Corrupt Colombia

There’s an old, but still seemingly very relevant, joke that does the rounds in Colombia. It goes something like this:

'Eh, where's that bridge?' (Photo: Pieter Hupkes.)

A prominent Colombian politician is invited to a major Canadian (insert any First World country here) city by its mayor. 

On arrival, the visiting official is transported in style to the mayor’s residence – an impressive, three-storey mansion hidden away on the outskirts of the city. The esteemed guest is treated to a grand meal served with the finest of cutlery in splendid surroundings.

Somewhat amazed at all the luxury on display, the Colombian politician asks his host where he got all the money to finance such opulence. 

The Canadian invites his visitor to the balcony: “You see that bridge over there” the mayor says, pointing to a spectacular construction spanning a nearby river, “well 10 per cent of the cost of that is in my pocket.” The Colombian nods appreciatively.

A year later, the favour is returned, with the Canadian mayor invited to the Colombian politician’s homeplace. 

Not expecting much, the North American is pleasantly surprised to be picked up from the airport in a top-of-the-range, German stretch limo and transported to a quite stunning, castle-like residence. In the wining and dining department, no expense is spared.

Puzzled as to how this developing world politician could afford all that was on show, the mayor quizzes the Colombian about it. 

The host escorts his guest to the top-floor viewing deck and tells him to look out at the bridge down in the city below. The visitor looks hard for a time, then turns and in bemusement says, “But I can’t see anything.” “Well, you see,” the Colombian informs his new friend, “100 per cent of the cost of that ‘bridge’ is in my pocket.”

So there you have it. A case of, you might say, ‘all politicians are corrupt, but some are more corrupt than others.’ 

This is generally how most Colombians view those pulling the strings in this country. And, considering all that has happened and continues to happen here, such as the apparently ubiquitous phantom public projects highlighted in the 'joke', you couldn’t blame them.

Now, I must state that previously I’d been impressed with how Colombian courts dealt with those found guilty of corruption. 

For example, last year you had a former agriculture minister, Andrés Felipe Arias, sentenced to 17 years imprisonment and fined some 12 million euro for embezzlement. (Ireland, take note; although do note said minister is still 'enjoying' his freedom on the run in the USA.)

Briefcase politics: Still going strong in Colombia. (Photo: dw.de.)

However, in light of recent scandals, it appears that even some of the watchdogs, that is to say the courts and their top judges, are not free of the ‘briefcase influence’. Thus, the justice system has now been called into question.

In a country with a number of under-the-counter, illegitimate businesses on the go, many of those linked to powerful, illegal drug lords, that corruption seems to be endemic perhaps isn’t too surprising. Money is rather vociferous in these parts, regardless of where it comes from.

Yes, there are, at least at face value, genuine forces working to try and combat this culture. The task at hand, though, is monumental.*

Plus, considering it's difficult to know who exactly is straight, it begs the question, 'Who can you trust?' 'Not many' is the most prudent answer.
______________________________________
*For a previous piece giving an example of Colombian double standards, see Soft touch Colombia.

Clashes in the kitchen

Back in our younger, still-living-at-home days, the one thing that we were always encouraged – or forced, if you will – to do was to clean up after ourselves. 

We may not always have been the best at it or terribly enthused to do it on many occasions but over time (a long time, some may say) we came to realise that if we made a mess, it was up to us to clean it afterwards. A good rule of thumb for most things in life that, don’t you think?

Self-cleaning?

There are still certain areas of housecleaning that we don’t get too worked up about – a bit of dust in some non-important corner is not a big deal as far as we’re concerned. 

Something very personal such as your bed doesn’t always have to be made each day either, although we’re getting into the habit of doing that one. Where we have little-to-no patience, though, when it comes to ‘cleanliness-slackness’ is in the kitchen.

Specifically, we’re referring to people who fail to clean up the utensils they’ve used after cooking some food. It is arguably one of the greatest causes of conflict in shared accommodation. 

For us, it’s the height of ignorance for people to leave their dirty dishes – ones that are meant to be for everyone’s use, that is – in the kitchen sink or on the dining table or even hoard them in their room, where no one else can use them, dirty or not.

Obviously, some people were spoilt a little too much by their parents when they were growing up. Of course, do what you like if you’re living on your own, but when you’re lodging with others, common courtesy is that you tidy up after yourself in the areas that are shared. For many, however, that appears to be a difficult thing to understand, let alone undertake.

Mammy's not always around to tidy up.

Now, we’ve come face to face with kitchen pigs all over the world – it’s not something that’s confined to particular regions. But from a Colombian perspective, one potential reason why some people here seem reluctant to clean up their own mess could be to do with the housecleaner.

