Swimming against the Big Tech tide

@wwaycorrigan
[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]
I recently wrote about how Big Nanny State has facilitated a tendency amongst some in society to forego growing up and taking responsibility. 'Leave everything up to me, little ones. Simply submit, follow the rules, however arbitrary many may seem, and off with you to enjoy your highly regulated lives.'

The QR-code revolution: Wrong Way is not a fan.

Virtual reality

Cosily tucked up with Big Nanny State in her warm global bed is Big Tech, monitoring everything from our sleeping patterns and what we eat for breakfast to our favourite pastimes and guilty pleasures. While this might appear a rather clandestine undertaking, the reality is, it isn't.

The virtual world that practically all in higher-income countries plus the middle classes elsewhere have signed up to with countless usernames and passwords means we have voluntarily — or at least it was voluntarily initially — invited Big Tech and its associates into our lives. And while some folk seem fairly blasé about this, there does appear to be pushback fomenting in other quarters.

The question is, shy of a system overthrow or a complete retreat from society, how does one go about living in the 21st Century whilst endorsing minimalist technological use?

Unless you're already a "made" man, woman or whatever you wish to call yourself these days, not having the likes of WhatsApp and/or an email account together with being connected to the internet 24/7, leaves you at a distinct disadvantage. And even if you are comfortably settled on Easy Street, this doesn't mean you can effortlessly free yourself from Big Tech's dominance.

Many services, from the world of finance to dining and everything else in between, now expect the user to be equipped with a smartphone — a device that tends to sap any modicum of intelligence from said user.

'In the pandemic pandemonium where each fellow human being is seen as a Grim Reaper, QR-code menus take away one potential area of contagion.'

All of this is supposedly being done in the name of convenience. Fair enough, if you can do everything from the comfort of your own home or wherever, there's something to be said for that. However, when it's done to the detriment of being able to actually sit down and talk to somebody face to face should the need arise, while I'm all against it.

A mine of information

Just one manifestation of this — something that, thankfully, rarely affects me in my modest existence in Colombia — is the switch to QR-code menus and suchlike in restaurants. Some people think this is a wonderful development.

For one, in the pandemic pandemonium where each fellow human being is seen as a Grim Reaper, it takes away one potential area of contagion: the handling of reused menus. It also cuts down on paper by reducing the need for said menus, therefore, so it goes, it's good for the environment.

Both of those "plus points" are true, but one's smartphone doesn't exactly run on fresh air, does it? Plus, outside of its component parts — including those lithium batteries, mined in ethically questionable ways, to say the least — it has to be recharged regularly.

Speaking of mining, in places where you actually order electronically, how much personal information is hammered out of us in the process? Another aspect to Big Tech's perpetual profiling.

In the realm of finance, so far my bank in Colombia, Banco Caja Social, hasn't forced me to go fully mobile. Indeed, in some regards, this particular institution is too archaic and overly bureaucratic. Nonetheless, when it comes to money, you can't be too careful all the same.

In contrast, the only bank I currently do business with in Ireland, Bank of Ireland UK in Belfast, more or less forced me recently to download its app in order to continue having access to my account. Come on guys, there are only so many apps a bog-standard smartphone can hold!

The net result of this 'move to mobile' is that it leaves us at the mercy of a faceless Big Tech. Technology is the master. To borrow, in a way, from Winston Churchill, 'Never has so much power been in the hands of so few, controlling so many.'

Call me, if you will, a contrarian conservative fearful of what amounts to nothing more than innocent and innovative change.

However, in a world where we are ceding more and more of whatever independence we had to faceless forces, I will do what I can to resist, at least for a little while longer. It will, most likely, be a futile exercise.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

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

The trouble with democracy

An old friend used to say that, because he has neither an interest in nor knowledge of Irish rugby, it follows that he shouldn't have any say in who the national coach is.

So is there a better way? (Image from novelandmundane.blogspot.com.)

He used this as an analogy with the universal franchise; that is, giving everybody over a certain age the vote. 

The point he was making is that there are many people out there who display no interest in or have no real knowledge of politics, hence why should they automatically be allowed to participate in it? If you don't care and couldn't be bothered to inform yourself, then you shouldn't be given a vote.

