Back in March of this year Forbes interviewed Carlos Slim, a Mexican Billionaire who is estimated to be the richest man in the world. The interview focuses on the brilliant philanthropic project of Mr. Slim to fund putting laptop computers in libraries and schools across Mexico, all free of charge to the students. To paraphrase Mr. Slim’s reasoning ‘why give them a book – why not give them a computer – teach them how to use it – now everyone is better off’.

The owner of Mexico’s top television network, Carlos Slim is so disturbed over Trumps hateful, public remarks he has cancelled a joint project that was to make millions for both Ora TV and Donal Trump.. Here’s the Forbes March interview:

Then there’s this comment in an article posted at Canonclast :

The latest development comes as a television company controlled by Mexican billionaire, Carlos Slim, has cancelled a project with Trump that was said to be worth millions.

[sic]

Ora TV, the production company co-founded by Slim and TV personality Larry King and funded by Slim’s America Movil, had been working with Trump for several months on the project.

An Ora TV spokesperson released the following statement,

“Trump was totally out of line…working with someone so closed-minded was not going to work.”

He added that the comments were racist and hurtful.

Way to go Donald… hope you’re enjoying all that tax-free PAC money. Hope it lasts longer than Sarah’s did :)

Proving a dog is never too old to learn new tricks, Donald Trump has followed a long line of quack-politicians who have figured out that one only needs to pretend to run for office in order to secure lots and lots of free money. It’s almost a religion, this SuperPAC cult of scam artists who legally bilk the ill-informed, less than street smart, gullible Americans out of as much money as possible during an election cycle.

And I’m pretty sure we can all thank Sarah Palin – who lowered the political bar back in 2008 by demonstrating through her fraudulent-yet-oh-so-profitable PAC that one doesn’t need to be educated, civic-minded or even well-intended to pretend-run for office – one only needs to embrace the shroud of deceit long enough to fill the coffers.

Trust me – when The Donald’s pockets are full and before his toupee flies off in the wind exposing his bald reality, he will hop off his campaign dais with a wink and a wave and return to scamming only those who invest in his crappy real estate ventures.

But at least on Facebook we can enjoy the early polls:

10150679_1443773152610211_8761224971826775099_n 11403370_1072890169391151_5381818489793862661_n

from 2014 but still makes me LOL…

From a USA TODAY editorial:

By journalism ethics, Fox should distance itself from its truth-challenged employee. But that’s not likely to happen because for Fox and its fans, credibility is established by different means. Having common enemies matters more than factual detail. That’s why Fox has left a canyon-wide gap between its standards and those of NBC.

NBC took its tarnished anchor off the air; Fox let O’Reilly use his show to go on the attack. NBC executives began an investigation of Williams; Fox News CEO Roger Ailespublicly backed his marquee talent. Williams apologized; O’Reilly threatened journalistswriting about him.

NBC tried to make itself better. Fox went to war.

That shouldn’t be a surprise. Fox News was not created to be neutral but rather to feed a hunger among conservatives for a network they could relate to. For decades, the so-called mainstream news media left them with the impression that the press, liberals and the Democratic Party shared the same enemies: them.

And we can count his reported experiences during the 1992 L.A. riots among his growing list of tall-tales. Not that it seems to matter much. Roger Aisles is only riled when a Democrat tells a whopper while his cash cow boy is granted immunity against the same criticism.

O’Reilly’s role on Fox is quite like the parent who lords over his child with a cigarette in one hand, a beer in the other while shrieking DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO! And Fox followers are all too willing to play the obedient child.

Here is Media Matters take on this USA TODAY editorial.

============ UPDATE ============

RAW STORY has a detailed account of O’Reilly’s coverage of the L.A. riots in 1992 as witnessed by his colleagues and crew. It’s a good read and I hope you take the time to go to Raw Story and give it your full attention. I’m only posting a snippet of it here because there’s a particular quote I think you will find… shall we say… interesting :)

“There were people putting out fires nearby,” said McKeown. “And Bill showed up in his fancy car.” McKeown said at one point, the driver of O’Reilly’s personal car risked causing further offence by exiting the vehicle with a bottle of Windex and polishing the roof.

“The guy was watching us and getting more and more angry,” said McKeown. “Bill was being Bill — complaining ‘people are in my eye line’ – and kind of being very insensitive to the situation.” Kirkham said: “It was just so out of line. He starts barking commands about ‘this isn’t good enough for me’, ‘this isn’t gonna work’, ‘who’s in charge here?’”