For many middle- and upper-class Colombians, having a family cleaner or maid (or slave the way we see some treated and, ahem, "paid") is the norm.

In such an environment (in whatever country), any children in these houses, from an early age, get used to somebody cleaning up after them. 

What’s more, the employed cleaner generally doesn’t have the power or right to tell these kids to tidy up their own mess in the same way as a parent or sibling does – it’s her (or his, perhaps) job after all, as well as doing generic cleaning, ironing, cooking and whatever else.

So this can leave a mentality in some that "slaving" in the kitchen is somebody else’s business – and usually a chore for a person who is not that important. 

Again, that’s fine (in a way) if you have a maid following you about for all your life. For many who think like that, though, this, unfortunately (unfortunate for those who have to live with them that is), tends not to be the case.

If a cockroach can find the kitchen sink, anyone can, right?

Yes, it is more or less true that when we were living at home – there’s a risk of sounding sexist here but this is just how it was at the time – and coming from a farming background, very often cleaning up the dishes after eating was not one of our tasks. The boys did the outside work, the inside toil was the preserve of the girls.

Nonetheless, what we’ll put down to good parenting (and aggressive sisterly "persuasion") when we did fly the nest, we knew at least how to use a bit of washing up liquid and a scrubber to keep things in the kitchen clean.

Indeed, nowadays our policy is to clean up all the things we’ve used in cooking – save for the plate and cutlery that are going to be used in eating – before we sit down to feast. The meal often tastes more satisfying that way, we find.

Trying to inculcate such practices in a number of our various housemates over the years has proven quite difficult if not impossible.

Some day, perhaps, we’ll be able to afford our own place, free from such daily annoyances. We live in hope.

Mocking Muhammad

We were going to hold our counsel on the latest wave of violence by Muslims that has been sweeping across the Middle East and beyond, but not now. 

There are a number of observations we feel we must make. Our guiding principles on what we’re going to write about here come from two previous articles – ‘Survival of the Dumbest’ and ‘Strength in Belief’.

A more tranquil time in the Muslim world.

First of all, it must be stated that the United States-produced Muhammad ‘movie’ trailer (whether there is an actual full-length movie remains a doubt) that is being used as the catalyst for this fierce uproar in the Islamic world is an absolute joke – and that’s not in a funny way, it’s just complete rubbish. 

If you’ve seen it – as most of you probably have by now – you’ll know what we mean (heck, it even makes some of the Colombian telenovelas we’ve had the privilege to appear in seem like quality productions). 

So, while it obviously has infuriated the majority of Muslims, the fact that it is of such low quality, made by dimwits, would make you think that most reasonable people should be able to let it slide. It doesn’t even deserve comment. But for many followers of Muhammad it was all they needed to go on – in Libya and Pakistan, at least – a murderous rampage against the USA. 

From the outside looking in, it really appears that Muslims are just waiting for any slight excuse to take to the streets in angry, violent protests against the West. 

For these latest demonstrations are not cases of fighting fire with fire. 

Yes, the movie trailer is offensive – and you can also now throw in here the naked picture of Prophet Muhammad published in recent days by a French magazine – but no physical damage was caused and certainly no Muslims lost their lives because of it. 

The best thing that could have been done was to ignore it completely, to rise above such idiocy. Or at most make a film counter-attacking all that they see as daft and deplorable in the United States – it’s not like they wouldn’t have much ammunition in this regard.

"What did you call me?"

But no, a significant number of Muslims, seemingly drunk on their faith, think that rioting is the only response to such things. It certainly doesn’t paint a very good picture for the religion as one of ‘promoting peace’. 

Yes, there are fundamentalists in all religious sects, but there seems to be a proliferation of them in the Islamic world compared to elsewhere. 

By definition, it is next to impossible to reason with such fundamentalists – be they Muslim, Christian, Hindu or whatever.

Indeed, from our experiences, those closer to being peaceful beings are found more so in the agnostic/atheist camp than in organised religions. 

You can usually discuss different opinions and outlooks with such people without raising their ire. Their understanding tends to be more universal.

In terms of Islamic states, there are clear practices and laws in existence that in any enlightened society cannot be condoned – the freedom to express incompatible views without fear of death and the treatment of women to name two of the most obvious. 

Contrast this with the relative freedom Muslims are granted to practice their beliefs and customs in the Western world and you see apparent double standards. A little bit more reciprocity from the Islamic world wouldn’t go astray here. 

Of course, there are certain aspects of Muslim society that we generally like. There is a no nonsense approach to those found guilty of crimes. Find yourself on the wrong side of the law in an Islamic country and you’ll certainly know about it. 

It’s something that many Christian-based or secular societies could learn from – stronger, more meaningful deterrents rather than the softly-softly approach. 

