'Medellín's sex tourism is a cancer' — Tourism Vice Minister

@wwaycorrigan

Colombia's Vice Minister for Tourism has spoken out about the 'huge problem' of prostitution in Medellín.

In an interview with Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast, Julián Guerrero Orozco described sex tourism in Colombia's second city as a 'cancer that we need to fight more strongly'.

Julián Guerrero Orozco: Colombia's Vice Minister for Tourism.

Unwelcome visitors

In reference to those who visit the country to engage in such activities he said, 'they are not welcome in Colombia. There is nothing that we dislike more than that type of tourism.'

While highlighting the various measures introduced by the government to deal with the prostitution problem, Vice Minister Guerrero admitted that so far the 'effort is not enough because more people want to come for this reason.'

On the specific issue of illegal underage sex workers, the Vice Minister referred to a new law introduced in December 2020 that allows for the prosecution and closure of hotels and other such establishments caught facilitating the practice.

'What we included in the law, there will now be a consequence for that [for hotels that allow underage
prostitution].'

'We are trying our best to combat sex tourism.'

Mr Guerrero also spoke of strengthening the cooperation between various regional and state bodies 'to try to reduce [sex tourism] as much as possible ... We are trying our best to combat this crime.'

In relation to the many problems facing the tourism industry in these pandemic times, the Vice Minister referenced the more than 40 specific measures already introduced by the government to help the sector.

'Probably no other economic sector in Colombia has received more benefits than the tourism sector.'

Although he didn't rule out further supports, he did warn: 'There has to be a limit at some point because it cannot go on endlessly. Already very significant measures [have been introduced], I would dare say that probably no other economic sector in Colombia has received more benefits than the tourism sector.'

Asked about prioritising domestic tourism in light of the major slowdown in international travel, the tourism chief said that 'it would be an error, not only for Colombia but for different countries, just to focus on domestic travellers. One needs to recognise that international travellers are good travellers, they have good incomes, they spend quite a bit.'

On the requirement for a negative PCR test for covid-19 when flying into the country, Mr Guerrero suggested that Colombia has been more flexible than others, particularly thanks to the availability of a test on arrival.

Finally, Vice Minister Guerrero, who previously worked as Vice President for Tourism at the state body ProColombia, ruled out further roles in the public sector once his current position ends next year.

'I will stay working in tourism, in sustainable tourism, maybe through consultancy or my own business ... But I've worked in the public sector for 20 or 25 years, so I think that's about enough.'

Watch the YouTube interview in full at https://youtu.be/bAJYSF6iEVg or listen to an audio-only podcast version at https://anchor.fm/brendan-corrigan/episodes/Colombias-Tourism-Minister-on-covid-supports--foreign-visitors--Medellns-prostitution-cancer-eqtufl.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

'I dated President Duque's sister' — Daniel Coronell

@wwaycorrigan

Renowned Colombian journalist, Daniel Coronell, has revealed how he once dated the sister of current Colombian president, Iván Duque.

Bad romance: Coronell reveals he dated Iván Duque's sister.

Coronell, a regular critic of Duque as well as his party Centro Democrático and, more controversially, that party's leader, former president Álvaro Uribe Vélez, made the revelation in an English-language interview on Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast.

Divine intervention
'Many years ago, like 30 years ago, I was the boyfriend of Duque's sister. I loved her a lot', he said.

They even discussed plans to marry. 'I cannot imagine my life (today) if I was the brother-in-law of this president of Colombia.'

Miami-based Coronell, an atheist, joked that it was a higher power that put an end to their romance. 'There was a kind of superior decision — and I am an atheist — that broke (up) the relationship on time.'

"I loved her a lot."

Asked whether he still remains in contact with President Duque's sister, his response was a blunt 'no'.

He also spoke about his April 2020 departure from his columnist role with Colombia's leading current affairs magazine, Semana, a gig he had held for 15 years. 

His leaving coincided with sweeping changes at the publication, with well-known broadcast journalist Vicky Dávila eventually taking over as director, a move seen by some as a shift to a more populist, sensationalist editorial style.

Quoting the Italian film director, Federico Fellini, Coronell said, 'Yo nunca había visto nada igual (which translates as 'I'd never seen anything like it'), that's my opinion of Semana.'

As for writing for the magazine again, his simple reply to that question was 'probably not'.

In relation to the 2022 Colombian presidential election, the current president of news at the US-based Univisión TV channel expressed his concerns that the election would, as in 2018, become a left versus right shoot-out.

While he suggested he would be against whoever is selected by the Centro Democrático side on the right — the 'Uribe puppet' as he calls it — Coronell also has concerns about the leftist former candidate Gustavo Petro who is set to run again.