However, comparing a national sports team with politics isn't exactly like for like. 

Those charged with running a country or district or the like will, for better or for worse, have an impact on your life, whether you like it or not. Take no interest in the rugby team or whatever and it's unlikely that it will bother you – the odd boozy night out apart, perhaps.

Yet, there still remains the question: Should you show yourself worthy, that is to say display sufficient knowledge, in order to be entitled to your political voice? Should there be a national political test?

In theory, something like that could work. However, deciding on its format would be troublesome. It could be open to much manipulation by state authorities and political activists (what isn't?).

Also, when it comes to issues that affect an individual, who is to say a person's opinion is not valid just because he/she failed a 'knowledge test' in a certain area? It's a rights and responsibilities issue in a sense; you may have the right to vote (or not vote) but you should also have the responsibility to inform yourself before you do.

The idea of setting suffrage parameters is unlikely to sit well with many. The argument against it is that it may lead to an elite controlling the masses. 

Yet, in many democratic countries that pretty much seems to be the case as is. We could just put a degree of legitimacy on it.

Plus, having a ruling elite doesn't have to be a bad thing. There are some people who are natural leaders, others who are just as happy to be led. Problems arise when those leaders don't work for the common good.

Moreover, sometimes the popular politician, elected democratically, isn't necessarily the best man/woman for the job. Just because someone or something is popular, doesn't mean he/she/it is good for you. For example, one of the most popular restaurants in the world is McDonald's. Enough said.

Churchill: Democracy man, at times. (Photo: wikipedia.org.)

So if you had a group of proven leaders, freed from the constraints of having to appeal to the majority insofar as making popular decisions just to stay in favour, and consequently in power, they would govern much more effectively. Or so the thinking goes.

But if you limit the franchise and decision making to a small number of qualified people, can it be guaranteed that you're going to get the right leadership and government each and every time? Obviously not.

Political aptitude tests aside, it could be argued that through political disengagement in many more-established democratic countries, especially among younger voters, a small group of generally elder citizens is calling the shots anyway.

Here in Colombia, anecdotally speaking, this appears to be the case. 

Not only that, but it also seems that many of these elder voters come from well-heeled, conservative backgrounds, quite removed from the lives of the country's struggling masses. Thus Colombian politics, at least at national level, follows a very predictable pattern. Plus ça change. For some that's good, for many others it's not.

That being said, the inherent problems with democracy and universal suffrage apart, it's about the best we've got for now.

Britain's former prime minister Winston Churchill caught the paradox of it well. 'The best argument against democracy', he said, 'is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.' Yet, he also mused: 'It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.'

Like everything in life where there's a choice, sometimes we get it right, sometimes we get it wrong. Even that, of course, is subjective. It is nice to have it, though.

Time for change

These are heady times in international politics. Top billing is, of course, the race for the White House, where it’s difficult even for those with a limited interest in it not to get caught up in the whole fanfare. Pretty much all media outlets across the globe are following the unfolding story. 

Meanwhile, closer to us here in Colombia, there's the Venezuelan presidential election – perhaps as equally important, if not more so, for this region than the USA one.

Will Venezuelans go left again or take a slight move to the right?

The fact that both countries are having leadership contests within a few weeks of each other is about as far as you can go with the comparisons between them. 

For one, Venezuela’s incumbent, Hugo Chávez appears to be in a more comfortable position as regards his re-election compared to Barack Obama – although the challenger, Henrique Capriles, is putting up a pretty impressive fight against the 14-year-long rule of the current administration. 

 

Part of Chávez’s appeal is that rather than just talk about it and despite his many detractors and questionable methods, he has arguably done more for the poor and vulnerable in his jurisdiction than Obama has in the "land of the free". 

Of course, the Venezuelan leader has had much more time and less interference in implementing his vision – ‘socialism for the 21st century’ – than the under-fire United States chief-of-staff.

The word vision here is key. Barack Obama entered the Oval Office just under four years ago promising much and offering a different path – remember, ‘change we can believe in’. For many US citizens, though, it has been far from the fairytale term they were hoping for. 

 

Once the bounce of having a novel, coloured president that was anything but George W. Bush wore off, things began to get a bit more serious for Obama. As many democratically bound and elected politicians discover, implementing change can be slow, mightily slow. 

