Skip to content

Miscellenous updates

18 November 2008

The plane crash that killed Juan Camilo Mouriño and Jose Luis Vasconcellos, among others, has been offically explained as an accident… which has opened a whole new can of worms.  Part of the problem with getting Mexicans to accept the explanation (that the Learjet was following a jumbo jet too closely and ran into turbulance) can be blamed on U.S. Ambassador Antonio Garza, Jr. who … for no discernable reason… called a press conference to blab that U.S. investigators had analyized the “black box” recorder and found no evidence of sabatage.  True enough, but what Tony Garza had to do with that information, or why he would be privy to it before the Mexican authorities had concluded their investigations did nothing to clear the air so to speak.

PAN Senate leader Gustavo Madero complained that Garza showed disrespect, and spoke out of turn, while former Presidential candidate Francisco Labstida, speaking for PRI, said “The Ambassador really likes to talk.  He talks a lot”.

While people are going to spin conspiracy theories no matter what, other questions — why did the Secretariat buy a plane known to have control problems?; why was maintenance and service (including the pilots) outsourced to a private company?; why was there an inexperienced pilot flying the plane?; why did an executive helicoper in the same area NOT experience turbulence? — are still unanswered.

Given the comments by “alejandro” to my original post on Mouriño, back when he was first nominated for Sec. de Gob. all questions about Mouriño and his family contracts with PEMEX are probably the fault of the “jewish media” anyway.

Another recent commentator, Larry Gwaltney, seemed to think think U.S. talking head Michelle Malkin’s status as an “anchor baby” is somehow different given that Ms. Malkin’s father was a green-card holder at the time of her birth, he may want to take a look at the source I quoted.  There was no guarantee that Ms. Malkin’s parents would have remained legal residents at the time of her birth, nor had they lost their residency permission, would it have been any different from that of many other so-called (by Malkin) “anchor babies”.

I’d point out that so are a lot of the so-called “anchor babies” which is itself an insulting term and legally meaningless. As to his suggestion that I’m a supporter of La Raza, or that it is a “racist” organization, I’m not sure where he got that, unless he pulled it out of his ass. I’m not sure La Raza is aware of my existence or not… never having been formally introduced…Gwatney’s contention that somehow the KKK and “La Raza” are equivalent I’ve heard before — from people who don’t know Spanish. “Raza”, as I get a little tired of explaining, means “nationality”, not “race” as the term is used in the United States. nor is La Raza known for anti-semitism, anti-Catholicism, segregation by “color” or lynching.  Ms. Malkin has notably defended the World War II era Japanese concentration camps and suggested Americans of Arab extraction also be incarcerated.  If the hood fits…

Otto Rock, the only Latin American business writer you need, knows a good investment when he sees one:

…put in an order or seven for this book.

ggg-netad-shortest22222

(Orders before Christmas include shipping:  $24.95 via paypal: mazbook@prodigy.net.mx)

One Comment leave one →
  1. Larry Gwaltney permalink
    25 December 2008 5:16 am

    “There was no guarantee that Ms. Malkin’s parents would have remained legal residents at the time of her birth, nor had they lost their residency permission, would it have been any different from that of many other so-called (by Malkin) “anchor babies”.”

    The obvious differences (which you have avoided mentioning) are that 1) there is nothing illegal about anything the Maglalangs did; 2) had they lost their residency status, the Maglalangs would have returned to the Phillipines, taking Michelle with them; and 3) Malkin has never written anything critical of those who have conceived children while under “green card” status. Your clumsy attempt to paint a picture of “moral equivalence” (and presumably, hypocrisy) is disingenuous, and frankly, stupid.

    “Raza”, as I get a little tired of explaining, means “nationality”, not “race” as the term is used in the United States. nor is La Raza known for anti-semitism, anti-Catholicism, segregation by “color” or lynching.”

    Maybe you’d better brush up on your Spanish, or at least your so-called “knowledge” of La Raza. La Raza DOES mean “The Race,” as in their slogan: “For those within the Race, everything; for those outside the Race, nothing.”

    If nobody “outside the Race” (or Mexican nationality) gets anything, it’s hard to see how La Raza ISN’T a racist organization.

    It’s also obvious that you are relying on other people’s account of Malin’s book “In Defense of Internment,” instead of reading the book yourself.

Leave a Reply to Larry Gwaltney Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: