I just arrived in Bogotá, three hours late. (Seth Godin is right: American Airlines “gave up a long, long time ago.”)
I’ll be speaking tomorrow at a conference on U.S.-Colombian relations at the National University.
Meanwhile, I see that the posting I wrote while in the airport this morning got picked up by El Tiempo.com while I was still in flight. This has brought a flood of commenters, some of them exceedingly vicious. While I hate to moderate comments, I will no longer approve those that simply offer variations on “Piedad Córdoba is a guerrilla sympathizer” without offering any evidence. She clearly is not. She is a politician who is learning the hard way that being a mediator is a very, very hard job.
Anyway, here are some pictures of downtown Bogotá during this evening’s rush hour.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Hey Adam, looking at some shots of yours below the blog and up top I’ve been wondering, what kind of camera do you use? Some shots are great quality-wise and almost look like DSLR, others look like a point-and-click.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
It’s all from a pocket-sized Canon Powershot point-and-click. No big lenses for me.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:48 am
Love the pics! Makes me feel good to see Bogota.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
I agree that Piedad is doing good work and hope these pictures don’t undermine the hostage exchange, but I’m wondering why these pictures are “unfortunate” but don’t indicate any sympathy for the FARC while photos that implicate Uribe are clear evidence of paramilitary ties:
10/11/07: “Family ties: According to Time magazine, President Uribe’s father, Alberto Uribe, “was a friend of Fabio Ochoa, the late patriarch of the city’s notorious drug cartel (the two shared a love of horses).†(Ochoa and Uribe’s mother were cousins.) In a much-circulated 1985 photograph, President Uribe’s brother Santiago can be seen partying with Ochoa’s son.”
12/2/06 “Of course someone is responsible politically, and I must say that it isn’t the foreign minister, just because she is related to some of the accused. No, the responsible party is the President of the Republic, by his action and his omissions. This president, by his actions, because many of the political mafiosos who have sat in ths Congress were seated here thanks to his support. How can they hide the electoral meeting that took place in March 2006 in the city of Sincelejo? There is a historic photo, in the words of Dr. [Senator] Luis Guillermo Vélez, “historic.†[Accused politicians] Benito Muriel Rebollo, Merlano, Ãlvaro José GarcÃa Romero, Salvador Arana, with the President of the Republic in the middle. Before the ingenuous citizens of Sincelejo, they said, “vote for us,†and there was the president, saying, “vote for them.—
I’m sure there are other examples, I just did a quick search for “photo”. Other than ideological views, why doesn’t Uribe (and his family) benefit from this healthy skepticism toward out-of-context photo or video evidence (for example, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/17/AR2007061700533.html)? I don’t have a lot of sympathy for Uribe, but I don’t see how you can have it both ways.
Also, everyone can tell at a glance who is knee-jerk reactionary and who is posting with meaningful commentary, there’s no need to regulate the comments section.
November 15th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Dear Adam,
The verbal belligerence displayed in your blog is just one of many regrettable symptoms of the serious disease that is currently affecting Colombia. Loud, intolerant, McCarthyist provokers are now everywhere, particularly in the media and the cyberspace. “Furibistas†are one of these brand new mobs who seem to be engaged in a chauvinistic campaign. They try to shut up critical of Uribe’s doings, ostracize those who disagree or just point out crimes and injustice, unless they blame the FARC. The saddest thing is that many of them are high – middle class and educated people, able to express themselves in English and probably with university degrees.
Having studied abroad for about 8 years it causes me grief to visit Colombia and see the change. A radicalized environment proper of “La Violenciaâ€. A period when illiteracy and ignorance were widespread when TV, internet did not exist and public opinion was shaped by politicians and the church. Laureano Gomez a well known leader of that period is for many an infamous historical figure. I have read a lot about him, including texts of his representative speeches, and in the context of the blood shed and intolerance he fostered -which I could hardly admire- I can nevertheless perceive clearly his stature as a statesman. One who was up to date with doctrines so widely accepted in Europe at that time, that they shaped several of their governments. Laureano Gomez was able to articulate such ideas in theses and policies for Colombia, defend them with arguments considered sound at the time, and express them with words and manners recognized as proper of a statesman. Furthermore, he had nothing to hide about his past. It is worth mentioning that Laureano and Alvaro Gomez were determinant in the formation of the FARC.
