Guys as rich as Carlos Slim don't generally have paisano welfare on their minds. He made his money as sort of a ruthless version of Warren Buffett. Mexicans have accused him of monopolizing several industries.
Trump (overstated ego wealth) and Musk are also hardly generous in that arena, often firing and ripping people off to achieve their goals. Expecting random rich guys to fund altruistic programs is a stretch, despite exceptions like Gates and the notorious Soros.
I think he's just not famous enough and/or active in media, and not directly running a government. He mainly tends to come up in "Who's the richest guy in each nation?" comparisons. He can't even make the world's top 10 list now.
Not "active in media?" Gee, I wonder why. Could it be that our media don't go after him? Does his ethnicity give him protected class status?
According to the American news media, rich people are powerful. If he wanted to, Carlos Slim could offer all those illegal immigrants coming into our country, enough money to stay in Mexico and try to fix problems there.
The world now has over 3,000 billionaires (see Forbes list) and only those who actively stay in the spotlight get much attention. Many try to stay low-key for fear of kidnappings, etc. It seems Slim is reluctantly famous vs. Mexico's other dozen+ billionaires. He's just at the top, still.
I think you chose Slim as a case of "whataboutism" to jab at the Left, more than a realistic concept. The rich generally don't like giving away their money but if Mexico had a "Slim Soros" character it might be different.
Here's Chat GPT's take on Andrea Valdarrama's professed Incan communal values based on my prompts. I know a thing or two about Andean societies before the arrival of the Spaniards as well as during the colonial and modern eras.
A defensible critique of this politician could argue that their invocation of Incan communal values is more of a symbolic or strategic political move rather than a sincere reflection of a deeply ingrained cultural framework. Here’s how such a critique could be framed:
Historical and Cultural Distance – The Inca Empire fell nearly 500 years ago, in 1532, and its direct governance structures and societal organization were largely dismantled by Spanish colonization. While some Andean communities have preserved indigenous customs, the vast majority of Peruvians, especially those who emigrated to the U.S. or migrated from the highlands to Lima and other coastal cities, live in a society shaped more by a blend of Spanish colonial, Catholic, and modern global influences than by Incan sociopolitical traditions. The claim that an American political office operates on "Incan communal values" seems more like a rhetorical flourish than an actual guiding principle.
Lack of Specificity in Application – The politician lists these values—ayni (reciprocity), yachay (knowing), munay (love), llank'ay (work)—but does not specify how they meaningfully shape policy or office culture beyond broad moral posturing. Most of these values are universal human virtues rather than uniquely Incan, and their invocation without clear implementation can be seen as an attempt to romanticize a historical civilization for political gain.
Erasure of Non-Incan Indigenous and Mestizo Identities – Peru is home to a vast number of indigenous groups, many of whom were never part of the Inca Empire. By emphasizing "Incan communal values," the politician risks flattening Peru’s diverse indigenous heritage into a single narrative that aligns with the popularized mythos of the Incas rather than the lived realities of Quechua, Aymara, and other indigenous or mestizo Peruvians today. This oversimplification suggests a selective embrace of identity rather than a genuine engagement with indigenous communities.
Potential "Pretendian" Status – If this politician does not have a demonstrable lived connection to indigenous Andean communities—such as active involvement with Quechua-speaking groups, participation in traditional communal labor (faena or mink'a), or a history of engagement with indigenous political movements—then their claim to be upholding Incan values could be seen as a form of opportunistic identity politics. It raises the question of whether they are authentically rooted in indigenous Andean culture or simply borrowing its imagery for personal or political branding.
Selective Cultural Revivalism – If the politician truly follows Incan communal values, are they also advocating for Incan collectivist economic structures, land redistribution in favor of indigenous people, or traditional indigenous forms of governance like local ayllus? Or are they simply using ancient values in a feel-good, depoliticized way that aligns with modern American liberalism? The lack of direct alignment between Incan principles and actual policy stances could suggest that the politician is using Incan imagery superficially rather than meaningfully.
Conclusion
While cultural pride and ancestral acknowledgment are valid, the politician’s invocation of Incan values should be scrutinized for depth and authenticity. If they lack tangible connections to contemporary indigenous Andean communities, their rhetoric could be seen as a performative gesture—one that capitalizes on the appeal of a glorified past while ignoring the complexities of modern indigenous identity. In this light, their dedication to Incan communal beliefs may be less about genuine cultural continuity and more about strategic self-branding.