Nonetheless, if it came down to a choice between Tomás Uribe, Álvaro Uribe's son who is being mooted as a runner, and Gustavo Petro, Coronell said he would vote for the latter.

However, he predicted that the Centro Democrático may opt for a more traditional conservative candidate such as Luis Alberto Moreno.

Whatever the case, he said he hopes that a solid centrist candidate can emerge in the coming months.

Watch the YouTube interview in full at https://youtu.be/ZsWTBwGXRXY or listen to an audio-only podcast version at https://anchor.fm/brendan-corrigan/episodes/Daniel-Coronell-on-dating-Duques-sister--unmasking-Uribe--Petros-problems--Vicky-Dvilas-Semana-eq798l.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

'Colombia's done OK, but prepare for a half-shut, half-open world for 2021' — Dr Bhattacharya

@wwaycorrigan

Dr Jay Bhattacharya, co-author of the controversial Great Barrington Declaration which called for 'focused protection' instead of widespread lockdowns in dealing with coronavirus, says we're in store for a 'half-and-half world' for most of this year.

Controversial: Dr Jay Bhattacharya, co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration.

The Professor of Medicine at Stanford University made the comments in relation to the probability that many of the high-income nations will have vaccinated the majority of their populations against covid-19 by August while low-income countries will be lagging behind.

Colombia's 'done better'
Speaking to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast, Dr Bhattacharya, who is director of Stanford's Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging, said 'Colombia has done better (in getting access to vaccines) but (for) much of South America that's not going to be the case. I think It's going to take much longer than August to get the vaccines out to the older populations.'

'A lot of the world will still not be vaccinated in August. Places that are vaccinated will still want to close borders to those who aren't vaccinated ... I think there's going to be this half-and-half world where half are still going to have lockdowns and half are not.'

When asked for his thoughts on the Great Barrington Declaration, four months on from its publication, Dr Bhattacharya maintains that 'focused protection' is the least-worst option for containing coronavirus.

He said that lockdown advocates 'have not respected the most important scientific fact about this disease which is the age gradient, mortality and risk. For people who are younger, it is not particularly dangerous. The flu is more dangerous ... That fact is incredibly important.'

As for Dr Anthony Fauci, the popular director of the USA's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and now also President Joe Biden's Chief Medical Advisor, Dr Bhattacharya claims Fauci's neglect of other public health issues during the pandemic has been an 'abdication of responsibility'.

Watch the interview in full at https://youtu.be/ZSb8VnG4nPs or download a podcast version at https://anchor.fm/brendan-corrigan/episodes/Dr-Jay-Bhattacharya-on-covid-controls--vaccine-priority--failing-our-elderly--Tony-Faucis-myopia-epuh4v.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

 

Why I won't be rushing to get a covid vaccine

 @wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

They are being dubbed the game-changers. More accurately, they are the weapon humanity is unleashing to render useless the real game-changer that has been holding us all to ransom for the best part of a year now — coronavirus, the virus that went viral.

The clear-liquid gold of 2021. (Image from pixabay.)

A jab for life

Our hopes of a return to something resembling the old normal BC, Before Coronavirus, hinge on the various vaccines being a success.

That being so, the world and its mother — particularly its elderly, vulnerable mother — must be anxiously awaiting their jab of life. Some, of course, have already got theirs.

As somebody classified as very low risk from covid-19 in terms of severe, life-threatening infection, I'm well down the inoculation priority list. Indeed, I'm in the last group in Colombia's five-stage vaccine rollout programme as things stand.

On top of that, considering the general lack of efficiency here across the board — unless you've got the money or palanca (appropriate contacts, that is) to receive a streamlined service — the chances of the programme being carried out smoothly and quickly are pretty low. The high-income countries' hoarding of vaccines also has to be factored in.

Put it this way, my current visa expires in November and it's unlikely the country will be in the final stage of the rollout by then.

Whatever the case, I'm in no panic to get the vaccine. Actually, all things considered, I'm happy enough not to get it at all.

For starters, as mentioned above, I am, in theory anyway, in the low-risk category for covid.

'The chances of completely eradicating coronavirus are, apparently, fairly low.'

Moreover, I would be quite surprised if I haven't had coronavirus in my body. As easily spread as it is, it would be pretty incredible if it hasn't already mingled intimately with me. 

In fact, if I have avoided it, then I should play the lottery (or it may be just another sign that few "agents" want to get intimate with me these days).

Some people counter that one is being selfish in choosing not to get vaccinated. How so?

Coronavirus, here to stay?

