; they have ignored the special interests of the 48 million uninsured; squashed the special interests of citizens who want their privacy back and have completely ignored the special interests of environmentalists.

So Mr. McCain, when you say 'it's over' for special interests, PLEASE DEFINE which special interests you mean. Surely it can't be the same special interests who have put you on top of the ticket or the 159 lobbyists that are working on your campaign.

From: JustMoreoftheSame.com - GOP Players:

John McCain’s campaign isn’t just in the pocket of lobbyists — it is lobbyists. The upper levels of McCain’s operation are staffed with some of Washington’s most prolific influence peddlers.

Rick Davis, campaign manager, has lobbied for Airborne Express and DHL on their controversial merger deal, as well as telecom companies Bell South, SBC, and Verizon.

Charlie Black, senior advisor, lobbied for 109 clients, including Yukos Oil and Freddie Mac.

Randy Scheunemann, senior foreign policy advisor, has had lobbying clients that include BPAmoco, and the NRA.

Frank Donatelli, the McCain campaign’s director at the RNC, has lobbied for 70 clients, including PhARMA, Pfizer, and ExxonMobil.

John Green, congressional liaison, has lobbied for 168 clients, including insurance industry trade groups, predatory lender Ameriquest, ChevronTexaco, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and others.

Susan Nelson, the campaign finance director, has had at least 43 lobbying clients, including EADS/Airbus, American Health Insurance Plans, and Verizon.

Mark Buse, McCain’s Senate chief of staff, has lobbied for 62 clients, including ExxonMobil, Freddie Mac, and telecom interests like AT&T, TimeWarner and Cablevision, who have interests in front of McCain’s Commerce Committee.

Wayne Berman, another senior advisor, lobbied for 104 clients, including Fannie Mae, the American Petroleum Institute, ChevronTexaco, and the National Rifle Association.

More GOP Players here

Para warga desa yang namanya disamarkan itu mengajukan kasusnya sejak 2001. Mereka menuduh para tentara penjaga kilang minyak Exxon di Arun telah melakukan pembunuhan, penyiksaan, pemerkosaan, dan penculikan terhadap penduduk setempat selama 1999 hingga 2001. Mereka juga menuntut tanggung jawab ExxonMobil Corporation serta dua perusahaan afiliasinya, Mobil Corp dan ExxonMobil Oil Corp., serta cabangnya di Indonesia, ExxonMobil Oil Indonesia (EMOI).

Agnieszka Fryszman, wakil para penggugat, mengaku kliennya siap mengikuti persidangan. "Kami punya kasus kuat dan dapat membuktikan kepada juri bahwa Exxon bertanggung jawab," kata pengacara dari Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll LLC di Washington itu.

Dalam dokumen pengadilan, Exxon menyatakan tak ada bukti cukup bahwa penjaga keamanannya melakukan kekejaman itu. Bahkan, kata mereka, kalaupun bukti itu ada, Exxon tak bertanggung jawab atas tindakan militer.

Exxon juga menilai gugatan itu akan menjadi preseden berbahaya bagi semua perusahaan Amerika di luar negeri. Gugatan itu mereka nilai bertentangan dengan prinsip konstitusional yang menyatakan bahwa urusan luar negeri seharusnya tidak ditangani pengadilan.

Namun, hakim Pengadilan Distrik Amerika Serikat, Louis F. Oberdorfer, yang menangani kasus ini, menilai para penggugat memiliki cukup bukti. Menurut Oberdorfer, dalam kasus ini seseorang dapat menyimpulkan bahwa ExxonMobil memegang sebagian kendali terhadap tentara dan lalai mengatur operasi keamanannya. Dia mengatakan, dokumen-dokumen perusahaan pun menunjukkan bahwa "aksi-aksi kekerasan yang tidak sah itu sudah dapat diduga".

Putusan pengadilan itu mengutip komunikasi internal ExxonMobil Oil Indonesia, termasuk sepucuk surat elektronik yang mencatat "reputasi buruk militer Indonesia, khususnya di wilayah penghormatan terhadap hak asasi manusia dan kegemaran mereka terhadap operasi-operasi klandestin."

Margaret Ross, juru bicara ExxonMobil, menyatakan gugatan itu berdasarkan aksi militer dalam sebuah konflik sipil. "Tak ada klaim bahwa cabang ExxonMobil berpartisipasi dalam pelanggaran hak asasi atau pelanggaran lainnya," kata dia.

ExxonMobil Oil Indonesia juga membantah tuduhan para warga Aceh itu. "Kami tidak terlibat dalam pelanggaran hak asasi manusia tersebut," ujar juru bicaranya, Deva Rahman.

Panglima TNI Jenderal Djoko Santoso menyangkal keterkaitan TNI dan Exxon dalam kasus ini. Ia mengatakan TNI tidak pernah menerima dana dalam bentuk apa pun. "Saya tidak percaya. Itu pengadilan Amerika. Sejauh yang saya tahu, TNI tidak pernah menerima dana dari Exxon," katanya.

Adapun Menteri Pertahanan Juwono Sudarsono mengaku masih mempelajari kasus ini. "Kita lihat dulu laporannya. Bagaimana prosedur hukumnya dan dampaknya bagi warga Aceh," katanya. NININ DAMAYANTI | SORTA TOBING | SOFIAN | AFP | IWANK

ExxonMobil says it is poised to launch a new $1.3 billion plan to develop the field, the first exploration since 1982. The company plans to build nearly 50 miles of ice road and an ice air strip and start drilling exploration wells this winter, the first wells to be drilled since 1982. Some contractors have been hired and, ultimately, 200 people will be employed on the work, which will prepare for oil production that is scheduled to start in 2014, the company told Reuters.

However, the state says ExxonMobil and its joint venture partners no longer own the Point Thomson leases. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources formally revoked the leases, some of which date back to the 1960s, for what it claims is non-performance by ExxonMobil and the partners.

The leases were revoked after the state rejected the 22nd and 23rd plan of operations submitted by ExxonMobil to the state.  The 21 consecutive previous plans were approved by the state but ExxonMobil never carried through on them and they expired.

The Point Thompson field lies along the coast just west of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  It is considered a primarily gas field, with associated oil reserves.  The Alaska Department of Natural Resources estimates that the field may hold 580 million to 950 million barrels of oil and 490 million to 600 million barrels of natural gas liquids.  ExxonMobil holds the position that the field is not economically viable for development until there is a natural gas pipeline, either the Denali pipeline or AGIA, available to transport the gas to markets in Canada or the lower 48.  The state maintains that, under the state lease terms, ExxonMobil is obligated to produce the oil reserves in the field or relinquish the leases (State decision documents here).

