Helpful today, harmful tomorrow

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]
It's generally accepted that there's a fine line between genius and insanity. The distinction, fortunately you might say, only applies to a fraction of humanity.

The majority of us tend to fall somewhere in the middle, for better or for worse.

'Rather than defund the police, let's just destroy them.' 'Great idea!' 

The narrow corridor

That being the case, there's another set of more pertinent opposites where the balance is also quite delicate: the line between being helpful and being harmful. 

One's life, consciously and unconsciously, mentally and physically, is, for the most part, spent traipsing the helpful/harmful middle ground.

But, you might say, being deep in helpful territory is a good place to be, so just try to manoeuvre yourself there. 

Well, the thing is, you can't be deep in it. It's a narrow corridor where you're never too far away from crossing into harmful ground. 

In other words, while you might think that being uberly helpful is nothing but good, there's a high chance you'll end up inflicting harm on not only the recipients of the "kind" act, but on yourself as well. 

It's like the old adage, 'Give a man a fish and he has food for a day, teach a man to fish and he has food for life.' (In this particular instance, the potential trouble for the giver is future resentment from the receiver — 'What?! You've no more fish to give me!' — which could result in conflict.)

Dissecting that saying further, very often it's the short-term help that, if not immediately harmful, ends up leading to even bigger problems down the line.

For a pertinent example in light of the times, take the anti-police, Black Lives Matter protests in the US. Data show that they tend to be accompanied by an increase in civilian-on-civilian homicides in the black communities from which they emanate. 

So go ahead, have less policing, but be prepared for the nasty consequences.

Considering recent events in Bogotá, Colombia would do well to take note — this is not to make little of the many problems with policing and other state law-enforcement agencies in this country.

On a macro level, despite the fact that today most of us can expect to live longer compared to our predecessors, this hasn't resulted in 'playing the long game'. On the contrary, in our on-demand society, it's a case of 'now, now, now'.

'The pandemic has only reinforced the on-demand way of life and, it can be argued, increased societal polarization, as well as inequality.'

It makes sense, in some ways. As most of our needs — from a Western world perspective in any case — can be satisfied by the mere touch of a button, many people appear to have lost the virtue of patience. If there's not an instant solution, forget about it. 

So we really only have ourselves to blame when our leaders react accordingly. Any visionaries soon learn that the real trump card (an innocent turn of phrase, honestly) is expediency. Never mind the next election, the latest opinion poll matters just as much.

In these coronavirus times, hope has been expressed that the enforced pause on our "normal" lives will see us taking the time to reflect on how we've been living. We'll identify the more malignant practices and amend them accordingly.

Cruel kindness

Alas, if anything, the pandemic has only reinforced the on-demand way of life and, it can be argued, increased societal polarization, as well as inequality. What's more, it has underscored the short-term "gain", long-term loss tendency.

In the rush to do all that could be done to help those most at risk, very little if any thought appeared to have been given to the unintended consequences. 

Only now, months later, are we seeing some of our leaders finally listening to the dissenting voices who have been at pains to highlight the problems we're creating.

Again, this isn't that shocking when seen through the myopic lens that society as a whole tends to use. 

To use football parlance, we've sacrificed a few playmakers to hold on to a questionable lead. The strategy has backfired, we've been pegged back and we need to go on the offensive. 

However, our star attackers are now out of the game. Most can, thankfully, be reintroduced. The question is, what sort of shape are they in?

When they re-enter the fray, they might be more like madmen than geniuses, more harmful than helpful. The margins, you see, are very tight indeed.

The temptation to choose, innocently perhaps, perceived kindness today, often results in a cruel tomorrow.
___________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

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

Democrats' Biden time strengthens Trump's card

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]
In January of this strangest of years, unaware of what was coming down the line, I made a couple of what could be seen as rash decisions.

Four more years of President Trump? It looks quite possible now. (Image from Facebook.)

One was to resign from my full-time, relatively well-paid marketing job. I'd had enough and I wanted to focus on some personal, yet financially impotent projects.

Along came corona

The other was to write a piece suggesting that a Donald Trump re-election might be the least-bad option for the United States of America. 

Despite what some doomsayers had predicted when he won his first term in 2016, the world didn't descend into complete chaos. There was no apocalypse, much to the disappointment of some radical leftists. 

What's more, at the time of writing, there appeared to be a real possibility that the Democrats would select a candidate too leftist for the majority of the electorate, thereby playing into Trump's hands.

Then, along came coronavirus and the Black Lives Matter protests. Things certainly did get quite chaotic, apocalyptic even, the world over and particularly so in the Land of Opportunity. 

The mishandling of both was levelled firmly — and understandably if exaggeratedly — at the feet of President Trump. 

It was looking so grim for the incumbent that it seemed the Democrats could put forward Nicolás Maduro — replete in a US tracksuit to entice some jingoistic Republicans to the cause — and still expect to comfortably win November's election.

That fascinating prospect aside, up until recently, the biggest challenge for the challengers had been to ensure that their actual candidate, Joe Biden, stayed alive. The rest would take care of itself.

However, with the conventions of the Big Two now done and dusted, what were considered advantages for the Democrats just a few short weeks ago now appear to be working against them.

Whilst receiving widespread support initially, many US citizens are growing increasingly tired, angered even, by the ongoing Black Lives Matter protests. The Democrats, having fully supported the movement, are struggling to distance themselves from the rioting.

'While the thoughts of a Trump victory are anathema to many, it could be the saving grace for the Democrats, a realisation that lunging left is politically suicidal.'

Trump's playing of the law-and-order-president card appears to be hitting a sweet spot, despite the opposition pointing out, correctly, that the violence is happening under his watch. The thing is, while he is commander-in-chief, he can easily and effectively shift the blame. 

Radical leftists, who are pulling the Democrats' strings, are behind it all. Images of the burning of his effigy by protesters serve to reinforce the point. 

With time and a November endorsement, he will restore calm. A Biden presidency, on the other hand, will do anything but.

The right calls?

The current pandemic will, of course, play a big role in the outcome of the election. 

Yet, despite the relatively high death toll in the US, should employment figures continue to improve ahead of election day, Trump has another positive to play with. 'I had the economy roaring BC (Before Coronavirus), and the signs are it will bounce back quickly under my watch. All you'll get with Sleepy Joe are higher taxes and rising unemployment.' This is sure to resonate with many undecided, centrist voters.

The one, really only, bipartisan issue is the need to deal with a menacing China. 

Again, Trump can point to the hard line he has already taken in this regard. Can a soft-centred Democrat Party with its radical leftist undercurrent really be trusted to play tough with Beijing? It's a pitch that the many doubters may just find too worrying to let slide.

Also, while the thoughts of a Trump victory are anathema to many, it could actually be the saving grace for the Democrats, a realisation that lunging left is politically suicidal. 

By veering back towards the centre, the party would become a far more formidable force for a Republican Party that will have its own soul-searching to do post Trump.

So, as we move into the final quarter of a year that many of us wish we could wipe from memory, my January rashness, despite all that's happened, might actually prove to be rather prudent. 

Getting out of my job when I did may have been the right move. I don't feel worse off mentally in any case. And the US might just decide that it is better to go with 'the devil you know'.

Whatever happens, the closing chapters of 2020 are set to be intriguing.
__________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

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

Coronavirus conspiracies

Very few things in life are simple black-and-white affairs, not even Black Lives Matter. And certainly not this coronavirus pandemic.

Coronavirus, it's lurking everywhere.

Little wonder, then, there's confusion amongst the general public when we don't exactly have one clear voice from the experts as to the best way to take on this 'challenge of our time'.  

Divisive virus

On the to-wear-or-not-to-wear-facemasks debate, it appears the weight of opinion is coming down on the side that they do play some role in reducing contagion. Nonetheless, there are still dissenting voices in the scientific community putting forward thought-provoking arguments against wearing them.

As for the efficacy of widespread lockdowns when weighed up against the collateral damage they cause in a whole host of areas — not just economically but in terms of lives lost, too — there is an amount of divergence.

In terms of the lethality of covid-19, well it's a bit early to be definitive on this one. However, there appears to be convergence across a range of disciplines that, compared to the likes of the Spanish flu, it won't turn out to be too deadly. Today's microscopic enemy is quite particular when it comes to its victims.

Indeed, the finest brains in the business are trying to figure out why it picks on some folk more so than others.

(It is important to note that those who contracted the virus and survived may suffer from complications down the line. This remains an unknown. On the other hand, medical procedures that otherwise would have been carried out have been postponed the world over in the coronavirus "war", a factor not to be ignored when speaking of the aforementioned collateral damage.)

For some context — badly missing in most commentaries these days — in terms of overall deaths and adjusting for population growth, this pandemic may come to match that of 1957/58.

Called Asian flu (we wouldn't get away with that now), it passed through society without much ado by all accounts. We can only surmise people were more aware of their mortality back then. 

There was also, of course, a fair number of other lethal infections doing the rounds at the time. It wasn't worth getting all hysterical about one in particular.

'One would have thought that our leaders would do their best to placate a panicked public. On the contrary, state bodies across the globe are feeding the coronavirus frenzy, giving fuel to conspiracy theories.'

However, as you may have noticed, our reaction to coronavirus has been anything but 'qué será, será'. 

This could be seen, somewhat positively, as our distancing from death over the last few generations. Most of us expect to die on our own terms, so to put it. Thus, the arrival of a viral infection that's taking the lives of a certain sector of the population a little earlier than expected has caused panic.

It's also shown how health services in many countries were completely unprepared for even just a modest spike in patient admissions. "Developed" nations, in particular, must be held to account for this fatal shortcoming considering the ageing populations they've been (badly) dealing with for years now. The warnings weren't heeded.

Some countries, admittedly, at least in this early stage, appear to have done well in dealing with the pandemic. In other places, the opposite is the case: the virus is the one in control.

In such an environment, one would have thought that our leaders would be doing their best to placate the public. On the contrary, state bodies across the globe are feeding the frenzy, adding fuel to conspiracy theories.

