Coronavirus fallout: The virtue-signalling pandemic

There has been much comment in recent weeks about a coming great change in how we humans conduct our affairs once we get through this coronavirus chaos.

It's a belief that a return to the status quo before the virus crisis is practically impossible.

Colombia's tiendas are silent right now, but is there a brighter future ahead for all?

Our microscopic enemy is viewed as the necessary evil to make us alter our harmful ways. It's a comforting thought as many of us try to get through this uncertain and unsettling period. 

Maybe, just maybe, as Bill Gates advised a few years back, our leaders will focus more on ensuring we have healthcare systems that are better equipped to deal with crises like the one we're currently experiencing.

Health or wealth?

From a military perspective, many of the world's richest nations can, in the event of a threat, rely in double-quick time on very effective, ultra-modern attack and defence mechanisms. Yet, when it comes to the health of their citizens, they are found badly wanting.

It has certainly been eyebrow-raising to see how in these unprecedented times, basically at the mere clearing of one's throat (it wasn't a cough, honestly), trillions of dollars have been made available to help the most vulnerable in society when heretofore we were constantly being told the money simply wasn't there.

'There has been some nauseating taking of the moral high ground during this coronavirus crisis.'

On a broader scale, however, it would appear that many of those saying the world will never be the same again are the very ones whose lifestyles have been the most damaging to the planet and, by extension, human society. They are also the ones who, more than likely, will find it more difficult to change their ways.

The double-standard, do-gooder brigade you could call them.

Indeed, there's been an amount of virtue signalling during this time where anything up to a half of the world's population is in lockdown or quarantine.

'How come you've been out walking? Just stay at home, for goodness' sake. I haven't stepped outside the house for six days in a row.'

'Well done you. I hope you washed your hands well after having your food delivered by some random lad with perhaps questionable hygiene and/or social distancing standards.'

It's this nauseating taking of the moral high ground by some because they have been able not to leave their houses for days on end. 

The thing is, there's a fair chance that a number of those voluntarily (for in most countries, at the very least you're allowed out to get essential supplies) cocooning themselves at home for weeks isn't too far removed from their normal lives.

Not only can they work from home but they enjoy doing so. What's more, their house is their home, they feel entirely comfortable there.

Worthless

For others, and there are plenty of them here in Colombia, working from home is simply not an option. Also, their lodgings are just that, a place to sleep and perhaps cook, but were never envisaged as or equipped to be somewhere to spend the majority of their time.

You see, many of the strict temporary measures currently in force across the world have been taken by relatively well-off people in rather comfortable environments. They have little to no idea of what it's like to truly struggle.

'Without recalibrating our values we're set to continue where we left off.'

Those who do struggle to make ends meet — some temporary government support that's really only tokenism to get through the lockdown aside — are feeling it the most right now, and always have.

They don't have the luxury of trying to change their lives 'for the betterment of all on the planet' post this coronavirus crisis. It will be a case of trying to get back to mediocrity whenever the normal rhythm returns.

If our wealthier folk do really try to change their lives, cut out the excessive materialism, reduce overall consumption, then, in theory, there should be more resources to go around to improve the lot for the less well-off 80 per cent. A more balanced wealth distribution that is to say.

Yet, in a world where many in that 80 per cent bracket worship as gods outrageously paid young men kicking a ball of air around a field or an equally overpaid person who looks good on the big or small screen, it's hard to be too optimistic.

Without a significant recalibration of our values, we're set to carry on where we left off before coronavirus got under our collective skin.
___________________________________
Listen to The Colombia Cast podcast here.
Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Coronavirus' collateral damage

A sure-fire way to ensure you get the blood up of a large section of readers is to start off a blog post quoting Donald J. Trump.

So here goes. The US president tweeted the other day about coronavirus and the measures being taken to control it that 'We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself.' 

Coronavirus: Things will never be the same again?

Of course, true to form, Trump's discourse since this 'Chinese virus' emerged has read like a dark comedy. He's gone from 'we have it under control' to 'it will be gone by April' to 'the US is in great shape to tackle it' to 'this is a pandemic and I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called one.' 

What ails you?

Nonetheless, he does have a point about the cure potentially becoming worse than the viral infection itself. 