The company has obtained a couple of permits from the state for surface work: one for water use and one that allows staging of equipment, fuel and a work camp, Exxon will not be allowed to drill any wells or do any subsurface work on what is now referred to as the "former Point Thomson unit," state officials said.

"They won't be issued any permits that are contingent on having leasehold rights," said Nan Thompson, petroleum manager for the department's Division of Oil and Gas. "So anything they do is at their own risk as to whether they will regain those rights."

"We have the right to conduct drilling activities under the terms of the leases, which we do not believe have expired," company spokeswoman Margaret Ross said in an email sent earlier this month.

ExxonMobil is already preparing a rig, has ordered materials and has awarded contracts to Alaska companies doing preparatory work "for the multi-well drilling program", Ross said.

The state's efforts to revoke Point Thomson leases started in 2005 when the Division of Oil and Gas rejected ExxonMobil's 22nd consecutive plan of development for the field. In that plan, ExxonMobil and its partners declared that development would have to wait for a natural gas pipeline, a project estimated at the time to cost over $20 billion.

The state subsequently rejected ExxonMobil's 23rd plan of development for Point Thomson, which calls for production of at least 10,000 barrels of liquids per day by 2014.

ExxonMobil and its partners have challenged the state's actions.

The dispute over Point Thomson leases is now pending in Alaska Superior Court. State officials have predicted the issue will be resolved in the courts in about two years and that there will be ready buyers once the leases are put back up for auction.

There's a lot of political wrangling going on here.  All sides agree that Point Thompson is essential for a natural gas pipeline and that tying the leases up in court will delay field development and the availability of natural gas for the pipeline.  But the state does have a point:  the leases do require development or forfeiture, and ExxonMobil has sat on some of the leases for over thirty years, despite repeated findings that oil production from the field was economical.  Until the state actually revoked the leases, ExxonMobil had no intention of doing any exploration or production.   ExxonMobil is now playing the bully card, which is status normal for them.

A previous post on this topic is here.

This one-minute clip on NBC cost Exxon at least $1.5 million, a hefty sum considering the topic’s almost complete irrelevance.  Malaria prevention is certainly a worthy cause and might indeed affect Exxon employees in Africa.  However, considering that air pollution is endemic to gasoline combustion, and that water pollution is a risk ventured by transporting gallons of fuel over the planet’s oceans, environmental protection, not disease control, should be at the top of Exxon’s priority list.  If Exxon reflects on its value chain operations and its previous oil spills, how can the company ignore its less than commendable impact on the global environment?

ExxposeExxon.com does a good job exposing the oil giant’s track record.  No wonder Exxon is spending millions of dollars on commercial slots during the Olympics; they have turned a blind eye to their responsibility as a corporation and are now attempting to induce the global audience to follow suit.

-Aneesa Arshad

More money made in three months than the U.S. government spent on its food stamps program. More money in three months than nearly 400,000 U.S. workers getting average pay will earn in all of this year. More money made each and every second during April, May and June than a minimum-wage worker earns in a month and a half of full-time work.

ExxonMobil announced that its earnings for the second quarter rose nearly 14 percent to $11.7 billion. It's the biggest quarterly profit for any U.S. corporation in history, and it comes on top of Exxon's record-breaking profits last year, when the company made $40.6 billion over the 12 months.

In all, ExxonMobil had a gross income of over $404 billion last year--more than the gross domestic product of two-thirds of the world's countries.

Exxon isn't alone. Royal Dutch Shell, Europe's largest oil company, reported a 33 percent increase in second-quarter profits, to more $11 billion. And BP, Europe's second-largest oil company, reported it made $13.4 billion in the first six months of the year.

But while profits have never been better for the oil industry, across the U.S., working class and poor people are feeling the pain of high gas prices.

Nationwide, gas prices are averaging just below the $4 a gallon mark. Though there are signs that the oil bubble is deflating, consumers are still paying at the pump. Crude oil prices were averaging about $115 a barrel as Socialist Worker went to press--less than the all-time high of more than $147 a barrel in June, but still nowhere near the $72 a barrel it was at in December of 2007.

As a result, according to a recent report by the U.S. Transportation Department, over the past seven months, Americans have reduced their driving by more than 40 billion miles. March, April and May marked the steepest three-month reduction in driving on record, according to the report.

With driving down, the number of people riding Amtrak has risen 11 percent this year, and mass-transit systems in many areas, including Seattle and South Florida, are experiencing increases of 30 percent or more.

That might seem like good news in a world of pollution and global warming, but underfunded and often out-of-date public transit systems are straining to keep up. Plus, because consumption of gas is dropping, so are federal fuel taxes, which go largely to help finance highway and mass-transit systems. As a result, there are now huge shortfalls in infrastructure, with many transportation projects having to be pared down or eliminated.

* * *

THE MEDIA have focused on the fact that rising gas prices are causing people to cancel vacations, or take "staycations," a theoretical vacation at home. Of course, that's if they're lucky enough to get a vacation at all--a report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research last year showed that only one-quarter of U.S. workers get paid vacations.

Far more than just disrupting vacation plans, however, high gas prices are impacting people's abilities just to get by.

In June, three-quarters of voters responding to a Washington Post-ABC News poll said prices at the pump were causing them financial hardship. Fifty-one percent said it was a serious financial hardship--the first time since the poll began eight years ago that a majority answered yes.

"What can you do? You need gas," Barry Modeste, a construction worker who stopped his van at a Shell station in Takoma Park, Md., told the Post. Modeste put in only enough gas to get him to a cheaper station in Rockville. "If you don't have gas, you can't get to work," he said. "And if you can't get to work, you don't get paid. And if you don't get paid, you can't buy food. We're at their mercy."

The rise in oil prices has also helped spur the rising cost of food, since nearly every aspect of modern farming--from fertilizer production to the harvesting and transportation of crops and livestock--is impacted by rising fuel costs. In many places across the country, more people are looking for emergency aid from food pantries and aid agencies as they get squeezed by rising food and gas prices.

Larry Brown, executive director of CityCare, a nonprofit aid organization, told the Oklahoman that the number of people showing up for a weekly grocery giveaway at a downtown church in Oklahoma City has doubled for the first time in the organization's 16 years. "I don't know if it's the gas prices, and I don't know if it's the grocery prices, but it's been through the summer," he said of the increase.

And in Idaho, where the South Central Head Start Program serves 600 kids--with another 800 on the waiting list to get in--the program is being forced to cut back because of fuel costs. "[W]e transport our children," South Central Idaho Head Start Director Mary Marshall told KMVT News. "We cover 17,000 square miles in south central Idaho. It's a lot of ground to cover."