I see none of the statesman qualities in Alvaro Uribe. It seems to me that “progress†under his leadership has steered the country backwards to the times of Laureano, with much more blood and cruelty than then. “Progress†has also meant implementing policies and procedures already tried by Fujimori and Menem (among others), which took several Latin American countries to disaster. I can neither understand the mobs nor share the fanaticism.
I would not ask the US to solve our mess, but I wonder when will the US government stop supporting this war instigator.
November 15th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
I also like the photos very much. Since I’m not/cannot be in Bogota now, it’s nice to get a good view of daily life.
November 15th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
What Gema says is true, once we used to look up to sharp articulated leaders who could produce an elaborate idea and get it across in an elegant and penetrating way. Nowadays we see leaders like the ones at office in Colombia and the US that are laughing stock among the literate community, and whose speeches outside being good stock for jokes, have influenced people to take a hatred stance against “the others”. Something like the national socialism, that they claim to despise.
November 15th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
To respond quickly to Dan, all photos with Uribe and paracos 1) are not interpreted as such by everyone and 2) Uribe was never an independent mediator between the paramilitaries and some other party. It’s one thing to be partying with an illegal armed group; it’s another to step out of line in a PR situation. I do like the line of thought though, with the questioning of bases on the site. We need some more of that (other than the obviously knee-jerk reactions, to borrow your phrase, that really do not help).
November 16th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
I don’t like mobs, period, whether they are (semi-)mindlessly cheering in favor of Uribe or (semi-)mindlessly chanting against him. Same goes for pro- and anti- Chavez mobs.
On the other hand, serious and rational defenses *and* criticisms of Uribe (and Chavez) are completely necessary, not just in this blog but everywhere else.
I think that all positions should be respected and debated without needing to either shut people up or insult them with words like “paraco”, “fascista”, “comunista” or “guerrillero” (except in those cases where they are self-evident, regardless of ideological or political perspectives). That’s where i draw the line.
So I can see GEMA’s point, but I feel that both phenomenons are a problem, not just whichever happens to run contrary to each of our own opinions at one point in time.
On the other hand, I do not believe GEMA’s comparison is entirely correct, especially as far as Uribe having “steered the country backwards to the times of Laureano, with much more blood and cruelty than then.” That’s quite questionable.
I do believe that Colombia needs many completely different policies and procedures, overall, but that doesn’t mean that everything Uribe has done can be summed up as negative and merely copying Laureano, much less Fujimori or Menem (context is always a good thing, btw).
November 16th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
jcf, I’ve analyzed you from the different messages you’ve posted, and I can see you mean well.
You can make your writings look good, however there’s something always missing: a tenable argument, not just supported by your beliefs or opinions.
You say GEMA statement that Uribe having “steered the country backwards to the times of Laureano, with much more blood and cruelty than then.†is quite questionable, well then question it, with ideas or bringing into the discussion facts that contradict GEMA’s assertions.
I don’t know whether you prefer to be isolated from news and reports originated from Colombia that account for countless atrocities committed everyday by right wing groups.
By the way Uribe said he would apologize, if Noguera was found guilty of links with paramilitaries. Well, he was found guilty not only of this charge but of narcotic traffic related activities.
No, Uribe is not a trafficker, everything is a coincidence, just a coincidence, some would say.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:50 am
Jaime Bustos:
“jcf, I’ve analyzed you from the different messages you’ve posted, and I can see you mean well.”
Thank you for that small consideration, at least.
“You can make your writings look good, however there’s something always missing: a tenable argument, not just supported by your beliefs or opinions.”
I honestly don’t see the need to turn this into a useless and boring analysis of many posts made over many months, but I’ll try to reply and humor you a bit.
Like most people here, my posts and the statements they include vary from mostly casual to quite detailed. Many lie somewhere in between.
That’s how I see it, but you’re obviously free to think differently if you want to. It’s up to each person to reach their own conclusions.