The man shouted abuse at O’Reilly and the team, crew members said, and O’Reilly ordered him to shut up. He asked “don’t you know who I am?’,” according to two members of the team

“The guy lost it,” said McKeown. Enraged, he is said to have leapt on to the team’s flatbed trailer and kicked over a light, before throwing the piece of rubble, which smashed the camera and an autocue screen. Antin said he restrained the man. But O’Reilly then continued taunting him while a producer stood between them. “Come on, you wanna take me? I’ll take you on,” O’Reilly is said to have shouted at him.

McCall said the producer, who is about a foot shorter than O’Reilly, “didn’t have much trouble holding Bill back.” McCall said: “It was a lot more show than anything else on Bill’s part”.

“don’t you know who I am?” seems to be the battlecry of the fake-at-heart. Now, where have we heard this before?

Two peas in a pod :)
Palin'Occhio PiniocchiO Reilly

 

Sarah Palin’s sole contribution to U.S. politics has been to help a small percentage of disgruntled, old white men attempt to redefine our public elections as acts of war. The free elections coveted by Americans all these years are no longer a contest between political ideologies – no, elections are war and we must prepare for them, guns a-blazing!

How did we allow this one voice to so skew our perspective that we now believe the opposing party to be the enemy? That the office of president – if not occupied by your personal candidate – need not be respected? And since when did a person holding office be required to use the lion’s share of his time in office campaigning for the next election?

First of all, if we are always in campaign mode when does any work get done? And second, when – in America – did it become acceptable to refer to an election as a war?

Sit down Sarah, the grown-ups are talking.

News of the Palin family brawl at a private birthday bash just over a week ago is all over the internet. You can read several posts about it at The Immoral Minority, which also links back to the stories most aggressive source, Amanda Coyne.  Or just open any CNN or MSNBC search engine and type in PALIN FAMILY BRAWL. It’s quite literally all over the net.

But the best version I’ve read comes from a British Online Newspaper called The Guardian. Oh not because they have any better information than anyone else – but because of this – the final paragraph in their piece:

Palin is unpopular in the state she formerly led. A Public Policy Polling survey last month found that only 36% of voters in the state have a favourable opinion of Palin, versus 55% who view her negatively.

And that, my friends, is sweet music to my ears. Oh looky – I feel a song coming on now!

Palin-irrelevant

H/T to the anonymous commenter at TMI who referred to Palin as a soccer socker mom. Nicely done!

Remember Palin’s rambling attempt to critique Elizabeth Warren’s speech about supporting min wage hikes? Well in case you missed it – Hardball calls her out on her incoherent diatribe on this segment, just after Ethel Kennedy dumps ice on her head. It’s a 2-fer!

At least twice a day I climb onto Google to see if Hillary has responded to Sarah Palin’s ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. I found Palin’s challenge to be monumentally pathetic. Most people challenge family members, friends, you know – people with whom they actually enjoy a relationship. Sarah dropped Hill’s name like they were bosom buddies and we all know that’s not true. (Hill’s are real!)

So while I don’t expect the former First Lady to actually respond to Palin, I thought it might be fun if we provided some possible replies. There’s a blank .jpg at the end – play with it in photoshop yourself or drop a suggestion in comments and I’ll print it up for you!

Here’s mine:

Sarah-Hillary-IBC

 

Here’s yours to play with:

Hillary tweeting

WHEN it comes to dissecting and understanding serious world events and an issue as complicated as Gaza, Sarah Palin’s got it covered. Apparently.

And to help the rest of us get a grip on the situation Ms Palin has kindly released a nine-minute ramble on the truth about the war in Israel.

 

news.com.au takes aim at Sarah Palin’s new news channel [hereafter referred to on my blog as the Sarah Palin Newsy Channel], harshly criticizing her for claiming to be an expert on foreign affairs and citing Howard Stern and Joan Rivers as her sources for credibility.

Sure because nothing says educated opinion more than an old-time vaudevillian, over-the-hill, unemployable DJ and a dried up political has-been. [facepalm]

It’s a lovely read though – she’s referred to as a failed Republican VP candidate who’s jumped from the failed death panel charge against Obama to a new charge calling the Hamas a death cult. (Why is this woman so obsessed with death anyway?)

There’s a short clip at the end where we can watch Palin’s version of the Gaza Truth without being subjected to the whole show. But brief or not, her voice is still stunningly Banshee-like and her words beyond venomous.

It occurs to me that Palin’s offensive remarks about President Obama have been so shielded by America’s first amendment that she’s quite possibly experiencing a false sense of security about wielding similar remarks towards groups of people who don’t give a crap about honouring American rights at all.

Hey Sarah – the first amendment only protects you inside the US borders. But the internet is global. Good luck with that.

jellyfish

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers