First Gates-Buffet Now 3rd Richest Donates Fortune

Search Engines WEB writes "Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, the world's third-richest man, will give away a chunk of his fortune by matching donations to health, education and social programs in Mexico, a close aide said on Wednesday.Slim, who owns a telecoms and retail empire and has a fortune estimated at over $30 billion, will meet all contributions dollar for dollar, said Arturo Elias Ayub, his spokesman and aide. Here's More"

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Fur-lined jackboots

Nothing here folks. Move along. Sexual affinities, eco-terrorism, wealth redistribution are fair game for children to read about, consider, explore. This is different I'm sure. Standards, I think they say.

Now let's all hope that Robert Iger takes the advice of Harry Reid to protect all Americans.

Pressure from those Democrats on ABC?

Senate Democrats, lead by Minority Leader Harry Reid, wrote to Robert Iger, president and CEO of ABC's corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co., urging him to "cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program (The Path to 9/11)."

Here is the link: http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060908/2006-09- 08T003500Z_01_N07260695_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SEPT11-DEMO CRATS-FILM-DC.html

This must be some sort of evil Karl Rove* plot.

* Evil Karl Rove is a registered trademark of moonbats everywhere.

I don't understand

What are you two so crabby about? The movie was filled with actual lies. Things they say happened that didn't. There is also documented evidence that ABC promised several interested media outlets that any changes to the film would be "minor and the anti-Clinton message" would remain in the movie.Given that CBS pulled a miniseries about Reagan because of some unflattering, yet true, information about him and Mrs. Reagan was in it, I fail to see the source of the right-wing outrage.The truth is the truth, is it not? Even ABC's own claims that it was a "documentary" and "based solely on the 9/11 Commission report" are lies too. It's like two frauds in one package.Don't make this about Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or whatever booga booga librrruhls comin' ta gitcha and take away your guns strawman boogieman Rush is serving up. I'm sure you two gentlemen are smarter and more discerning than that.

Re:I don't understand

The movie was filled with actual lies

You've seen the movie?

Re:I don't understand

No, they only provided preview copies to Rush Limbaugh and the rightwing media. None to anyone else, even the people who are depicted in the movie.But I have read reviews of two scenes that are fabrications and those scenes are confirmed to be in the movie.How many lies need to be in it? 10? 20? Isn't two enough?

Re:I don't understand

And you alone it seems can watch this film, though you have not, and understand that it is a pack of lies. (Reviewers are never biased).

So better to censor, than risk an en masse prime-time epiphany?

Re:I don't understand

No, they only provided preview copies to Rush Limbaugh and the rightwing media.

Not true.

Re:I don't understand

"And you alone it seems can watch this film, though you have not, and understand that it is a pack of lies. (Reviewers are never biased)."No, several thousand people agree with me. Including no less than three members of the 9/11 Commission, as well as former President Clinton and the Cabinet members depicted in the scene in question. Further, conservatives such as William Bennett and the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto have said that the film is inaccurate when it purports to be a faithful retelling of the events that led up to 9/11."So better to censor, than risk an en masse prime-time epiphany?"It's not censorship for people to lobby a company to pull a movie. That's political pressure. Further, if I'm a reporter and I write a story about how the town dentist is a pedophile, and he's not and I haven't proved it, and my editor cuts the story, is that censorship? No. It's refusing to print a lie.I don't know what epiphany you are referring to, but it's not the case that progressives are trying to prevent the movie from being aired because we are afraid that if this dangerous truth gets out then everyone will know that Clinton is secretly Osama bin Laden but is also gay and hates Toby Keith ... etc.We simply do not want ABC to air a movie that claims to be 100% true facts that contains demonstrable falsities.Specifically there is a scene that portrays the Clinton adiminstration refusing to strike a house that bin Laden is in because of their fear of political pressure.Not only did this not happen, but the 9/11 report specifically contradicts it, as does the word of everyone who was there and basically the entire historical record.You can try to make this about librrhullls and their wild-eyed need to censor and other products of the fevered wingnut imagination.But it's not. It's wrong to lie. It's especially wrong to lie about this and in this manner. It's wrong, it's hurtful, it's disrespectful and it's just plain, flat-out, wrong.

hopefully this ends the myth

I don't know how anyone can argue that the 'liberal media' actually exists anymore, if ever it did, what with this miniseries airing and a one critical of Reagan being yanked. The media's done more for Bush these past few years than they've ever done for any liberal. Bah.

Re:I don't understand

People who got advanced copies: Rugh Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt and an obscure rightwing blogger called Patterico.People who were denied copies: President Clinton, Madeline Albright, and former Nation Security Advisor Sandy Berger. People who were actually depicted in the movie.Nope. No pattern here. Move along.

Re:I don't understand

Given that CBS pulled a miniseries about Reagan because of some unflattering, yet true, information about him and Mrs. Reagan was in it, I fail to see the source of the right-wing outrage.

Don't make this about Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or whatever booga booga librrruhls comin' ta gitcha and take away your guns strawman boogieman Rush is serving up.
Really?