In this regard, we're talking about the cure being self-isolation and strictly imposed countrywide lockdowns, the approach being taken by many states battling covid-19 right now. Basically, it's a degree or two less severe than the Chinese model of tackling "their" virus. 

The idea in the short-term is not to eradicate it completely (although if that did happen, great), it's to, as most are well aware by now, flatten the curve in terms of the rate of infection. In that way, the health systems of the many countries trying to deal with this crisis will be in a better position to cope. 

The nightmare scenario is hundreds of thousands of cases in a short period of time. Hospitals just wouldn't be able to cope with those in a critical condition. 

Of course, as experts readily admit, in countries that were slow to enforce self-isolation and social distancing, the majority of the population is likely to get infected. On the plus side, the majority of that number should make a full recovery. 

So, at this remove, we could end up with the same number of coronavirus-related deaths regardless of the measures taken. Even with the best medical care in optimum conditions, the sick and vulnerable who contract the virus might die. 

'The global death rate in the coming years could be lower due to coronavirus.'

To use an analogy from a history professor from my university days when talking about the demise of Britain's Liberal Party, World War One was the bus that gave it the knockout blow but the postmortem revealed it was in terminal decline in any case, on "borrowed time" so to put it. 

There is the possibility, once we get on top of this, that the global death rate in the coming years could be lower than would be normally expected, as coronavirus ended some people's lives a few years earlier than they would have departed the scene.

Death by association 

Thus, coming back to the "cure" currently being implemented, leaving aside the severe financial heartache and associated problems it will cause for millions of people across the globe, especially in developing countries such as here in Colombia, could it turn out that it ends up being responsible for a good number of deaths in its own right? Or, better put, coronavirus' collateral damage. 

With the panic and chaos being caused by these lockdowns, there's a fair chance that people who get struck down with other life-threatening conditions are either neglected or choose not to seek medical attention due to all the fear that abounds. Of course, this is going to be next to impossible to calculate. 

For the moment, we have to trust that the measures currently in place are the best option. We have no other choice. 

Nonetheless, from a Colombian perspective, if this 19-day lockdown we've entered proves successful in terms of keeping cases down, the hard-pressed masses will look for a prompt easing of restrictions. 

On the other hand, if it doesn't work, if cases skyrocket between now and 13 April, there's a fair chance those same people will ask what's the point? Why all this extra hardship for nothing? 

They might just decide that they have to carry on regardless. 

The next few weeks will tell a tale.   

________________________________________________
Listen to The Colombia Cast podcast here.

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

Loving Colombia

In a previous episode of The Colombia Cast, the "Colombianised" British-born historian Malcolm Deas said, in response to a question about his love for Colombia: 'One doesn't love countries. One loves people and dogs and cats and that sort of thing.'

I get where he's coming from to some extent. It's not the country in terms of its institutions and general modus operandi that people come to love.

The railway route: One of Wrong Way's favourites in Bogotá.

Fair enough, those of a certain disposition may indeed become enamoured with the state, especially if they find favourable tax laws, see it as being well organised, affordable and safe with a fantastic health system, things along those lines.

Failed state, fine land

Nonetheless, such pull factors don't tend to set the heart racing, leaving us weak at the knees. They're also not perpetual.

Now, if we take the above in relation to Colombia, it doesn't score well at all. Indeed as a foreigner, if these were make-or-break issues, you'd have to question why you're here when you don't have to be.

'I do like Colombia, in terms of its landscape that is to say.'

For example, personally speaking in any case, I don't love the inequality and the many ways it manifests itself, the public transport (from a Bogotá perspective anyway), the often irrational bureaucracy and the not-being-paid-for-services-rendered (hint, hint Semana, and to a lesser extent this publication, although I am perhaps the bigger fool, especially in relation to the former; I'm currently looking to rectify that).

Moreover, and more tellingly as this brings it into the realm of reasons why one should "love" where they are, I'm not a fan of the interesadas (gold-diggers), the ubiquitous lying, the regular inept service in so many spheres and the excessive national pride — 'Colombia is the best country in the world, with the friendliest people' — that overlooks all the other shortcomings mentioned.