Throw in the fact that no sooner is a new government sworn in then it begins thinking of its re-election, usually four to five years down the line. So even if you have a visionary leader or administration, the ‘must not harm my chances of getting back in’ mindset takes hold early on.

This sort of thinking is usually to the detriment of a leader’s or administration’s vision, assuming, that is, one exists. 

Ideally, elected governments should make decisions based on a clear plan that they have for the area they govern – regardless if this means that they might alienate or upset some potential voters. This is what doing things in the national interest or, perhaps of greater consequence is these times, the global interest should be about. 

Alas, what we regularly see nowadays are electorally charged policies and decisions, ones aimed at garnering the most votes. Or worse still, we get no clear policies or decisions at all.

The first debate went to Romney (L). Can he deny Obama four more years?

Take the first of the presidential debates between Obama and the Republican challenger Mitt Romney. 

The Obama strategy – we’ll assume he had one – appeared to be about talking specifics, giving hard facts and figures where he could. Romney on the other hand went down the catchy, well delivered but rehearsed, soundbite route – attacking the President on borrowing billions from China was certainly playing to the gallery. 

The actual amount of real substance and truth there was to all Romney’s utterances is questionable. He stuck to the ‘keep it simple, stupid’ mantra and it worked for him. The masses seemed to love it.

The masses, though, are not always right. As Winston Churchill reputedly once said, 'The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.' 

Collectively, we don’t always make the best decisions on far-reaching issues. On occasions, consensus is a luxury we should avoid. 

Put it this way, a global survey of popular restaurants would put McDonald’s high up on the list, but is it the best food for us to be eating regularly?

Furthermore, when it comes to elections, many democratic nations implore us to vote – ‘it doesn’t matter how you vote, just make sure you do’ is regularly trumpeted. 

So going by that advice, even if you know absolutely nothing about what you’re doing, just go and do it anyway. That’s not a very smart way of going about things, is it? 

If you really don’t have an opinion or an interest or knowledge on the vote at hand then it’s best to stay at home on polling day. Just because you are entitled to have your say doesn’t mean you must.

That aside, time will tell if the undecided US electorate has been swung by Romney’s smooth talking in the first debate. He may have what it takes to be a good president but relinquishing Obama of his duties right now would seem to be a little premature. 

Legally freed of the four-more-years syndrome we might get a better idea of Obama’s vision – he can go gung-ho in implementing policies without the worry of re-election hanging over him. At least that should be the case.

Will it be exit stage left for Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez?

So while the current White House administration is looking for more time to implement its changes, in Venezuela, as far as most outside observers are concerned, it appears well and truly time for change. 

Even if you agree with Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution, one man at the top for 14 years is long enough. What he should have done is stepped aside and appointed a mouthpiece successor, Vladimir Putin style. 

That way the revolution could continue and he could still call the shots. It’s obviously hard, though, to walk away from the power drug. And, for better or worse, the Venezuelan electorate look set to continue to feed his habit.

*For an earlier take on our thoughts about Venezuela, see: http://bit.ly/OLR2Ev

The damned Irish question

For Winston Churchill it was ‘the damned Irish question’. Fast forward the guts of a century later and for Rory McIlroy it’s the damned – although perhaps not in the same venomous way as Sir Winston – Irish or British question. 

And it appears, unsurprisingly in some contexts, that the United Kingdom resident is siding with the latter. Although, he has been at pains to state in recent days that he is yet to fully make up his mind.

Mean in green. Or not? Rory McIlroy.

For those of you in the dark on the above, we’re referring to where Northern Ireland-born Rory McIlroy – the number one golf player in the world right now and arguably the sport’s biggest superstar – will pledge his allegiance for the Rio de Janeiro Olympics in 2016. 

 

As he correctly pointed out in a recent open letter on this subject via his Twitter account, no matter which side he opts for, he is going to upset some people. 

By the tone of that correspondence it seems this whole subject is one he wishes he didn’t have to deal with. Or at least if it was one that was taken out of his hands. He’s certainly not in an enviable position.

Of course, it shouldn’t need to be stated that as a UK citizen he is fully within his right to plump for Team GB. Hailing from Northern Ireland, he can choose to have either a British or an Irish passport – as yet there is no separate one for NI. 