In some rural communities, where residents have to drive more as a matter of course, and incomes are typically lower, higher gas and diesel prices have been disastrous.

In the town of Allen, Neb., residents must drive 11 miles to get to the nearest gas station. And since the town's only grocery store went out of business last year, they also have to drive more than 20 miles to get to the nearest alternative. With high gas prices, Allen resident Shelly Jones told USA Today, "You're almost forcing the rural communities to shut down." Jones recently quit her job in Sioux City when the commute became too expensive.

People in cities and suburbs are cutting back as well. School districts, for example, are cutting bus service for students due to budget shortfalls. Some businesses and colleges--and even some city and county governments--have moved to operating on a Monday-Thursday schedule to save on energy costs for businesses and commuting costs for employees and students.

Student Melissa Pate, who commutes more than 100 miles round trip from her Fort Lawn, S.C., home to classes at York Technical College and then to work, told the Associated Press that she was glad when the college dropped Friday classes, reducing her school week from three days to two. "Without that, I wouldn't have been able to afford to go to school," she said.

The Bush administration continues to cling to the idea that we aren't officially in a recession. But for many workers, it feels like one, and has for a while.

As retired elementary school teacher Carol Netzel told MSNBC, "It doesn't matter what the economists say. All the people I chat with at the grocery store, the gas station, shopping for school clothes, all are feeling very depressed because of the beating their budgets are taking."

A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that 45 percent of the public, compared to 24 percent in February, say rising prices are the biggest economic problem. Nearly two-thirds say their incomes are lagging behind their living costs. Seventy-two percent said they believed that the country is already in a recession. Sixty-eight percent surveyed said they are scrambling to cover the cost of gasoline. And 38 percent say it is difficult to afford food, compared with 27 percent in February.

* * *

THE BUSH White House, of course, barely admits there's a problem. In March, when he was asked by a reporter about what advice he'd give an average American faced with the prospect of $4 gallon gas, the President responded: "That's interesting. I hadn't heard that."

Bush has heard of $4 a gallon gas now, but his advice for working people? Drive less, cut back and have faith in the system. "The consumer's plenty bright," Bush said at a July news conference. "The marketplace works...People can figure out if they should drive more or less...It's a little presumptuous on my part to dictate how consumers live their own lives."

But, of course, how ordinary people live their lives is dictated by a system where the priority is on profits, not meeting human needs.

For its part, Congress passed an "economic stimulus" package that didn't even cover a month's rent--not to mention a month's mortgage--for most people in the U.S., and a housing bill that won't save the houses of most of the people who face foreclosure.

John McCain--a man who admits that "[t]he issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should"--is calling for the Bush administration tax cuts for the wealthy to be made permanent. In other words, another round of "trickle-down economics," where nothing ever trickles down to workers.

McCain also says he would lift the ban on offshore oil drilling, which even experts admit will not only take years to produce, but will add only a tiny fraction to the pool of the estimated 21 billion barrels of oil the U.S. consumes each day--not to mention the environmental destruction it will cause as well.

It's no wonder that campaign contributions from oil industry executives to John McCain spiked in June, to $1.1 million in that month alone.

Democratic contender Barack Obama, meanwhile, has gotten a lot of traction criticizing the profits of oil companies and promising to stand up for workers' rights. In a recent Obama campaign ad, a narrator warns, "Every time you fill your tank, the oil companies fill their pockets...Now Big Oil's filling John McCain's campaign with $2 million in contributions."

But Obama has accepted more than $213,000 in campaign contributions from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.

Obama does call for high-income individuals to pay taxes at the rates that applied prior to Bush's tax cuts, but that's only a tiny step toward addressing inequality in the U.S., which has reached the highest levels since the 1920s. Today, the richest 1 percent of Americans now possesses about 22 percent of the nation's wealth, and the top 10 percent control 48.5 percent.

The Obama campaign has also released details of an "Emergency Economic Plan" to provide an emergency energy rebate of $500 to individual workers and $1,000 to families, funded in part by a tax on windfall profits from the oil companies.

Yet as journalist Matt Taibbi noted in Rolling Stone, big donors are betting that Obama's talk about taxing the rich and corporations is just that--all talk:

Those worried that Obama might be all talk when it comes to needed reform had a real scare in July, when the senator failed to show up to vote for the Stop Excessive Speculation Act, a bill designed to curb rampant oil speculation.

Oil speculators provide the perfect microcosm of what happened to the economy under Bush. Back in 2001, investment banks like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan got together and created an online exchange called the ICE for trading energy commodities...Trading on the ICE had a massive impact on U.S. gasoline prices, and more than one legislator wondered if energy speculators were manipulating the market, as energy traders like Enron had been before.

The speculation bill was designed to regulate the ICE and place limits on trades. But on the day before Obama returned from his eight-day, eight-country, mega-dazzling international photo op, Democrats failed by a vote of 50-43 to force a vote on the bill, as heavy lobbying by investment banks like Goldman Sachs torpedoed the effort.

Taibbi describes the system in no uncertain terms:

The truth is that the campaigns of both Barack Obama and John McCain are being inundated with cash from more or less exactly the same gorgons of the corporate scene.

From Wall Street to the Big Oil powerhouses to the military-industrial complex, America's fat-cat business leaders know that the Animal House-style party of the last eight years that made almost all of them rich with bonuses, government contracts and bubble profits is about to come to an end, and someone is going to have to pay to clean up the mess. They want that someone to be you, not them, and they've spared no expense to make sure both presidential candidates will be there to bail them out next year.

They're succeeding. Both would-be presidents have already sold us out. They've taken the money and run--completing the cyclical transformation of the American political narrative from one of monopolistic Republican iniquity to an even more depressing tale about the overweening power of corporate money and the essentially fictitious nature of our two-party system.

Ref: Counterpunch

Nicole Colson lives in Chicago, where she works as a reporter for the Socialist Worker.

It is named the Merdeka Award to commemorate the true spirit of independence which transcends the conventional definition of national sovereignty. It explores the liberation of the mind and spirit – factors which foster the realisation of human potential and the pursuit of excellence. The Merdeka Award aims at the encouragement of going beyond the ordinary and of stretching beyond comfort zones aspiring to create a new mindset among Malaysians.

The Merdeka Award thus celebrates and rewards the independence of the mind and spirit, the strength of character and integrity that underpin meaningful achievement and the creativity and vision that enables greatness'.

Taken from the Merdeka Award website.

Check out this image of mine used for the home page of the Merdeka Award.

"I saw someone characterize our profits the other day in terms of $1,400 in profit per second. Well, they also need to understand we paid $4,000 a second in taxes, and we spent $15,000 a second in cost," Tillerson told ABC News' Charles Gibson. "We spend $1 billion a day just running our business. So this is a business where large numbers are just characteristic of it."

