NOTA: Por su importancia, este post permanecerá hasta arriba en el blog hasta las 5 de la tarde del Miércoles 12 de Marzo.
Renegados, ¡APRESTAD EL BRIDÓN!
Llegó la hora de hacer lo que nos corresponde para ayudar a que a Juan Camilo Mouriño se le aplique todo el peso de la ley.
Considero que es hora de que el asunto de los contratos de Ivancar que firmó Mouriño en plena violación de la ley se internacionalice. Me parece que ya va siendo hora de que fecal y Mouriño empiecen a sentir la presión tanto dentro como fuera de México.
Nuestra tarea, por lo tanto, es la siguiente: escribir al New York Times y pedirles que empiecen a darle prioridad al escándalo de los contratos de Mouriño.
Envíen inmediatamente un email con el título "WILL THE NEW YORK TIMES PUBLISH A TRUE POLITICAL SCANDAL IN ITS PAGES?"
El email deberá ser enviado a las siguientes direcciones (como siempre, SIN USAR GROSERÍAS NI AMENAZAS):
Este es el texto a enviar (copien y peguen):
New York Times,
In the aftermath of the 2006 presidential election in Mexico the New York Times did not care for the copious evidence proving Felipe Calderon and the National Action Party (PAN) had committed an electoral fraud. Fine. It was your choice not to denounce the fraud in your pages.
But the government that resulted from that fraud you chose not to care for, has now turned into something truly disgusting.
In the past few weeks evidence has surfaced showing Juan Camilo Mouriño, second in command in the Calderon's administration, broke the law by signing contracts with the state-owned Mexican oil company Pemex benefiting his own family's businesses. In one of these contracts, Mouriño signed as legal representative and stock-holder of Ivancar, a transportation company owned by the Mouriños.
Mouriño signed the contracts from 2000 to 2004. He did this while being part of the house of deputies' (the Mexican equivalent of the house of representatives) Energy Commission from 2000 to 2003, and then while being an advisor for the federal government's Secretary of Energy, which was at that time (2003-2004) headed by none other than Felipe Calderon. Mexican law prohibits public servants and elected officials from signing contracts involving public money for the benefiting of themselves, their families, or their commercial interests. The punishment for breaking this law can land up to 12 years in prison to whoever does it.
This is a serious breakdown of the system. A sign of the complete lack of public morality that takes place when a country does not have democracy not respect for its own laws. And yet, the New York Times does not seem interested in this issue. No; the main story involves Governor Eliot Spitzer's escapades with a prostitute. An issue that, quite frankly, should be nobody's business but that of Mr. Spitzer's wife and his family.
Honestly; What kind of morality is that in which a public official has to nearly quit his office because of having sex with a prostitute--making national headlines--but the illegal taking of millions of dollars in public money by the second most powerful man in a federal government not only does not force the public official to quit his job, but it does not make headlines in a newspaper such as yours? Specially when Mouriño is the official in charge of negotiating the attempt to reform the Mexican laws dealing with Mexico's oil industry (an issue, I'm sure, of much interest to a country strained by high gas prices.)
Does the New York Times REALLY finds nothing wrong with this? Is that really the world the New York Times has no problem with?
Let me put it this way: what would happen if evidence surfaced showing Dick Cheney did benefit from Halliburton's Irak war profits? Probably nothing. It didn't when it was known that Cheney was Halliburton's former CEO. But when evidence surfaced showing Paul Wolfowitz had benefited his girlfriend with a high salary at the World Bank the scandal was so big he actually lost his job. The difference between Cheney and Wolfowitz? Wolfowitz's case involved the woman he was sleeping with.
Or is that what an important issue needs in order to be a top story at the NYT? Some sort of sexual activity? Are we to believe that unless somebody has sex with somebody else an important issue is not front page material for the NYT?
It would be quite sad if that were the case. Because it would show the NYT is not interested in informing its readers, but in merely publishing news that sell, regardless of their relevance (or lack therewith.)
I urge you to take a serious look at the Mouriño case, and to publish it in full force in your pages. This is the type of news that shows where the real issues and the real breakdowns in the system are. Because otherwise the issue will no longer be whether or not the media informs, but whether or not the media becomes an accessory to the perpetuation of a world in which somebody's sexual activity becomes more important than an electoral fraud or the illegal taking of public money by a public official.
I ask again; is that really the world the NYT wants?
You can find a wealth of information on the Mouriño case online in Mexico's most read political blog El Sendero del Peje at the following link:
Personlly I'm not interested in defending Spitzer. I simply don't see how is having sex with a prostitute more important a news item than a public official breaking the law to benefit his commercial interests with millions of dollars in public money. Really: is a sex act more important a news item than the illegal taking of millions of dollars in public money by a public official? Is that really what the media has become? Your treatment of the Mouriño case will answer my question.
Manden el email y díganle a todos sus conocidos que hagan lo mismo. NO podemos permitir que un puñado de CRIMINALES sigan USURPANDO una presidencia que NO GANARON. ESTO es lo que podemos hacer para ayudar a que Mouriño sea removido e inhabilitado del gobierno. Chance y hasta la cárcel le cuesta. Pero tenemos que actuar YA y no andarnos con titubeos. ESTO es lo que tenemos que hacer. ESTO es lo que nos corresponde como mexicanos para defender a nuestro país de la USURPACIÓN y del pisoteo a la democracia que perpretraron los panistas en 2006. Somos UN CHINGO de senderistas. Vamos demostrándole a los panistas que nos subestimaron cuando pensaron que iban a poder pisotear a la democracia y ENCIMA ROBAR dinero del erario sin que el pueblo se los reclamara.
Una razón más para apoyar al peje en el 2008.