Te amo Colombia

It's here where I depart somewhat from Deas' assertion that 'one doesn't love countries'. You see, I do like — I rarely use the word "love" for anything — the country itself. I like its geographical area and all the many wonders contained within it — I just don't explore them as much as I should really.

I like power-walking on a daily basis at 2,600 metres-above-sea-level because, perhaps misguidedly, I think it's good for my overall health, the frequent air-quality issues notwithstanding.

Of course, there's a bit more to it than just the topography. As I've oft-written about, I do enjoy the barrios populares and some of the characters that frequent them, even if they may be doing me more harm than good.

'With time, the infuriating practices of some Colombians might change.'

I like being what I'll call a light-touch local in Bogotá. The city has been home now for well over eight years, so in many respects I feel as much a part of it as anyone. Yet at the same time, I am an outsider, a northern European outsider, and that is an advantage for the most part.

So, as I yet again contemplate my Colombian future, perhaps "loving" the country, the territory it occupies, the natural landscape, is the most important thing.

The infuriating, irrational practices of a not-insignificant number of its inhabitants, emanating from the top and flowing down to the bottom rungs, maybe these will change for the better in the not-too-distant future.

You see, despite what my "B negative" blood type might insinuate, I am an optimist at heart.
___________________________________
Listen to The Colombia Cast podcast here.

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

'Is this the way to Guateque?'

When it comes to quaint colonial towns and villages, Colombia has a plethora to offer. Indeed, you could pretty much spend your whole life going from one to another, exploring the idiosyncrasies of each.

Some say that there's not a big difference between them. Once you've seen the "big" ones — big as regards reputation that is — such as Barichara and Villa de Leyva, that's enough. The rest are just poor imitations.

Impressive setting: The town of Machetá.

For sure, if you're on a short stay and lacking 'algunas palabras' in Spanish, it's probably best to go to the spots that are more renowned and better equipped for tourists and tourism.

Towns less visited

From a personal perspective, while I've nothing against the more popular towns, after over eight years in this country, heading to a place where I'll be seen as just another tourist isn't very appealing.
 

It's why over the last number of years I've opted for destinations that most non-Colombians, and even some Colombians, don't bother visiting or haven't even heard of.

Now, before you say it, yes, in such tourist-light towns and villages I also stand out (although, some have said, before I open my mouth and speak Irish-accented Spanish, that I could pass as a Paisa. Perish the thought!), but it's not in a tourist way. It's more a case of, 'Oh, what brings you here?'

'Machetá, the golden gateway to the Tenza Valley'

So it was with that modus operandi, together with the fact that after five months of not having left Bogotá any place would have sufficed, that I opted for the town of Machetá, an hour bus ride north from the capital.

My experience of rolling into such small towns on a whim is that there's always very reasonably priced accommodation to be found.

This wasn't quite so in Machetá. There were three options, two of them upwards of 50,000 pesos (just over 13 euros, it's all relative) for a room for the night and they weren't for turning on their prices. It was a case of third time lucky with La Playita, a recently opened panadería which also functions as a hotel. I got a nice en suite room there for 30,000 pesos (eight euros).

As for the town itself, the 'Golden gateway to the Tenza Valley' so it goes, it certainly has a very picturesque setting and an agreeable climate for a Northern European, set at an altitude of 2,000 metres — that is to say slightly lower and thus warmer than Bogotá but not overbearingly so, while there's no real need for additional layers at night.

The trademark activity for this mini-escape, as it often is, was walking/hiking the hills around the towns — I say towns as after Machetá I spent a walking-packed 30 hours or so in Guateque, 23 kilometres to the south-east in the Boyacá department.

Basically, if there are hills/mountains around the town, and in this part of Colombia it's a given, I always like to ascend them for a panoramic view of the surrounds.

On this front, while there's an alluring hill overlooking Machetá, the bushy vegetation obscures the view. Hiking further up the mountains for a couple of hours didn't bring better results. It was good exercise all the same.

Three of a kind

Guateque, birthplace of the infamous emerald tsar Víctor Carranza, on the other hand, is, at the risk of overstating it, a hillwalker's dream. The northern point in a triangle of two neighbouring settlements — Guayatá and Somondoco — each delightfully nestled on plateaus overlooking the valley, for a town that appears nondescript on arrival, it pleasantly surprised.