[...]

"We can't drill our way out of this problem, just like we can't conserve our way out of this problem, just like we can't alternative fuels our way out of this problem," he said. "There is no one solution to this; there's an integrative set of solutions. And you have to undertake them all. So when the whole debate focuses around we have to choose this one solution or that, people are missing the point."

Full Article and Video here.

Here's a little refresher on profit margins again (cause they are the numbers that matter):

I'm for the 'all of the above' approach. How 'bout you?

Well it seems they blame the multinationals (like Exxon/Mobil) for our dependency on foreign oil. They gave me their view of recent history that I found interesting. The scenario goes like this: in 1986, the multinationals and Opec got together to hold down the price of oil for 10 years and force  smaller independents out of business, so they could come back and raise prices once most of them were out of business. "We're glad to see they weren't able to force "T" out."  T being a reference to  T Boone Pickens.

A source close to the Obama campaign shared that Obama's exemption of oil companies grossing less than a $10 billion a year or producing less than 200,000 barrels a day will also exempt NAFTA  partners. Bush the first , once noted that inflation and high interest rates were a "tax" on the American people. Well high oil prices are a tax on the American people that has been imposed by big oil. Independent oil operators discover more domestic on shore oil fields than big oil.The wildcatters claim Big oil will come into a field that they have discovered and pay high prices to lease up all around them.

They believe the big oil windfall profits tax will give them a little breathing room. It seems the "Big oil windfall profits tax" will also allow these smaller operators to write-off as expenses the all the costs of drilling wells instead having to depreciate the expenses over a number of years. This provision gives them more capital to wildcat additional fields.

These small operators feel the American people should be provided some kind of protection against the predatory pricing policies of big oil that is now controlled by big oil. Some contend that when the 'Merc" ( New York Merchantile exchange) starting trading oil futures in '83, it became the way for OPEC and the big boys to control prices. With the foreign exchanges uncontrolled and speculators with no skin in the game jerking the price around, its time the government step in and protect Americans and really protect everyone one that is hurt by the predatory practices of big oil.

It was good for the government to step in and stop putting oil in the strategic reserve. They say that it reversed the trend of falling inventories and has had the accumulative effect of increasing inventories to August 2007 levels. According to the governments "Energy Information Administration" website and you can see that that days of gasoline stocks for 07-08 are actually more than they were in 06-07. "If truth be told" they say, "the spot price of gasoline should be at $2.00 a gallon. It's contended the idea that it's a supply demand thing is behind the current spike in oil  prices is a joke. The reason they are bringing this out is they are afraid that big oil will again manipulate the price below what a realistic market would support and force them out of business again. Big oil doesn't want the independent oil man in the game and the best way to push them out is through predatory below-cost pricing, so the wildcatters can't afford to be in the game. "It would be a shame to see us forced out just to have big oil price goughing occur in a few years after they are sure we are all gone."

Unfortunately these independent oil and gas drillers are afraid to step out because they know the extent of political control by Big Oil and the Saudis. They fear many could be forced out of business in 2010 by predatory practices of the big boys. Hopefully the Obama campaign will favor the small businessman that can relieve the pressure of big oil control by using supply side economics for the independent domestic oil and gas operators and wildcatters. The more players in the game the more competetive prices will be.

So what I read about recently is all the bad news, obviously, economic downturn in the markets, but then I read something else that made me think.

There are so many companies reporting amazing profits - Exxon Mobil (Geez. But for how LONG?!?), for example, and several others I remember hearing about the other day. And then it struck me.

Why?

These are the companies we need to look at - if we are having financial crises personally, these companies are certainly doing either something right, or evil, or both! Strange, right?

For those who are somewhat or slightly entrepreneur-minded, this could be interesting information towards something outright GOOD for the world in this time of widespread need. (A USEFUL and/or sustainable product/service, possibly dealing with alternative energy or teaching people how to make/install these devices for themselves?)

I also read something about the Mexican PESO (that's right) rising in value compared to our lousy dollar. Whew!

On a completely weird and unrelated note, I was happy to hear that the money that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie made from selling pictures of their new twins supposedly went to a good cause - helping children. An article on them and their charity work is here (Fox News! Hahahaaa).

So there ARE good people in the world. And those two apparently are among those ranks. That leaves the awful cynics like me to wonder if they do it all to look good or because they truly care. We have to hope it's the latter, but the money is still getting delivered, so maybe it doesn't even matter. Those two have adopted quite a few kids!

     The graph above gives a general breakdown of the price of a gallon of gas and where the money goes.  It comes from the Department of Energy.

     Here is what I find interesting:

     The price of the crude oil accounted for 74% of the price at the pump.  There's not much that oil companies can do about that, and it has nothing to do with their profits.  Lowering the price of crude oil would automatically lower the retail price of gasoline.  And that could be done by increasing the supply.  It could be done, as the Democrats suddenly realize, by getting more of our oil domestically.

     The total for refining, distribution, and marketing is 16% of the retail price.  This does not mean that the refiners and distributers make 16% of the price in profit; it means the total of the costs and the profits for those entities constitutes 16% of the price at the pump.  If you think your local gas station owner is getting wealthy by selling gasoline, you are mistaken.  And if you think that the big oil companies are earning outrageous profits, percentage-wise, you are also mistaken.  That 16% includes all the salaries and wages, transportations costs, utility bills, and administrative costs for those companies.  (Oil companies must transport the oil and gasoline, which means that their costs have gone up too, as fuel costs have increased.)

     ExxonMobil, the demonized "big oil" company had a profit margin of 10% last year.  Other gas companies had only about an 8% profit margin on average.  Compare that to a 12% profit margin for chemical companies, a 13% profit margin for computer companies, or 14.5% profit margin for electronics companies[Source:  "What Is a 'Windfall' Profit?", Wall Street Journal]. 

     When you look at the amount of money ExxonMobil is making, it seems like a lot, but when you look at their profit margin, they are not making nearly as much as many other companies.  Google had a profit margin of 25% last year.  Maybe Mr. Obama should talk about a windfall profits tax for them instead of for the oil companies.

     If we are supposed to think that a 10% profit margin is outrageously high, then I wonder what we should think about the windfall that the government gets.

     The amount of tax on the gallon of gasonline accounts for 10% of the price on average.  In some states it would have been nearly 12% of the $4.05.  Can we impose a windfall tax on the government?

     Here's what I think.  When the oil companies are making a lot more than Uncle Sam on gasoline, then maybe I'll listen to the Democrats talk about making them pay more in taxes.  Until then, they should explain how Big Government is better than Big Oil.