What's the risk if I'm not vaccinated but everyone else is (or at least those who are most vulnerable to serious infection)? As far as I'm aware, I surely couldn't infect those who are inoculated, could I?

Also, just because one has been given the jab doesn't mean he/she can no longer carry and spread the virus, does it?

The above, by the way, are genuine questions but from what I gather the answers are in the negative for all of them.

Another common retort is that if I had no problem getting vaccinated for yellow fever, hepatitis B, measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), etc. then why am I getting all pernickety now for this vaccine?

Again, it comes back to risk. As we know, covid is ageist. The older one is, the greater chance of severe complications and death. Those other diseases mentioned above tend to be more indiscriminate killers.

Added to this, due to the nature of coronavirus, those who are vaccinated will most likely need to get re-inoculated every year or so, à la the flu jab.

The chances of its global eradication are, apparently, fairly low (it's well worth listening to the considered thoughts of Dr Jay Bhattacharya in this YouTube conversation). 

Remember, it's in the same family of viruses as the common cold.

Now, all that being said, if an unbiased, apolitical expert can give me strong reasons why somebody in my position should get vaccinated, rather than 'just because', I'm all ears.

_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Comunes: Old Farc wanna live like common people

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]
So Colombia's Farc has rebranded.

The old rebel group that for over five decades waged guerrilla warfare across the country until signing a peace agreement with the government in 2016 is looking to put further distance between its political party of today and its bloody past.

Old Farcs: The party is changing its name to Comunes. (Photo from Twitter.)

Long live Farc?

Thus, Farc is officially dead — bar for some dissidents — and it's long live the Comunes (roughly translated as 'Common folk' in English).

Considering the fact that an armed Farc never enjoyed anything close to widespread support in the country, except for a few remote pockets, the idea that a political party with the same name could do well at the polls was always far-fetched.

For a greater understanding for Irish/UK readers, imagine the IRA being listed on a ballot paper — it would, and no offence intended, bomb. OK, some will say IRA equals Sinn Féin, but at least the latter has a long-standing, even rich, political past.

Comunes has, on the face of it, a much more accepting ring to it than Farc, the Spanish acronym for the Alternative Revolutionary Force of the Common (people) [not to be confused with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the old military Farc]. Not exactly a title that warms the heart, is it?

Changing one's name, however, is one thing. Changing the negative opinion that others have of you, quite another.

It will take some time for a traditionally conservative Colombian electorate to disassociate this "new" party from Farc.

'Centro Democrático is, in many ways, simply the Conservative Party minus its sheep's clothing.'

Yes, it can be reasonably argued that Colombia has been far more accepting of new political movements since the turn of the millennium compared to the Conservative/Liberal duopoly of the 19th and 20th centuries which saw, amongst other acts of purging, the effective extermination of the Union Patriótica (UP, Patriotic Union) party. The election of Álvaro Uribe Vélez under the Primero Colombia (Colombia First) banner as president in 2002 and 2006 is a case in point.

Uribe and others would go on to found in 2013 Centro Democrático (Democratic Centre), the party of incumbent president, Iván Duque. It is, nonetheless, in many ways simply the Conservative Party minus its sheep's clothing. It fits in nicely with the Colombian psyche.

Bad branding

Comunes, in contrast, purely as a signifier before one even studies its actual politics, looks and sounds too much like Communist. 'Eh, don't call us guys, we'll call you.'

Come on, could Farc's powers that be not have come up with a name that wouldn't be so anathema to so many Colombians? How about the People's Party of Colombia, El Partido del Pueblo Colombiano? (I must get that registered forthwith, it's mine.)

As things stand, there's a greater chance that I'll have Colombian residency before the artists formerly known as Farc make any significant political inroads here. Yes, that long.

Nonetheless, if they need some additional rebranding help more in tune with the Colombian masses, they know where to find me. I come at a reasonable price.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Negative utilitarianism in coronavirus times

@wwaycorrigan
[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.] 

Only the very naïve believe that we live in a free world. Where you have a conflict of human interests, the concept of true individual freedom is unattainable.

Lockdown life: Do such measures cause more harm than good?

Delicate balance

My doing whatever I want has the potential to negatively impact somebody else. It's why, as an interconnected species in pursuit of both personal and collective goals — or happiness if you will — we have rules and regulations in place to act as checks and balances on individual and communal wants.

It could be thought of as a sort of negative utilitarianism: aiming to inflict the least harm on the greatest number of people.

In an imperfect, unfair world, it's perhaps the best we can aspire to. The perpetual problem inherent within it, for "freer" societies in any case, is finding that balance between allowing individuals to go about their business with as little interference as possible and protecting others' rights, as well as the environment we share.