Local media doesn't like dealing with this stuff; they prefer letting self-dealers and NGO shills in the legislature set the agenda, which they then repeat as if it's "news." We've had this casual corruption for so long from our newspapers of record (both fighting over the same headlines) that we take it as the way journalism ought to be practiced. It ain't.
Once more, what largely remains unsaid, truth is spoken here at PORTLAND DISSENT.
As a first generation American, my father only got his citizenship after he was in Basic Training in 1944 before being shipped to Europe. There is literally no country on earth that does not manage immigration; and in fact the vast majority of countries are much tougher than the US.
Fitzsimmons makes the key point of distinguishing between illegal aliens who commit crimes and people who came here without official permission.
The irony of Oregon taxpayers footing the bill for lawyers to represent accused criminals who are also illegally in the country, but simultaneously forbidding any law enforcement agency from even enquiring about one's status in the United States is absurd. Treaties require arrested aliens to be advised that their country's consulate can assist them, but if the sheriff is forbidden of asking what country an inmate has citizenship with, how on earth can they inform them of their right to consult with "their" country's representative (Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 8 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 236).
Gotta love the legislature providing largess for those with no right to be here while laying off citizens and telling the tax paying public the state can't afford to plow the roads fix the pot holes provide State police adequately fund education but they can screw the farmers I wonder if any of the tape worms that constitute the Democrats in the Oregon House or Senate ever ran a for profit enterprise
Business as usual in Salem. Do everything you can for everyone except the people that pay for it. Taxation without representation should be Oregon's motto. Great analysis by Pam of another grift by the in-crowd.
Guys as rich as Carlos Slim don't generally have paisano welfare on their minds. He made his money as sort of a ruthless version of Warren Buffett. Mexicans have accused him of monopolizing several industries.
Trump (overstated ego wealth) and Musk are also hardly generous in that arena, often firing and ripping people off to achieve their goals. Expecting random rich guys to fund altruistic programs is a stretch, despite exceptions like Gates and the notorious Soros.
True, but why don't the media treat Carlos Slim with the same contempt they treat Trump and Musk?
I think he's just not famous enough and/or active in media, and not directly running a government. He mainly tends to come up in "Who's the richest guy in each nation?" comparisons. He can't even make the world's top 10 list now.
Not "active in media?" Gee, I wonder why. Could it be that our media don't go after him? Does his ethnicity give him protected class status?
According to the American news media, rich people are powerful. If he wanted to, Carlos Slim could offer all those illegal immigrants coming into our country, enough money to stay in Mexico and try to fix problems there.
The world now has over 3,000 billionaires (see Forbes list) and only those who actively stay in the spotlight get much attention. Many try to stay low-key for fear of kidnappings, etc. It seems Slim is reluctantly famous vs. Mexico's other dozen+ billionaires. He's just at the top, still.
I think you chose Slim as a case of "whataboutism" to jab at the Left, more than a realistic concept. The rich generally don't like giving away their money but if Mexico had a "Slim Soros" character it might be different.
Carlos Slim tried to buy The New York Times. Yeah, he’s really low-key.
“Whataboutism” is a crutch the Left uses when they have nothing else. Sorry to see you use it.
Here's Chat GPT's take on Andrea Valdarrama's professed Incan communal values based on my prompts. I know a thing or two about Andean societies before the arrival of the Spaniards as well as during the colonial and modern eras.
A defensible critique of this politician could argue that their invocation of Incan communal values is more of a symbolic or strategic political move rather than a sincere reflection of a deeply ingrained cultural framework. Here’s how such a critique could be framed:
Historical and Cultural Distance – The Inca Empire fell nearly 500 years ago, in 1532, and its direct governance structures and societal organization were largely dismantled by Spanish colonization. While some Andean communities have preserved indigenous customs, the vast majority of Peruvians, especially those who emigrated to the U.S. or migrated from the highlands to Lima and other coastal cities, live in a society shaped more by a blend of Spanish colonial, Catholic, and modern global influences than by Incan sociopolitical traditions. The claim that an American political office operates on "Incan communal values" seems more like a rhetorical flourish than an actual guiding principle.