The old tax'em when they are doing 'too well' government philosophy, is back in Washington D.C.  The recent calls for a windfall profit tax against the oil companies certainly doesn't support capitalism, fair play, foreign competitiveness, or sound economic policy.  It is just plain silly.

Some facts about big bad ExxonMobil, as reported with their recent quarterly results.  Revenues of $138b, Profits of $11.9b, $7b investing in finding new oil, $10b back to shareholders in dividends or share buybacks, $10.5b in income taxes, $9.5b in sales taxes, and $12b in other taxes.

First, as a percent of revenue oil companies are not profit machines.  Under 10% profit margin? Not a huge wall street story there.  If we need to focus on overly priced, close to monopoly, under regulated, excessive profit companies, someone should be looking at Google. Second, they pay a lot in taxes now, over 30% and if you add in the fact that dividends are taxed again as income, this is even higher. Third, they are investing in research (fair to point out R&D Tax credits for this) for new oil.  I am not sure it is enough but they do owe their shareholders a return.

My proposal is to hopefully create a win-win situation.  DO NOT tax corporations and DO provide incentives toward more alternative research.  It is difficult for me to think that oil companies will become the 'green' companies of the future, contrary to current marketing efforts by BP and others, so Government incentives to promote research and development may be necessary.

From the article below;  http://mygreensuit.com/2008/05/13/reduce-oil-prices/

We the people, should use the Strategic Petroleum reserve as leverage.  It is a fairly simple plan, we sell 200M barrels of oil to the top 5 oil companies on a pro rated market share basis.  We sell it to them at the 90 day moving average of a barrel of oil, or potentially at a slight discount, since refining costs and distribution need to be accounted for, and we take the proceeds and invest in some of the creative alternative energy, conservation and research ideas currently swirling around.

A simple plan review, the average cost of a barrel oil in the reserve = $24.  Let's estimate a $100 government profit on each barrel x 200M barrels = $20b for energy programs.  The oil companies get a new supplier, with reduced shipping costs (it is already here!), and they still make some profit, WIN.  The Government gets $20b to invest in alternative energy, and gets some satisfaction in making the oil companies do something they probably don't want to - WIN.

Next post on what we should invest the $20b in.

     a.  to lose money

     b.  to make a profit or

     c.  to break even?

     I've never owned a business, but I think that if I ever do, I would choose (b).  I think it would be good to make a profit.  In fact, that would be my primary reason for starting a business.  If my business broke even or lost money, I would have a hard time paying my personal bills.  I'd eventually go broke.

     So why do Democrats think it is bad that oil companies make a profit?  Why do they sneer and refer to them as "Big Oil"?  (And why is Big Oil any worse than Big Government?)

     Don't they realize that profitable companies provide jobs?  When companies don't make a profit, they lay people off.  I thought that Democrats were concerned about unemployment.  And aren't they glad that all of those employees are having money whithheld from their paychecks to be sent to Washington?

     Don't they realize that profitable companies pay more in taxes?  They just love taxing businesses, and the more money businesses make, the more they pay in taxes.  Democrats should be jumping for joy at the amount of Exxon Mobil's money they will collect for their favorite welfare programs.

     Don't they realize that profitable companies pay more dividiends to their stockholders?  Some of those stockholders got their shares as part of their retirement plan with the company.  (I have had friends who work for Mobil who had such a plan.)  Others got their shares through mutual funds as part of their retirment plans through some other company or through a private brokerage.  The price of Exxon Mobil stock went down after the announcment of their quarterly earnings, because investors were expecting and hoping for a bigger profit.

     A bigger profit.  That sounds good to me.  Why is that such a dirty word to Democrats?

One good thing about die-casts is that you can enjoy them without having to put fuel in them.

But Oil Energy Money doubts it will be too long before shocks, like Fannie and Freddie's troubles, could send prices jumping and traders' heartbeats racing. 

Surprisingly, the LA earthquake didn't send prices higher amid stockhoarding concerns or logistic disruptions.  A more serious shaker could be the fallout from America encouraging western companies like Total and Statoilhydro to pull out of Iran.

The 70's oil crisis was partly due to American support for Israel which upset Arab leaders enough to hike up prices.  Strong-arming Iran could lead to the same effect, or even worse given Iran's strong links with non-Arab oil producers like Venezuela.

There are other considerations to keep in mind before expecting sub $100 prices again, and the market's more likely to shoot back up than back down.  But while the sailing's good and news is slow, stop by humour site Something Awful for a 'Google Future' look at an apocalyptic economy devastated by peak oil: Gas prices soar to three slave girls per gallon? Flying supermutants? General Motors considering hybrid automobiles?! Apocalyptic indeed...

Sambutan Isra' Mikraj 1429 Hijrah

This comes from EHSAN, in collaboration with Malaysia Hall, KUAM, MASCA, VMPGA, PETROVIC, and JPMA. There will be an event held at Malaysian Hall on the 2nd of August to celebrate Isra' Mikraj. Here's an interesting link, for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike, to find out what Isra' Mikraj is all about.

Where? Malaysia Hall, Melbourne. (K4 High Street, Windsor VIC 3181, Australia)

When? August 2, 10am to 2pm

There will be video presentations, a panel made up of the presidents of the Malaysian clubs and societies of Melbourne, and a potluck lunch will be served.

For more info, check out http://www.kdmm.org.au

Eddie Kneebone exhibition in the La Trobe Art Museum

La Trobe University Art Museum and the Centre for Residential Life invite International Students to a reception and viewing of the exhibition *Bones of Contention* by Aboriginal artist Eddie 'Kookaburra' Kneebone. Eddie Kneebone tells the story of colonial settlement and its impact on the indigenous clans of the North East and Upper Murray region of Victoria in this epic and emotional work, spread across 33 individual canvas. Aboriginal elder Uncle Larry Walsh will conduct storytelling in the Art Museum and Curatorial Director Vincent Alessi will introduce the exhibition.

Refreshments will be provided.

Where? La Trobe Art Museum, Glenn College

When? Tuesday, August 5, 7pm

To register for this exhibition or if you have any questions, contact Renae Belton at r.belton@latrobe.edu.au or visit http://www.latrobe.edu.au/artmuseum

The BIG BBQ!

The Malaysian Students Organizations of Melbourne are joining forces to bring you the BIG BBQ! KUAM, VMPGA, ASDS, MASCA, Malaysia Hall, PETROVIC and the MSO's of Melbourne Uni, RMIT, Monash and of course La Trobe will be serving up food and games on Saturday August 9 at Princes Park (take tram 19 at Elizabeth St. and get off at Stop 16) from 11am to 1pm.