So, the fact that he holds a British passport is a pretty strong guide to his preference. 

However, we are aware of some Northern Ireland residents considered to be more in the green sphere than orange who hold British passports for the simple fact that they are cheaper to obtain. What price your nationality, eh? About £20 it seems, for some. 

The whole political position of Northern Ireland is one that we regularly get questioned about from locals here in Colombia. Most of them assume that it is British, confusing Great Britain – the island to the east of Ireland consisting of the countries England, Scotland and Wales – with the UK, the sovereign state that is Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 

So looking at this from a purely geographical perspective, if you are born on the island of Ireland – be it in the Republic or the North – you are Irish. 

For most people, though – Rory McIlroy included – nationality is much more than just where you were born. It’s about where you come from in a background sense – your blood, your heritage. 

For McIlroy and many of his kin in Northern Ireland, their roots on the island date back to Britain’s Ulster Plantation in the early 1600s. 

 

These new settlers – mostly Scottish Presbyterians although there were also English Anglicans – remained fiercely loyal to their motherland of Britain. 

Also, chiefly because of religious, political and indeed language differences, they did not end up mixing with the dispossessed ‘old Irish’ as happened in other parts of the island where British settlers had been previously planted. 

This divide was only made deeper after the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 where the Protestant King William defeated the Catholic King James, ensuring the Protestant succession for the English, Scottish and Irish thrones and thus the religion’s ascendency in Ireland.

Perhaps even the Brits are Irish at heart?

In the following years, up to and including the creation of the Irish Free State in 1921 and its subsequent declaration as a Republic 27 years later, the political and cultural differences between the settlers in the north-east of Ireland compared to residents in most of the rest of the island sharpened further.
 

In this context, what it meant (and still means in many ways) to be Irish was completely at odds with the customs and mindset of the planted stock in what is now the state of Northern Ireland. 

Namely, to be Irish usually meant Catholic, anti-British (here you can include British sports such as cricket, rugby and soccer versus the Irish sports of Gaelic football and hurling) and anti-royalty, to name just the most relevant in this regard. 

Now, while many of these differences were unavoidable from the get-go, they were given further legitimacy by the direction taken by the early leaders of both states. 

Northern Ireland’s first Prime Minister, James Craig, summed this up in his response to Éamon de Valera’s (his southern counterpart at the time) declaration in 1934 that the Irish Free State was a Catholic one, stating: 'They still boast of Southern Ireland being a Catholic State. All I boast of is that we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State.'

So bearing all this in mind, for Rory McIlroy, while geographically he may be Irish, or Northern Irish if you will, culturally he may feel more British – or at least the Northern Ireland version of what it means to be British. 

 

It may feel more natural to him to march behind the Union Jack rather than the tricolour – even allowing for the fact that the green, white and orange of the Irish flag signifies the hope for peace, understanding and harmony between the Irish nationalist and British nationalist/Orange traditions that exist on the island. 

Indeed, it could be argued that the flag has more significance today for the North considering the uneasy peace process it is going through than it has for independent Ireland.

All this begs the question, is it possible to be Irish if you come from a Northern Ireland Protestant/Orange tradition? This really depends on how you define what being Irish is. 

It also depends on what you want to be yourself. If you can be British and Scottish, British and Welsh or British and English, than surely you can be British and Irish? 

 

Many past and present rugby players, from a similar stock to McIlroy, have donned and continue to don the green jersey of Ireland when it comes to representing their "country". There is, however, an important difference here: there is no British rugby team (it’s the British AND Irish Lions remember). The Olympics, on the other hand, forces a choice.

What's in a shirt? C'mon 'Norn Iron'!

Perhaps, though, there is still time for a compromise – one that may be closer to being a reality than most people think. That is representing the fully-fledged, independent Northern Ireland at the Olympics – not Irish, not British, but Northern Irish. 

From our highly enjoyable time living in Belfast, we encountered a number of locals – from both sides of the divide – who expressed such a desire.

Considering the arrogance, ignorance and indifference that many citizens of both Britain and Ireland have towards Northern Ireland, this might be the best solution for all. For one, we’re sure Rory McIlroy would like it if that were the case right now.
______________________
*For a somewhat related piece, see Punching back.