Rewarding: Walking the hills all around Guateque.

Indeed, had I heeded the advice of the receptionist at the well-kept Hotel Tu Refugio (23,000 pesos for an en suite room), I wouldn't have even given Guateque a chance. Having just paid for my room, Monica suggested that I take a bus to Guayatá, 'a much prettier town', and come back in the evening. I decided against it.

On the first day, I stumbled across a mostly unpaved loop road up the hills that gives lovely views of the three aforementioned towns. Motor traffic does use it so it's not quite 'at one with nature', but thankfully it's largely peaceful.

Mount Monsignor

On the second day, taking advice from some locals, I walked to the much smaller, sleepier village of Sutatenza, three kilometres to the north. The idea was to grab a coffee there and then stroll back to Gauteque for the bus back to Bogotá.

Again, though, my penchant for seeking out views saw me head up the only road going towards the hills. Google maps told me it would lead to a dead-end. The road did but there was a path that kept going up, so I followed it. And followed it, until I met a local, a man in his late 60s I'd say, slowly stepping it out to his home, replete with an infected, swollen foot for good measure. Some goer, but a pilgrimage he doesn't think twice about. He has no other choice I guess. 

I asked him if I kept on going up would I eventually get to a point where I'd have a good view of the valley below. He then began to tell me, in a way where he seemed to expect me to know, about the 'famous' Monsignor José Joaquín Salcedo Guarín who, starting in the late 1940s, used to broadcast a 'world-renowned' radio show atop the very hill we were ascending. 'Now there's not even a plaque to honour his memory up there.' Men have been honoured for less, haven't they? 

'From a high, the way back to Guateque looked straightforward'

The old man accompanied me for a bit, even going further than his own house. Considering the state of his foot and slow pace, I tried to tell him I'd figure out the path on my own, but he was having none of it.

We eventually parted ways when the way back to Guateque appeared much clearer. He told me there was no point going back to Sutatenza, which of course made sense.

However, as clear as the route looked from a high, I took a wrong turn and ended back in Sutatenza. Oh well. It wasn't a major detour and it did come with two beers along the way courtesy of a somewhat mysterious emerald dealer, a man reluctant to give me his name even after having given me his mobile number.

He eventually introduced himself as Raul. Maybe he's related to Víctor Carranza and didn't want this random foreigner knowing? A couple of drunken folk in Guateque the night before were less coy about telling me they were cousins of the 'great baron'.

With that little unplanned adventure, my badly needed mini-escape from Bogotá came to an end. It gave another timely reminder that despite their superficial similarities, each Colombian town has its own story to tell. We’ll find out Guayatá's and Somondoco's in due course.
__________________________________
Listen to The Colombia Cast podcast here.
Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan - The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz". 

'To the marketing agency, Robin!'

"Help, help! We need more help to put out this fire!" "Don't worry, I'm here." "Great!" 

You lend a hand, doing the best you can to quench the intense flames. Then, the person who pleaded for your assistance, getting word from somebody trapped inside the fire, informs you, your face frizzled, dripping with sweat all over, physically and mentally exhausted, that you're not putting out the fire properly. "What?! Do it yourself, so."

Marketing agencies: Modern-day slavery of sorts? (Image from web.)

'Can't someone else do it?'

That, more or less, sums up the world of the marketing agency. In the analogy, the person caught inside the fire is the client. The one asking for your help, the marketing executive at the agency, usually just as frustrated as you are.

For such an integral part of a company's day-to-day business — how it portrays itself to the public, to both its actual and potential customers — that the powers that be see fit to outsource marketing to third parties is a head-scratcher for me. A case of, so it seems, 'we don't know how to sell ourselves, so we'll get a group of relative strangers to do it for us, people not directly part of our organisation.'

'Never mind a revolving door, there might as well not be a door at all.'

If I'm going to be selling someone else's product or service, I at least need to feel that I am part of it in some way. My topsy-turvy experience in a marketing agency is of largely demotivated, weary staff, particularly those doing the donkey work such as copywriting, design and graphics.