There will be a rousing bout of tug of war or "tarik tali" (doesn't that bring you back to your primary school days?) and LTU MSA is looking for participants. We need to send two teams of 5 girls and 5 boys. If you're interested, email us before August 6 at ltumsa@gmail.com. You're encouraged to bring your own games, so if you feel like playing Twister or even Monopoly in the park, feel free!

For more info, call Alyaa at 0423456264.

Mornington Hot Springs trip by HKSA

Dinner and Spa.

$70 per non-member.

$68 per member.

Date: Saturday, August 9, 2008

Time: 1:00pm - 10:00pm

Location: Mornington Peninsula, Australia

Contact Info Phone: 0430 143 999

Email: michaellauhk@hotmail.com

Important: Members need to bring their towel, bathing trunks or swimsuit.

http://hksa-ltu.atspace.org

Treasure Hunt MASS Caulfield

If Saturday's BIG BBQ! leaves you wanting more excitement for your Sunday, Monash Caulfield's Malaysian Student Society (MASS) will be holding a scavenger hunt around Melbourne City, but with a twist! This scavenger hunt will deal with the concept of business. What does that mean? The only way to find out is to round up some friends and join up!

To join, you need a group of minimum 2 people, or maximum 3 people. The cost to join is $15 per person and the prizes are an iPod Touch and iPod Shuffle, along with other interesting prizes! The hunt will be held on Sunday, August 10. Direct any enquiries to Mak Wae Lern at 0416 966 504 (waelern_88@yahoo.com) or June Tan at 0431 149 950 (tljune@hotmail.com)

La Trobe International News

Check it out Malaysians/international students! La Trobe International (LTI) has launched an online newspaper, the La Trobe Times specifically aimed to international students with content on international students' organizations, student profiles, resources for internationals and a student blog! In this first edition you can read about Sushant, an Indian student at La Trobe who took part in the Homestay Program, get to know our student bloggers, or enter a competition to win movie tickets.

Also, a REMINDER :

The ExxonMobil recruitment drive (of which most of you will have received an email about) will be held from August 17 - 19. The Interviews will be held at the ExxonMobil office in Southbank. For more details, email ltumsa@gmail.com. The deadline for sending in your resume was July 13 but you can either email recruitment.my@exxonmobil.com or visit www.exxonmobil.com.my to enquire about other recruitment dates.

Best wishes!

-- Syar

I wanted to spend some time discussing the language of the CNN-Money article.  One sub-headline reads: "Pricey oil cuts both ways".  The richest among us continue to try to throw a pity party for themselves.  The only thing that results from high oil prices that oil corporations have to buy is their profits are less than they otherwise would have been.  The rest of us should be grateful that Exxon only made $11.68 billion.  It could have made even more!

In an attempt to parry criticism levied at corporations like Exxon, more articles like this one are starting to include descriptions of "where the money is going".  The article touts the $7 billion Exxon spent on finding and producing more oil.  Interestingly, production still fell 8% from year-ago levels.  $7 billion just doesn't get you what it used to, I guess.  The real problem isn't locating new oil - corporations know where plenty of it is.  It's the lack of refining capacity in the U.S.  Remember, a new refinery hasn't been built in 30 years.

The article mentions $10.1 billion went to shareholders in dividends and stock buybacks.  It goes on to bring up all the taxes Exxon and others have to pay.   Waaaaaah!

In terms of governmental policy, the corporate welfare Exxon and others are enjoying should be shut down.  With demand continuing to increase and corporations working to keep supply down, their profits will continue to set records.  Why should the American taxpayer give them more of their hard-earned money?

Another point on corporations locating new oil and wanting more off-shore areas to be opened for lease: when will the corporate media bring up the fact that the Gulf of Mexico was opened up for leasing two years ago?  Oil and gas prices have shot up ever since.  Where's the oil?  Where's the relief at the pump?  The answer is easy: corporations are sitting on those leases, which helped cause the increase in price and thus in their profit.  Corporations have no real interest in increasing supply.  They're sitting on a resource that is dwindling and they know it.  If Congress is stupid enough to open off-shore areas, prices will not go down.  The facts in the past two years bears that out.  It sounds really good right now while we're all paying more than we ever have for gas.  The best way to bring down prices in the environment set up by the big energy corporations and their lackeys in our government?  Decrease demand.

As CNN points out, that profit works out to $1,485.55 a second.

In the fourth quarter of 2007, ExxonMobil set the corporate record of $11.66 billion.

However, the massive profit fell short of Wall Street estimates and Exxon shares fell about 2% in early trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

Such success doesn't come without controversy, however. Immediately after Exxon released its statement, Democrats were issuing press releases:

"While oil companies are earning record profits and gas prices are soaring, the largest oil companies have invested more resources in stock buybacks than U.S. production."

So? It's their company, they can do whatever the heck they want.

But that's not all. Congressional Democrats have planned a conference later in the day to call for an end to tax breaks for big oil firms - even though Exxon paid $10.5 billion in income taxes in the second quarter, $9.5 billion in sales taxes, and over $12 billion in what it called "other taxes."

Several bills have introduced in Congress to enact a "windfall" profits tax on these earnings. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama wants to tax oil companies at a special rate every time crude goes over $80 a barrel.

Most plans would either use this newfound tax money to fund investments in renewable energy, or give it to low income Americans struggling with high energy prices. Maxine Waters was much more blunt in her phrasing when she took several oil executives to task and flat-out threatened to take over their companies and socialize them.

ExxonMobil is a truly great company and instead of heaping scorn upon it, we should praise their achievement. As of this writing, Congress is seeking new pretexts to drag ExxonMobil before congress to find something to punish them for - how often have we heard the terms "speculators" and "Enron Loophole" and "Dark Markets" with the  spoooooky intonation of "cannibalism" or "Hilter"?But why? Any Olympian who wins the gold should not be automatically suspected of doping. A student who gets a perfect score on a test should not be automatically suspected of cheating. Yet ExxonMobil, because it is an oil company, is suspected of somehow manipulating the system for its own benefit.

1. HSBC Holdings

"We have a clear strategy; it is focused on investing and developing our powerful emerging markets franchises. We will continue to do that," Stephen Green, chairman, HSBC. The 'world's local bank' is HSBC's tagline. Headquartered in London, HSBC is one of the largest banking and financial services organizations in the world. It comprises of over 10,000 offices in 83 countries across Europe, the Asia-Pacific region, the Americas, the Middle East and Africa. HSBC is listed on the London, Hong Kong, New York, Paris and Bermuda stock exchanges. Shares in HSBC Holdings plc are held by around 200,000 shareholders. HSBC offers a range of financial services: personal financial services, commercial banking, corporate, investment banking and markets and private bank. HSBC Holdings has reported sales to the tune of $146.50 billion and profits of $19.13 billion in 2007.