“You say GEMA statement that Uribe having “steered the country backwards to the times of Laureano, with much more blood and cruelty than then.†is quite questionable, well then question it, with ideas or bringing into the discussion facts that contradict GEMA’s assertions.”
Like any other person, I can and will include additional facts when I want to *or* when I believe the debate requires it (usually when someone asks or replies). Since you do want something else, and I feel I might as well continue to humor you a bit, how about this:
It’s been estimated that more than 200,000-300,000 people were killed by all sides during La Violencia (or do you want to argue that the “times of Laureano” must be strictly limited to his actual presidential term, 1950-1953, which he only partially presided over in the first place?).
In fact, going by the estimates, either more or roughly just as many people were killed in those 10-20 years as have been killed in (all or most of) our current (40-year or so) conflict. That does not make this a “bloodier” period, I think, and instead shows exactly the opposite (more or just as many people were killed in less time).
As for “cruelty”, that’s highly subjective, but the photos and stories of what happened back then are not a pretty sight at all, to say the least. It’s very hard to say what is more “cruel” in absolute terms, and not in a good way (too many horrible things to choose from, in both eras, now and then…)
And that’s without even touching the other differences in context (the political, economic, demographic and social aspects aren’t identical or merely a “continuation” or “standardization”).
“I don’t know whether you prefer to be isolated from news and reports originated from Colombia that account for countless atrocities committed everyday by right wing groups.”
First, ironically enough, I’ve read too many news reports and human rights-related publications to take this statement of yours seriously (dead-serious subject matter aside).
Second, I don’t see *how* you can imply that I’m “isolated from the news”, when the estimates of “countless rightwing atrocities” (which aren’t the only kind, nor do I believe GEMA was placing such a restriction)
“By the way Uribe said he would apologize, if Noguera was found guilty of links with paramilitaries. Well, he was found guilty not only of this charge but of narcotic traffic related activities.”
Within the disciplinary (not criminal) jurisdiction, if you are reading today’s news, but I do agree that Uribe should apologize for this.
“No, Uribe is not a trafficker, everything is a coincidence, just a coincidence, some would say.”
November 17th, 2007 at 1:00 am
My connection was off for a bit before I finished posting, so here’s what didn’t show up above:
Jaime Bustos:
…
“I don’t know whether you prefer to be isolated from news and reports originated from Colombia that account for countless atrocities committed everyday by right wing groups.”
….
Second, I don’t see *how* you can imply that I’m “isolated from the news”, when the estimates of “countless right wing atrocities” (which aren’t the only kind, nor do I believe GEMA was placing such a restriction) show that there have been specific trends throughout the years (say, a partial reduction and changes in operating methods in recent years, perhaps not an utterly unknown and unresearched phenomenon only defined as “countless” or “happening every day”, which are fine condemnation terms but not otherwise useful).
Just because I don’t explicitly mention those and *other* atrocities every single time I post doesn’t mean I’m “isolated” or that I don’t know how they’re shaping up. Making this kind of assumption, in the other direction, is just as bad.
“By the way Uribe said he would apologize, if Noguera was found guilty of links with paramilitaries. Well, he was found guilty not only of this charge but of narcotic traffic related activities.”
Yes, he was just punished within the disciplinary (not criminal) jurisdiction by the ProcuradurÃa, if you are referring to today’s news, but I do agree that Uribe should apologize for this.
“No, Uribe is not a trafficker, everything is a coincidence, just a coincidence, some would say.”
I don’t think it’s a matter of “coincidences”, in either direction…so much as it being a matter of many other intermediate and more complex possibilities (can Uribe’s relation to the drug trade be exclusively described in terms of his being “a trafficker or not a trafficker”? C’mon…the drug business is not so simple, let alone politics and the rest of real life, for that matter).
Btw, this has gotten way too long, so I apologize for that.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:29 am
jfc, thanks for taking the time, I did not mean that you were so extensive in your dissertation.
“can Uribe’s relation to the drug trade be exclusively described in terms of his being “a trafficker or not a traffickerâ€? C’mon…the drug business is not so simple, let alone politics and the rest of real life, for that matter”
This last one I already jotted down in my booklet of conundrums and hieroglyphs. Thanks
November 26th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
our president needs had been correct to desmiss chavez for negotation