The turnover rate at the team I had been part of where, after over a year, only 10 of the original 40-plus team remain, is a representation of that. Never mind a revolving door, there might as well not be a door at all. Of course, there are a number of factors at play, some of which aren't exclusive to marketing agencies.

For one, here in Colombia, there seems to be a general top-down belief across all sectors of the economy that being at work trumps actually doing work. Clock in the hours, bums on seats, ensure the office or whatever has the appearance of work about it. Wonderful. One important result of this: inefficiency. Another not-insignificant one is increased energy costs for the company when you have staff just counting down the hours.

Then there's the client. Word has it that not all are the same. Some are actually fairly organised, have a clear vision of what they want, plan accordingly and are thus relatively pleasant to work with. That is to say, not all come across as dysfunctional.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the company to which I've had to devote the lion's share of my time in this gig, Avianca. Just my luck that I, um, jumped on board with a crowd that appears particularly chaotic when it comes to its marketing.

'Agencies shouldn't yield so willingly to a client's unreasonable demands.'

After a few rather turbulent years (yes, I meant that), things might be looking a little smoother for the airline these days as it celebrated 100 years in operation in December. The arrival of Dutch 'saviour' Anko van der Werff in July 2019 was seen in some quarters as the start of a brighter future.

We'll certainly give him time to put a bit of order on things, to see that "northern European efficiency" click into gear. (That quote is taken from an interview I had with Mr van der Werff. It will be our next podcast episode. He definitely talks a good talk anyway.)

Yes-man agencies

Now, not all the blame can be laid at the door of Avianca's marketing guys for the way it operates. Management at the agency shouldn't be so yielding to their every confused, disorderly demand. Give an inch and all that. Yet, the client must be kept onside at all costs, that's the agency mantra. If not, there's always another waiting in the wings. They're all undercutting each other in a race to the bottom.

That's not to say a race to the bottom in terms of quality from the agencies, it's more one where wages are paltry and work demands excessive. For those at the coalface, this usually translates into burnout and stress with relatively little in return.

When it's your own baby so to put it, then you tend to be more inclined to go that extra mile. Doing somebody else's dirty work, right in the thick of it, removed from the very receiver of your done-in-good-faith deeds, doesn't fill one with much enthusiasm.

Put out your own fire, guys.
__________________________________
Listen to The Colombia Cast podcast here.
Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan - The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Location, location, location

In a recent episode of The Colombia Cast podcast, the eminent economist and political scientist James Robinson, co-author of the influential Why Nations Fail, restated his view that geography plays no part in the economic development of countries.

Location matters. (Image from Wikipedia.)

Looking at it from an Americas perspective from the time Europeans arrived on these shores, that Canada and the US are more advanced than their counterparts further south has a lot to do with pure chance initially, later followed by the systems of governance introduced.

Easy pickings

Basically, the Spanish found fairly advanced civilisations settled in areas rich in natural resources that could be relatively easily exploited for the homeland. The British, in contrast, had to deal with largely nomadic tribes inhabiting rather harsh conditions. 

One, oversimplified way to put it is that the Spanish found streets paved with gold to loot while the concept of a street didn't even exist where the British settlers landed.

'Climate certainly played a part.'

Had the roles been reversed would the state of what we now call Latin America be much better today? Would the US be the power it is? The answer to the latter question is probably not, based on how the Spanish Empire ran its affairs. 

As for the Brits in Latin America, well their own record in lands where a quick buck could be made is far from exemplary. Jamaica's not exactly a powerhouse now, is it?

In this regard, while geography per se wasn't the factor, one could say climate played an important part.

In terms of Jamaica and other Caribbean islands, it was their ability to produce an abundance of cheap sugar for the European market that made them ripe (pun intended) for exploitation. Thus, their location in the tropics was critical.

We must also consider the idea that the need to plan and prepare according to the seasons in regions where a harsh winter would see off those found wanting played some role in ingraining a more organised disposition in those living further north.

Speaking of those northern reaches, had Ireland not been located next to the greatest old-school empire the world has ever known (today's big boys, the US and China, are perhaps best measured in different terms) there's little doubt it would look much different today.