History: The HSBC Group is named after its founding member, The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, which was established in 1865 to finance the growing trade between Europe, India and China. The inspiration behind the founding of the bank was Thomas Sutherland, who was then working for the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company. Seeing the potential of local banking facilities in Hong Kong and on the China coast and he helped to establish the bank which opened in Hong Kong in March 1865 and in Shanghai a month later.

"We are going to solve tough customer and global problems and make money solving it," Jeff Immelt, CEO, GE. Imagination at work, says the GE tagline. Innovation and research are the strongholds of GE. In 1969, Neil Armstrong landed on the moon wearing boots made of GE's silicone rubber. GE has four strong businesses in the financial services, infrastructure, and media markets. GE Capital offers an astonishing array of products and services aimed at enabling commercial businesses and consumers worldwide. The company prides helps build the healthcare, transportation, and technology infrastructure across the globe. General Electric's sales stand at $172.74 billion and profits at $22.21 billion in 2007.

History of research

GE's research started in a barn in 1900 when General Electric Company completed eight years. The barn saw company's major breakthrough technologies. One of the earliest projects of the new lab was incandescent lighting. GE scientists have thousands of patents, and two Nobel prizes: Irving Langmuir won the Nobel prize in Chemistry in 1932 and Ivar Giaever won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973.

"Bank of America helps build strong communities by creating opportunities for people - including customers, shareholders and associates - to fulfill their dreams." Kenneth D. Lewis, chairman, CEO and president. Bank of America is the largest commercial bank in the United States in terms of deposits and second largest by market capitalization. The bank also offers talking ATMs which help customers who are visually impaired. The Bank of America sales is at $119.9 billion and profits are at 14.98 billion in 2007.

History

Before 1998, Bank of America organization was known as NationsBank. In 1998, NationsBank acquired San Francisco-based BankAmerica and renamed the corporation "Bank of America".

"Our expectation is for the economic environment to continue to be weak in spite of the environment, we are confident that we are building an increasingly strong and profitable company." James Dimon. JPMorgan Chase is a leading global financial services firm with assets of $1.8 trillion. With an employee strength of 1, 80,000, the company operates in more than 60 countries. It is a leading player in investment banking, financial services for consumers, small business and commercial banking, financial transaction processing, asset management and private equity. JPMorgan Chase reported sales to the tune of $116.35 billion and profits stood at $15.37 billion in 2007. Jamie Dimon is the CEO of JPMorgan Chase.

History

JPMorgan Chase & Co., was founded in New York in 1799. The firm is built on the foundation of nearly 1,000 institutions that have come together over the years to form today's company. JPMorgan Chase traces its beginnings to the Bank of The Manhattan Company, which was founded by Aaron Burr in 1799 and became one of the leading banking institutions in the nation. In the 1800s, many new banks were formed across America. JPMorgan Chase has links to many of these early institutions, including the Western Reserve Bank, one of the first banks in Ohio and a predecessor of Bank One, which merged with JPMorgan Chase in 2004.

Exxon Mobil Corporation is an American oil and gas corporation and a descendant of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company. The company was formed on November 31, 1999, by the merger of Exxon and Mobil. It is also the largest publicly held corporation by market capitalization, at $501.17 billion on April 18, 2008. Exxon's reserves were 72 billion oil-equivalent barrels at the end of 2007 and are expected to last over 14 years. While it is the largest of the six oil giants with daily production of 4.18 million BOE (barrels of oil equivalent) in 2007, ExxonMobil is 14th in the world when ranked by held oil and gas reserves. Rex W. Tillerson is the chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil reported sales to the tune of $358.60 billion and profits stood at $40.61 billion in 2007.

History

Exxon Mobil Corporation was formed in 1999 by the merger of two major oil companies, Exxon and Mobil. Both Exxon and Mobil were descendants of the John D. Rockefeller Corporation, Standard Oil which was established in 1870. In 1911, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Standard Oil must be dissolved and split into 34 companies. Two of these companies were Jersey Standard (Standard Oil Company of New Jersey), which eventually became Exxon, and Socony (Standard Oil Company of New York), which eventually became Mobil.

"This is a very exciting - though daunting - time for our industry. The world is racing ahead with ever-increasing energy needs. We are under pressure to keep up. But this race does not have only one winner. This is a race all of us must win." Linda Cook, Executive Director of Royal Dutch Shell. Royal Dutch Shell is an MNC oil company with Dutch and British origins. It is the second largest private sector energy corporation in the world, and one of the six oil super majors. The company's headquarters are in The Hague, Netherlands, with its registered office in London (Shell Centre). Oil giant Shell has over 10 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) resources under construction. Shell has been exploring and producing oil and gas for more than a century. The exploration and production work is going on in nearly 40 countries and the company employs around 35,000 people. Royal Dutch Shell reported sales to the tune of $355.78 billion and profits stood at $31.33 billion in 2007.

History

The Royal Dutch/Shell Group of companies was created in February 1907 when the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and the "Shell" Transport and Trading Company Ltd of the United Kingdom merged their operations. After the merger, 60 per cent of the new Group went to the Dutch arm and 40 per cent to the British. In 1833, the company founder's father, Marcus Samuel, founded an import business to sell seashells to collectors in London. When collecting seashell specimens in the Caspian Sea area in 1892, Samuel realized the potential of exporting oil from the region and commissioned the world's first purpose-built oil tanker, the Murex to foray into this market.

BP has transformed itself from a local oil company into a global energy group employing over 96,000 people and operating in over 100 countries worldwide. BP has reported sales to the tune of $281.03 billion and profits stood at $20.60 billion in 2007. Tony Hayward is the group chief executive of BP, earlier known as British Petroleum. With headquarters in London, the company is among the largest private sector energy corporations in the world.

History

British Petroleum merged with Amoco (formerly Standard Oil of Indiana) in December 1998, becoming BPAmoco until 2000 when it was renamed BP and adopted the tagline 'Beyond Petroleum'. Most Amoco gas stations in the United States have changed the look and name to the BP brand. The highest grade of BP gasoline available in the United States is still called Amoco Ultimate.

8. Toyota Motor Co

Toyota Motors is 70-years old. Headquartered in Japan, it is one of the world's largest automobile manufacturers. The company was founded in 1937 by Kiichiro Toyoda as a spinoff from his father's company Toyota Industries to manufacture automobiles. Fujio Cho, is the chairman of the company. Toyota also owns and operates Lexus and Scion brands. Toyota's management philosophy is 'lean manufacturing' and 'just in time production'. Toyota continues to promote localization, based on the principle of producing vehicles in those countries or regions where demand exists. In Japan, Toyota has equipped Takaoka plant with the company's most-advanced technologies. In R&D, Toyota is continuing to focus its efforts in the three key areas of the environment, safety and energy. Toyota has positioned hybrid technologies as core technologies that can contribute to resolving environmental issues. Toyota Motor Co reported sales to the tune of $203.80 billion and profits stood at $13.99 billion in 2007.