Well, seems that Senator Reid was fairly critical of CBS when they pulled the Reagan miniseries. Here is a link to an article that discussed Senator Reid and other Democrats reacting to CBS:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA334711.html

Some Democrats on the Hill did weigh in, however. Rep. John Dingell who knocked heads with the Reagan White House in the 1980s, couldn't resist tweaking outraged Republicans and sent Moonves a letter expressing his own "concern" prior to the cancellation announcement. The final cut, Dingell, said should include "$640 Pentagon toilet seats, ketchup as a vegetable, trading arms for hostages" and other scandals that plagued the Reagan administration.

Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle later called the decision to pull the show "appalling." CBS "totally collapsed," he told National Public Radio.

Sounds a bit hollow from old Harry.

Funny thing, that fact checking.

Re:I don't understand

Harry Reid is not the point. It's not OK for ABC to air lies and pass them off as the truth.

Re:I don't understand

Isn't one of the many things the Clinton people are upset about is that the movie gives the impression that Lewinsky mess was a diversion for the President? That sounds like an opinion that may or may not be true? Wasn't one of the complaints about the Reagan miniseries was that it portrayed Reagan as someone who hated gay people? Sounds like that is an opinion that may or may not be true. I fail to see the difference between the two.

Harry Reid is the point.

A short treatise on justifiable censorship

Obviously you've convinced yourself Chuck. That's one.

Re:I don't understand

That scene is factually incorrect. The 9/11 Commission report has extensive interviews with Clinton staff who said that the president told them directly that they were to ignore his troubles with Lewinsky and Starr, saying "We're going to catch it either way, so let's just do the right thing."Second, one scene has Clinton and Sandy Berger refusing to order a strike on bin Ladan after a team of Special Forces soldiers finds him. None of which happened.

Re:A short treatise on justifiable censorship

I'll take that as a gentlemanly concession on your part. Well argued. Thank you.

Leading Historians Call For Cancellation

Leading Historians Call For Cancellation of "Fraudulent" ABC 9/11 Docudrama
Dear Robert Iger:

We write as professional historians, who are deeply concerned by the continuing reports about ABC's scheduled broadcast of "The Path to 9/11." These reports document that this drama contains numerous flagrant falsehoods about critical events in recent American history. The key participants and eyewitnesses to these events state that the script distorts and even fabricates evidence into order to mislead viewers about the responsibility of numerous American officials for allegedly ignoring the terrorist threat before 2000.

The claim by the show's producers, broadcaster, and defenders, that these falsehoods are permissible because the show is merely a dramatization, is disingenuous and dangerous given their assertions that the show is also based on authoritative historical evidence. Whatever ABC's motivations might be, broadcasting these falsehoods, connected to the most traumatic historical event of our times, would be a gross disservice to the public. A responsible broadcast network should have nothing to do with the falsification of history, except to expose it. We strongly urge you to halt the show's broadcast and prevent misinforming Americans about their history.

Sincerely,
Arthur Schlesinger
Sean Wilentz, Princeton University
Michael Kazin, Georgetown University
Lizbeth Cohen, Harvard University,
Nicholas Salvatore, Cornell University;
Ted Widmer, Washington College;
Rick Perlstein, Independent Scholar;
David Blight, Yale University;
Eric Alterman, City University of New York;
Beverly Gage, Yale University.
(List in formation)
http://openlettertoabc.blogspot.com/2006/09/leadin g-historians-call-for.html

The scheduling of the docudrama has raised a firestorm of criticism from educators, congressional leaders and former President Bill Clinton. For additional information on the controversy and the opposition from leading Americans, please check: openlettertoabc.blogspot.com, and thinkprogress.org, and www.firedoglake.com.

The American thing to do and you learn lots, too.

I think it's wonderful all of you have so much time to watch network television, America's true contribution to Western Civilization. Be sure to stock up on beer and pretzels before you hunker down.

Re:I don't understand

Oh come on Chuck, it is just a little creative license. Similar to what Michael Moore did in Farenheit 911.

You sound a bit crabby yourself.

Re:Leading Historians Call For Cancellation

For heaven's sake it is a docudrama.

Re:I don't understand

Does that mean you are laying down your king and conceding? I accept.

Re:The American thing to do and you learn lots, to

You can sneer at all of us while you are pretending to do all the intellectual things (sculpting, reading Proust) that you desperately want everyone to think you are doing.

Well, Chuckie since you mentioned it.

I really don't give a fuck what you think I may or may not doing. Now you go back to watching your tv.

Frauds... the lot of you

So here we have your list of agreeable intellectual apparatchiks with scizzors.

You and your lot of intellectual freedom phonies are frauds. Bitching and waving rainbow flags with the slightest waft of cheap, evangelical after shave but first to put hands on ankles when First Amendment screwing suits your tastes.

Re:I don't understand

The pattern is in people who are in the media business and can get the word out about the movie and people who aren't. Liberal media got copies too.