Lack of Specificity in Application – The politician lists these values—ayni (reciprocity), yachay (knowing), munay (love), llank'ay (work)—but does not specify how they meaningfully shape policy or office culture beyond broad moral posturing. Most of these values are universal human virtues rather than uniquely Incan, and their invocation without clear implementation can be seen as an attempt to romanticize a historical civilization for political gain.
Erasure of Non-Incan Indigenous and Mestizo Identities – Peru is home to a vast number of indigenous groups, many of whom were never part of the Inca Empire. By emphasizing "Incan communal values," the politician risks flattening Peru’s diverse indigenous heritage into a single narrative that aligns with the popularized mythos of the Incas rather than the lived realities of Quechua, Aymara, and other indigenous or mestizo Peruvians today. This oversimplification suggests a selective embrace of identity rather than a genuine engagement with indigenous communities.
Potential "Pretendian" Status – If this politician does not have a demonstrable lived connection to indigenous Andean communities—such as active involvement with Quechua-speaking groups, participation in traditional communal labor (faena or mink'a), or a history of engagement with indigenous political movements—then their claim to be upholding Incan values could be seen as a form of opportunistic identity politics. It raises the question of whether they are authentically rooted in indigenous Andean culture or simply borrowing its imagery for personal or political branding.
Selective Cultural Revivalism – If the politician truly follows Incan communal values, are they also advocating for Incan collectivist economic structures, land redistribution in favor of indigenous people, or traditional indigenous forms of governance like local ayllus? Or are they simply using ancient values in a feel-good, depoliticized way that aligns with modern American liberalism? The lack of direct alignment between Incan principles and actual policy stances could suggest that the politician is using Incan imagery superficially rather than meaningfully.
Conclusion
While cultural pride and ancestral acknowledgment are valid, the politician’s invocation of Incan values should be scrutinized for depth and authenticity. If they lack tangible connections to contemporary indigenous Andean communities, their rhetoric could be seen as a performative gesture—one that capitalizes on the appeal of a glorified past while ignoring the complexities of modern indigenous identity. In this light, their dedication to Incan communal beliefs may be less about genuine cultural continuity and more about strategic self-branding.
Why do the socialist of the world believe that we should be the caregivers of the world?
Pamela - A related concern of mine, but not, apparently, a concern of Democrats in the legislature:
Free Food for Oregon’s Non-Citizens: Another Bad Budget-Busting Idea
https://shorturl.at/80dxD
Local media doesn't like dealing with this stuff; they prefer letting self-dealers and NGO shills in the legislature set the agenda, which they then repeat as if it's "news." We've had this casual corruption for so long from our newspapers of record (both fighting over the same headlines) that we take it as the way journalism ought to be practiced. It ain't.
Once more, what largely remains unsaid, truth is spoken here at PORTLAND DISSENT.
As a first generation American, my father only got his citizenship after he was in Basic Training in 1944 before being shipped to Europe. There is literally no country on earth that does not manage immigration; and in fact the vast majority of countries are much tougher than the US.
Fitzsimmons makes the key point of distinguishing between illegal aliens who commit crimes and people who came here without official permission.
The irony of Oregon taxpayers footing the bill for lawyers to represent accused criminals who are also illegally in the country, but simultaneously forbidding any law enforcement agency from even enquiring about one's status in the United States is absurd. Treaties require arrested aliens to be advised that their country's consulate can assist them, but if the sheriff is forbidden of asking what country an inmate has citizenship with, how on earth can they inform them of their right to consult with "their" country's representative (Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 8 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 236).
Gotta love the legislature providing largess for those with no right to be here while laying off citizens and telling the tax paying public the state can't afford to plow the roads fix the pot holes provide State police adequately fund education but they can screw the farmers I wonder if any of the tape worms that constitute the Democrats in the Oregon House or Senate ever ran a for profit enterprise
Business as usual in Salem. Do everything you can for everyone except the people that pay for it. Taxation without representation should be Oregon's motto. Great analysis by Pam of another grift by the in-crowd.
Keep funding public benefits for non-citizens and the state's motto will become, "Representation without taxation."