In this regard, we refer to what might be considered as more ‘universal’ crimes – needless to say there are a number of things considered offences in the Muslim world that in other societies are certainly not.

We must also state that the brief time we spent in the past in countries that are predominantly Muslim was highly enjoyable. 

Friendly people where you don’t get a feeling that all they see you as is a talking cash machine there to be used and abused; something you can’t always say about the more Christian Latin America.

"Everybody in the graveyard votes the same."

However, as mentioned above, the radical streak when it comes to defending their religion only serves to deepen the chasm and suspicion that exists between themselves and the Christian/secular West. 

We’ve firmly nailed our colours to the mast previously here on what we think about organised religion – no matter what sect it is. Take away any form of reason or perspective and you get events like we’ve been witnessing in the last week across the Islamic world. 

You have to wonder what does God, along with his prophets Jesus and Muhammad, make of it all?

Unsocial media

A few years back we made a public call, via a newspaper letter and its subsequent broadcasting on radio, asking that the use of mobile phones be banned in public places. 

The main reason for this came about after numerous bus journeys in our native Ireland where people were yapping away for all to hear about their latest weekend escapades or what have you. 

It appears that the boundaries between private and public conversations become blurred for some people when they speak on their mobiles. 

Our letter plea was well received in many quarters at the time — someone felt it even warranted a Noble Peace Prize nomination, we kid you not. Alas, however, there has been very little corrective action in this regard, be it in our native land or further afield.

Many people's new best friends - compact & intelligent.

Now, while our appeal wasn’t really penned in a humanistic sense, more in a curmudgeonly way to be honest, the case for restricting mobile phone use for the good of our species can certainly be made.

Yes, there is little doubt that mobiles have revolutionised the way we connect and communicate with each other — in many ways for the better — but you must ask the question, is it at the expense of face-to-face interaction? The anecdotal evidence would suggest yes. 

If people aren’t talking on their cellular, then the likelihood is that they are either ‘pinging’ somebody, listening to music, messing around with some sort of app or whatever else they can do on these fancy pieces of plastic (you’re right, we’ve yet to be bitten by the smart-phone bug). The ‘real’ person sitting beside them doesn’t exist any more. 

OK, judging by many of the conversations we’ve overheard such as the ones alluded to in the opening paragraph, we wouldn’t be that keen to speak to such people anyway, but there might be some individuals who are worth the effort. The mobile, though — especially more advanced models — has become a barrier to in-the-flesh communication.

This is particular apparent in pubs and bars. The chance of a random chat with somebody has been greatly diminished in recent years. 

When people find themselves on their own, rather than look for somebody to talk to or at least be available for a chat, they go to the comfort of their phone for company. (Why would anyone miss out on the chance to converse with 'Wrong Way'?)

Thanks Facebook - we, um, like you, too.

Now, you might say that radio and TV have also had a negative impact on real, physical interaction, but not as close to the extent as the new-age phones together with the social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter have had. 

Radio is obviously far less intrusive and demanding than TV but for its part, the ‘great conversation stopper’ in the corner can often be the source of conversations, especially in public houses.

You really can’t say the same for mobile phones while Facebook and its ilk are even more harmful to natural communication. 

People will waste away hours of their time virtually chatting to friends and acquaintances at the expense of actually going out meeting somebody in person. For social beings that most of us are, that can’t be good for body or mind.

Another worrying aspect on the Facebook front is that it can actually be quite damaging to some people’s mental health, especially those at a low point in their lives. 

It can, at times, paint a picture that all your connections are having a wonderful time while your life is banging along at the bottom. But instead of logging off and heading out which would seem the sensible thing to do, these people stay hooked in, becoming in a sense new-age, social network voyeurs.

This kind of behaviour can be particularly damaging in the context of a recent romance break-up. It certainly doesn’t help you to move on from somebody if you subject yourself to constant updates and photos of the daily happenings of the person you once loved — or maybe even still love. 

In fact, in a previous article (see: ‘Mi Amor’ – or perhaps not?’) we jokingly had a go at how some Colombian female acquaintances are quick to delete you from Facebook if things turn even slightly sour. Perhaps, though, they’re right if moving on is what they want to do.

Of course, social network sites, mobile phones and all these things are just tools — they are not inherently evil in their own right. It’s how you use or, more importantly, misuse them that’s at the heart of the matter here. 

From our point of view Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn have helped us gain and maintain a plethora of contacts across the globe. Without such outlets, these new connections would have been next to impossible to not only sustain but to find in the first place.

Replacing a wife for WiFi - the latter is more reliable, for one.

However, virtual communication should not come at the expense of real-life, face-to-face contact. If we let this happen, we'll all end up like the person sitting at the computer at the final stage of that ubiquitous evolution poster. Hermits — but with technology.