Re:I don't understand

1. ABC is not claiming that its 100% true, its a docudrama.
2. You are correct that there is nothing wrong when people protest movies and try and get them pulled, it has happened many times and for many different reasons. However when a former president calls ABC to protest then things begin to smell like censorship. And when active members of Congress begin to bring the heat it stinks to high heaven.

Re:hopefully this ends the myth

Yeah sure, that's why Joe Wilson has been a media darling for the past 2-3 years. The Reagan movie was a hit piece, pure and simple, and while I don't really care that such things are done, because they are, it would have been nice if they had waited until not only his passing but well past hers as well.

As for this miniseries, like it or not we were attcked several times in the 90's both outside our borders and within. Little to nothing was done. Even the liberal media can't ignore that big a blunder considering the consequences.

Re:I don't understand

So better to censor, than risk an en masse prime-time epiphany?

LOL

It is not an epiphany to fall for propaganda; it is gullibility. And I find it telling that you don't mind demands for "corrections" to factual statements about right wingnuts while screaming like a stuck pig about blatantly fraudulent lies made up about left wingnuts.

There's a word for that: hypocrisy. Aren't you being rather intellectually dishonest here, Tomeboy? Your position might be more credible if you opposed that kind of mendacity on all occasions instead of only when your poliitcal prejudices are offended.

Here's an epiphany for you: There's a principle of leadership that goes: you're in charge, it's your fault; all you Clinton-hating left-bashers can cry piteously all you want, but the cold hard reality is that Bush was the president when the towers came down; not Clinton. Bush is morally responsible for that debacle.

Re:Frauds... the lot of you

You're projecting your shadow again, Tomeboy; you've got to learn to recognize when you are doing that so you can stop doing it and engage in rational debate instead of spewing blind, right-wingnut, hate-monger, rhetoric.

Besides, isn't that system of censorship one you espouse? Shouldn't you be rejoicing that your system works? Aren't you being unpatriotic and unAmerican to scream and rale against the kind of censorship you'd like to see entrenched in the political system? Isn't that kind of intellectually dishonest?

Re:hopefully this ends the myth

As for this miniseries, like it or not we were attcked several times in the 90's both outside our borders and within. Little to nothing was done.

It is not true that little or nothing was done; it is simply that the Clinton admninistration generally acted rationally and with measured responses instead of committing crimes against humanity the way Bush has. Of course they didn't always get it right, and they probably didn't get the funding they really needed to be effecive, but that second factor would be the fault of Congress. I suggest you set aside your petty prejudices long enough to read Against All Enemies as a historical record instead of simply blowing it off as pro-Clinton/anti-Bush bullshit.

Re:Frauds... the lot of you

you've got to learn to recognize when you are doing that so you can stop doing it and engage in rational debate instead of spewing blind, right-wingnut, hate-monger, rhetoric.

Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle. Just substitute the word right for left and that statement applies to you.

Re:hopefully this ends the myth

the Clinton admninistration generally acted rationally and with measured responses

I bet approximately 3,000 people in New York City & the metro-Washington D.C. area thought the responses weren't very measured.

Re:hopefully this ends the myth

I bet a hundred thousand dead Iraqi civilians think the same about the Bush regime; along with a goodly proportion of free countries around the world.

Let's see now:

Invade a country without any just cause; making up a pack of lies to rationalize the crime;

commit further crimes against humanity by:
-- not only allowing, but sanctioning and even encouraging torture;
-- using cluster bombs on urban centers;
-- using a napalm like substance that is effectively napalm in all but name and rationalizing its use by saying that it is not "real" napalm;

. . . oh, I could go on and on, on this on.

In point of fact, it was the Bush regime that allowed for the intelligence failure by not properly funding intelligence operations and simply doing nothing to promote counter-terrorism until the planes hit the towers. The Clinton administration was quite active in counter-terrorism

You could read about that in Against All Enemies, but you have to actually read the book.

Oh, and by the way: how come the Bush regime hasn't continued the pursuit of Osama bin Laden? It seems to have just given up on that. Boy, what a bunch of quitters and wafflers.

Re:hopefully this ends the myth

Bringing it back to your original point, so you are conceding that the Clinton admninistration's measured responses weren't effective?

Re:hopefully this ends the myth

No. As I have said in other commentary there were numerous minor failures deriving from human nature. These were the same kind of errors in judgement made during the run up to the Attack on Pearl Harbour. See Tora Tora Tora for an excellent review of same and extrapolate to 2001 factoring in the testimony of such principles as Sibel Edmonds and Richard Clarke. Being as to how these errors stem from underlying attitudes, there was no way Clinton could have compensated for them; in as much as he was a basically competent president and would have projected his shadow and assumed others would be equally competent.

In any event, the WTC attack does not de-validate the responses of the Clinton administration as measured. There was an issue and Clinton attempted to address that issue in a rational fashion. A response does not have to be effective to be measured. Making it a capital crime for chronic speeders would be effective in individual cases, but it would not be a measured response. Bush has not and in all likelihood can not implement a measured response. As early as 2001 I was telling key pals that whatever he would end up doing would be exactly the wrong thing to do. Unfortunately, I was right on that score.

Syndicate content