A covid operation

Take mortality figures. In our simple life BC (before coronavirus, just in case you're not following), I don't think I'm incorrect to assume most of us thought that recording a cause of death was a rather straightforward affair. How wrong we were it seems.

In the last week, we've seen how Public Health England has been, if you excuse the phrase, trigger-happy in naming covid-19 as the "killer" when it wasn't actually so. A public health official in Ireland spoke on the national airwaves about the same issue there.

On top of that, I've heard of incidents back home where doctors asked family of the deceased if it was OK to attribute the death to the virus when it actually had nothing to do with it. We can extrapolate that similar obfuscation is at play here in Colombia and elsewhere.

Why this is being done, I don't know. It might be quite innocent, maybe something positive is to be gained by beefing up the covid-19 death numbers. However, it's easy to understand how others see a sinister side to it all.

Considering the consensus on whatever measures those in charge and their health experts advise, dissenting voices are left to the likes of Hoover Institution YouTube interviews and a number of side-stream media outlets. These voices aren't, as some like to view them, crackpots. They are highly qualified professionals. Yet, by virtue of the fact they're not heard on mainstream media, their views are discarded.

We should all know the dangers of silencing others because what they're saying doesn't fit the accepted narrative. What's more, our modern world has never gone through such times as these. Nobody knows the 'correct path', it's a case of trial and error.  

Focusing only on one side does us all a disservice. It also ensures conspiracy theories gain more traction.

Simply wishing away that which makes us uncomfortable isn't the solution, in the same way as we can't wish away this coronavirus. We have to learn to deal with it whilst trying to continue to live our lives. 

In other words, it's a case of aiming to live healthily rather than hiding away in a bid to avoid illnesses. To opt for the latter is not living. (Although, for some maybe it is. Recall the old joke, 'he died aged 80 but he stopped living at 30.')

This narrow-minded, black-versus-white approach we're witnessing is only increasing division, making a bad situation worse.

You'd almost be forgiven for thinking the powers that be want it that way.

_______________________________________________________________________

Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

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

Niall Ferguson: 'Colombia didn't have the capacity to do East Asia's smart coronavirus policies'

Renowned historian and author Niall Ferguson believes Colombia had little option but to impose what he refers to as the 'pretty blunt instrument' of a lockdown for dealing with coronavirus.

Professor Niall Ferguson chats to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast.

Speaking to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast (recorded on 19 June) Professor Ferguson, Milbank Family Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, revealed Colombian government officials contacted him for advice on dealing with the pandemic.

'It became clear (in conversation with government officials) that Colombia didn't really have the capacity to do the smart policies of some East Asian countries in tackling coronavirus and therefore had to rely on cruder policies,' he said.

While he highlighted the relatively good performance of the authorities here in dealing with the health crisis in contrast to other South American countries such as Brazil, Chile and Ecuador, he warned that the data suggest Colombia will be in a 'worse position four weeks from now.'

'It won't be the first time a pandemic has had a very severe impact on South America,' he explained. 'The big ones of 1918/19 and 1957/58 hit Latin America very hard indeed and there's a sense this history is repeating itself. The explanation for this lies in the fact that the region has big cities with dense populations and rather poor public health infrastructure with wide inequalities.'

'Early detection, early action. If that had happened in Colombia in January people wouldn't now be locked in their homes and the economy wouldn't be in the tank.'

Ferguson, author of a number of influential books including The Square and the Tower, Civilization: The West and the Rest and Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, did admit he doesn't know 'what good option there is for Colombia in tackling coronavirus.'

He did, however, offer this advice for the next pandemic which 'will come and could be much worse':

'There's no real reason why Colombia should not be able to do testing and contact tracing if it does it early enough. Most people have mobile phones and a significant amount have smartphones ... Early detection, early action, that way you avoid lockdowns. If that had happened in Colombia in January people wouldn't now be locked in their homes and the economy wouldn't be in the tank.'

'In Venezuela, you have a regime that is as destructive as any that we've seen in the world in the last 50 years ... It is a criminal racket ... Under those circumstances, it seems kind of a no-brainer to do something to tip the scales in favour of the democratic opposition.'

As regards the temptation for Colombia's electorate to seek comfort in extreme politics in the years to come as it deals with the coronavirus fallout, he said 'the key is to make sure that the range of political options is not too wide. As soon as you have the populism of the left or the populism of the right offering their quick fixes you risk destroying either the economy, which is what the left specialises in, or destroying the free, open society which is what the far-right tends to do.'

Speaking in relation to the possibility of direct US military intervention in Venezuela, the Scottish-born American citizen called the Maduro administration 'a criminal racket' and, as such, 'it seems kind of a no-brainer to do something to tip the scales in favour of the democratic opposition.'

In a wide-ranging interview, Ferguson also talked about the 'dithering response' of the US and the UK to coronavirus, the problems with and unintended consequences of the Black Lives Matter movement, today's 'cancel culture' and counterfactual history in relation to Colombia and colonisation.

Listen to the Wrong Way's Colombia Cast interview with Niall Ferguson in full here, on Spotify or at Apple Podcasts. (Also on YouTube at https://youtu.be/8r06Lv6sKC8?si=70up0zGlUSoB0zyF.)
___________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

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