Of course, at times one's personal goals merge nicely with the collective good. Everyone's a winner, to a certain extent.

When this isn't so, an arbiter, normally the state in its various forms, is needed to decide how much give and take is allowed in a particular situation.

'If the vaccine is not a success, we're going to have to seriously reappraise the damaging containment measures we've implemented.'

Thus, said arbiter must hold the respect of the parties in dispute in any given conflict. If this is lacking, the carrot-and-stick approach can bring the warring factions onside, provided there is a genuine effort to engage as fairly as possible by the arbiter.

If one or all of the disputing sides feel this fairness is absent, if favouritism or a lack of sincerity is perceived, then we have quite the tricky situation.

The wrong way?

This is a constant challenge for our leaders and decision-makers. We've seen it very much at play in dealing with the coronavirus where there is a not-insignificant minority, this writer included (see also my interview with the renowned British author and journalist, Peter Hitchens) who question the efficacy of the various measures introduced in a bid to contain the virus.

Not only are we sceptical that they actually work, but we also highlight the consequences they are having and could have for years to come across society. Coming back to our negative utilitarianism, we are potentially inflicting great harm on a great number. It needn't be this way.

Alas, this perspective is given scant serious thought as the majority stance of doing all we can to stop this coronavirus dominates the discourse.

Perhaps the majority will be proven right — history will be the judge of that.

For now, we must hope that the vaccine is a success for those who most need protection. (I personally won't be rushing to get jabbed and I don't think it should be compulsory — more on that another day.)

If it's not a success, we're going to have to seriously reappraise the containment measures we've implemented. This is because asking people to stop living in a bid to, potentially, save some lives is not a strategy that can go on indefinitely.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz". 

Trumpism: Why it won't go gentle into that good night

 @wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]
Much of the world appeared to breathe a collective sigh of relief when Joe Biden was inaugurated as the 46th president of the United States of America.

Swamp men? Barack Obama & Joe Biden. (Photo from Facebook.)

After four crazy years of Donald J. Trump, calm has been restored. A comforting normality has returned to the self-proclaimed greatest democracy on the planet. Certainly, Biden will conform to many people's view of what it means to be "presidential".

Long live Trump

However, while Trump's presidency may be dead, Trumpism lives on. To ignore it, to hope it will just peter out as a force would be foolish in the extreme.

To this end, President Biden has talked the language of reconciliation, of unity. Therefore, we must assume that his administration isn't about to completely discard the almost 75 million US citizens who voted for Trump.

Biden only needs to look at his own inauguration day to be reminded of why Trump won the 2016 election. While the outgoing commander-in-chief decided, as has been his wont, to go against 150 years of tradition and not attend the peaceful handover of power, three former establishment presidents were present: namely Clinton, Bush and Obama.

"Untruths can be forgiven as long as one is acting in good faith, saying what one thinks. 'Trump may be a liar, but he's an honest liar.'"

The bonhomie on display, especially the banter between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Michelle Obama, will lead some to believe that common ground between two deeply divided factions can be found in the years to come. There is room for bipartisanship.

However, another way to look at it is as the personification of what Trump referred to as the 'swamp', a swamp he promised to drain which, depending on who you ask, he either made a decent fist of doing so or failed miserably.

Where lies truth?

This Washington swamp is a political elite out of touch with the needs and wants of America. It's an enemy that needs to be dismantled for those who espouse Trumpism.

Then there's language, what's said and what isn't said. The BBC's Washington correspondent, Jon Sopel, when asked of Trump's positives, referred to his transparency.

Now, while we all know of the many untruths Trump spouted and tweeted during his term in office, what Sopel refers to is the idea that you knew how he was feeling at any given time. To use the old expression, Trump wears his heart on his sleeve — or at least he constantly posted it on Twitter when he had access to that medium.

This is another important element of Trumpism. Untruths can be forgiven as long as one is acting in good faith, saying what one thinks. 'Trump may be a liar, but he's an honest liar.'

Contrast this with the politically correct language of Biden and his ilk. Experience leads Trumpists to view with great suspicion all these carefully worded speeches. They've heard it all before.

What's more, in such language they tend to hear not the equality of opportunity they associate with their USA but rather an equality of outcome. What they believe made the US great — the individualism, the freedom, a "non-interfering" government — is being eroded before their very eyes under the guise of progressive politics.

President Biden is only settling in at the White House. He may indeed turn out to be a president who can build bridges rather than walls. Convincing some in his own ranks to rein in their more ambitious ideas will surely prove key to that.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".