History

Sakichi Toyoda invented the wooden Toyoda handloom in 1890. In 1894, Kiichiro Toyoda born. In 1924, Sakichi Toyoda completed the non-stop shuttle change type Toyoda automatic loom (Type G). In 1929, Kiichiro Toyoda traveled to Europe and the United States to investigate automobiles. The British company, Platt Brothers, gained the automatic loom patent rights. In 1931, Kiichiro Toyoda started research into gasoline-powered engines.

ING is a global financial services company providing banking, investments, and life insurance and retirement services. The company serves more than 75 million customers in Europe, the United States, Canada, Latin America, Asia and Australia. Based on market capitalization (31 March 2008), ING is one of the 20 largest financial institutions worldwide. The ING Group reported sales to the tune of $197.93 billion and profits stood at $12.65 billion in 2007. The group is led by Michel Tilmant.

History

ING was founded in 1991 by a merger between Nationale-Nederlanden and NMB Postbank Group. During the past 15 years ING has become a multinational with very diverse international activities. ING's history can be traced to the insurers De Nationale Levensverzekering Bank and De Nederlanden van in 1845. The oldest legal predecessor is the Kooger Doodenbos from Koog, Noord Holland, founded in 1743.

"When a management team with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for bad economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact. " Warren Buffett. Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway is based in Omaha, US. Berkshire Hathaway manages a number of subsidiary companies. Its core business is insurance, including property and casualty insurance, reinsurance and specialty nonstandard insurance. The company averaged an annual return in excess of 21 per cent to its shareholders for the last 42 years while employing large amounts of capital and minimal debt. Warren Buffett is the company's chairman and CEO. Earlier, he used to focus on long-term investments in publicly quoted stocks. Berkshire now owns a diverse range of businesses including candy production; retail, home furnishings, encyclopedias, vacuum cleaners, jewellery, newspaper publishing and even makes and distributes uniforms and footwear. Berkshire Hathaway reported sales to the tune of $118.25 billion and profits stood at $13.21 in 2007.

History

Berkshire Hathaway traces its roots to a textile manufacturing company established by Oliver Chace in 1839. In 1929 the Valley Falls Company merged with the Berkshire Cotton Manufacturing Company established in 1889. The combined company was known as Berkshire Fine Spinning Associates. In 1962, Warren Buffett began buying stock in Berkshire Hathaway. After some clashes with the Stanton family, he bought up enough shares to change the management and soon controlled the company. Buffett initially maintained Berkshire's core business of textiles, but by 1967, he forayed into the insurance industry. Berkshire first ventured into the insurance business with the purchase of National Indemnity Company.

]]> http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com/?p=1841 Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:09:36 +0000 rkref http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com/?p=1841

• Business Week: GOP insider discloses that McCain camp had two versions of anti-Obama ad ready to go about Obama's visit to Landstuhl military hospital in Germany. If he went to the hospital, one ad would run that would bash Obama for politicizing the military. If he didn't go (to avoid politicizing the military), the other ad would run bashing Obama for snubbing the troops. It was a set up.  A big, contrived lie.
• NY Times publishes its Friday edition Editorial online early to slam McCain's "race card" charge.
• Team Obama launches new website "Low Road Express."
• New Pew Research Poll: Obama 47-McCain 42%. This is roughly the same as June (Obama leading 48-40%). Obama has improved his standing among former Hillary supporters and in the category of foreign policy (where draws nearly even with McCain, 43-42%).
• Obama comments on ExxonMobil's record quarterly profits, while McCain seeks an additional $1.2 billion tax break for them.
• More on the McCain "Britney/Paris" Ad. The McCain ad was conceived by the same man who made the anti-Harold Ford ad in 2006 which featured a beautiful blonde suggestively saying "Harold, call me!" The McCain campaign claims that it featured Britney and Paris in its new anti-Obama ad because they are the "#2 and #3 biggest celebrities in the world, behind Obama." But anyone who follows celebs would say, "OMG! - that's like sooo wrong!" Britney and Paris don't even make the Forbes' "Celebrity 100" list anymore. Who's in the list's top 10? African Americans, white men and married white women. Apparently the truly top celebs couldn't illustrate the desired attack line. But the guy who made the Harold Ford ad found that associating Obama with two notoriously promiscuous young white women made his point perfectly. I can't imagine why. Josh Marshall of TPM had more on this yesterday. Could there be other reasons besides a racial one? Absolutely. Britney and Paris are hardly held in high regard. The fact that they are has-beens better illustrates the superficial quality of celebrity than celebs who are red hot and admired right now, like Johnny Depp, Beyonce, Oprah or JK Rowlings. And given Schmidt's retort that the Obama campaign reacted to the McCain ad with "superfluous fussiness and hysteria," the use of young celebs seemingly imputes a feminized teen idol quality to Obama. In any event, it's clearly an attack that carries multiple negative cultural implications, all in the service of the Rovian strategy of attacking your opponent's strength. In this case, that strength is Obama's enthusiastic following among his supporters. That passionate support means high turnout, which will not only hurt McCain's chances, but devestate the GOP in down-ticket races.
• 5 major Ohio newspapers don't like the new McCain "Britney/Paris" ad.
• New Quinnipaic Battleground State Poll - Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Obama leads in all three states (two of which were red in '04). Obama leads by 2 in OH and FL, and by 7 in PA.

• Under Five Thirty Eight's analysis of this poll's trends, Obama is holding steady.
• Jonathan Chiat of The New Republic (Op-Ed in LA Times): Obama needs to attack McCain, now.
• WaPo: McCain's handlers are frustrated that he keeps stepping on his lines. Article also acknowledges that new lines of attack reflect Rove's influence, including his tired technique of trying to attack his opponent's strength.
• Boston Globe examines the risk of McCain going negative this early.
• NY Times: McCain is trying to define Obama as "out of touch."
• Politico: McCain's campaign suffers from an often contradictory blend of advisers' messages, largely due to the chaotic management style of the candidate at the helm.
• St. Petersberg Times editorial slams McCain: "From Straight Talk to Smear Campaign"
• Team Obama sees potential voters among frustrated Republicans.
• WaPo: Obama links McCain to "reckless GOP economics."
• NY Times does some navel gazing about the McCain campaign's and some pro-Obama organizations' criticism of the MSM.