The right way to snub President Uribe WOLA: U.S. cocaine prices drop again
Apr 232007

Yesterday was a beautiful day here in Washington, but most of the city’s elite probably missed it. They were up very late Saturday night attending the White House Correspondents’ Dinner – a glitzy, star-studded event that nobody at CIP has ever attended, or probably ever will.

After that, many of the powerful, well-connected guests went to one of four “after-parties” where the booze flowed freely and Hollywood celebrities mingled with Supreme Court justices. To our surprise, we read in the Washington Post, one of those late-night after-parties – hosted by Capitol File, an upscale Washington-gossip magazine – took place at the Colombian ambassador’s residence.

The ambassadorial residence is a gorgeous mansion a block from Dupont Circle, and a great place to host a party. Nonetheless, does it seem odd that Washington’s glitterati would be partying in the embassy of a country with a raging armed conflict, half its population in poverty, the world’s second-largest displaced population, and the hemisphere’s worst human-rights record? Only a humorless, scolding prig would point out something like that, right?

4 Responses to “An odd place for an “after-party””

  1. Camilo Wilson Says:

    I would be surprised if many of the glitterati in attendance would be so much as minimally uneasy at the thought of spraying Colombia’s poor with noxious herbicides, or of death squads killing and displacing legions of the poor in the name of fighting insurgents or drugs. In fact, it’s hard for me to imagine much glitterati unease at the high incidence of poverty and social exclusion that characterizes Colombia. If I’m right, it follows that the glitterati have much in common with many US policymakers. Indeed, it’s not inconceivable that some of those policymakers were among the glitterati at the Colombian embassy’s gala affair–as they were at many such affairs during the ambassadorship of Luis Alberto Moreno, when Plan Colombia was under formulation. The troubling question is this: Why is the domain of such unease largely confined to lackluster humorless prigs and the otherwise socially maladroit (metaphorically speaking) in today’s Washington?

  2. jcg Says:

    Frankly, I’m not a party person myself, so I’m not exactly interested in what the glitterati do or don’t do.

    But what I do know is that you can’t really expect much from the kind of people who go to such events on a regular basis, almost by definition. These people only want to have fun and engage in socio-political networking. Beyond that, I don’t think they care much about more complicated matters (which aren’t black and white at all, I might add, as they’ve been better discussed elsewhere on this blog).

    Still, specifically pointing out this particular case is hardly going to change any of that. Especially when there are many other examples of parties held at the residences of ambassadors from countries in similar or even worse situations (Not going to name any examples, but a quick look at the headlines will make them rather evident).

    IMHO, the point is that socialites have always been free to do whatever they want, and that’s never going to change.

  3. Anonymous Says:

    I have to agree with jcg with regards to the socialites, except on his last line. I think that it is not a matter of them being free to do whatever they want, it is the choice they make to do whatever they want without the willingness to think of others. Socio-political networking is key, regardless of with whom, unless the political elite say some one is bad. The key is they don’t have to go to the Colombian Ambassador’s mansion, but they, because they simply do not care elsewise. It is a chance to network. So it’s not necessarily the ability to do whatever they want, it’s a willingness to do so.

  4. morayleon Says:

    I applaud CIPCOL for not bothering with events like the annual WHCD.

Leave a Reply