Nothing without EU

Of course, there are many interconnected factors that shape countries and regions. In Ireland's case, had it converted to Protestantism — or had Britain remained Catholic — the last few centuries would surely have been far less troublesome than they were.

'Ireland was a pedagogical powerhouse.'

While British interference in Irish affairs was a fact before the religious divide, it became fundamental for security for the emerging empire to control — at pretty much whatever cost — the untrustworthy neighbour to the west. (Do note that in the early days of Christianity in Europe, Ireland was known as the island of saints and scholars, a sort of godly, pedagogical powerhouse we could say. Subjugation by the British changed all that.)

Fast forward a few hundred years and, as I've written about before, a partially independent Ireland's proximity to mainland Europe, not to mention membership of the European Union, has been crucial in its economic development.

Imagine if Ireland, everything else being equal, had been an island just off Africa. How would it look economically and politically today? One just needs to take a glance at the countries in the Dark Continent post-colonisation to get an idea.

Weighing all this up, while there are many reasons why nations 'fail', your neighbours can play a significant part. Location does matter, at least in those vital formative years.
__________________________________
Listen to The Colombia Cast podcast here.
Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan - The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Trump: Better the devil you know for the US?

As much as some may wish it wasn't so, the person — nay man as it has been and looks set to be for at least another four years — calling the shots in the White House exerts global significance.

Trump: As the opposition dithers, he looks set to win four more years. (Photo from Facebook.)

So while there will be those outside the USA, and even a small number inside, who will plead indifference to this year's presidential election, the winner is sure to have some sort of influence on their and all of our lives, whether we like it or not

'Trump hasn't started World War III. Not yet anyway.'

Now, at the risk of being a bit premature here considering events of the past week and the fact there's the best part of a year still to run on the incumbent's term, we can say, thankfully and as predicted before he was elected, that Donald J. Trump hasn't started World War III nor turned his country into a Fascist dictatorship.

Making America heard again

What he has done is brought back that US bravado, or cockiness if you will, making it seen and heard again both at home and abroad. 

This isn't to say it's been all gung-ho, trigger-happy stuff in a classical American Wild West style. No. He's used the carrot-and-stick approach in dealing with his nation's most threatening challenger to world supremacy, China. Ditto with North Korea, more or less.

The stick has been used more so with Iran of late as we've seen to deadly effect, although it can be argued with some justification (how much the assassination of Qasem Soleimani will impact things domestically in the US in November is difficult to say at this remove). What he has failed to do is come good on his promise to reduce US troop numbers in the Middle East.

That latter negative notwithstanding, with an economy in fairly rude health by all accounts, coupled with low employment, a good number of his fellow citizens feel he has done enough to warrant those coveted four more years. 'Far worse presidents were re-elected' is what his supporters will tell you. 'Just look at the previous commander-in-chief, Barack Obama.'

For liberal Europeans, that's a hard one to stomach. Obama was their darling, the old-world style president that had been long overdue for the New World.

'The Democrats have left the country.'

The US under Obama for Europe was like seeing your old friend going out with someone who seemed a really decent, salt-of-the-earth type chap after having a few roguish partners. He wasn't the stereotypical loud, in-your-face guy we'd seen before. 

Alas, she reverted to type and then some when Trump won her over. 'We'll just never understand that young and reckless, yet alluring, US, will we?'

'Do something, Democrats'

A big reason why Trump looks set for re-election, putting to one side a highly unlikely impeachment, is to do with the opposition.

As Ronald Reagan reputedly once put it, 'the Democrats have gone so far left they've left the country.' And just like it has been in Colombia, being associated with anything close to the far left in the United States of America is pretty much toxic at election time.

OK, numbers-wise, thanks to the population concentrations on the east and west coasts, whoever finally appears on the Democratic ticket might actually, just as in 2016, win the popular vote. (One must also take into account the anti-Trump echo chambers reverberating around these more liberal sides to America. Their words tend to find more favour with non-Americans than those living in the 50 states.)

Lies of the land

This isn't, however, how the system works to get the keys to the White House. The electoral college vote should once again get Trump over the line.

I must say that if I ever got the chance to meet the current president, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to stomach him for any length. I certainly wouldn't be at ease in his company in any case. He is, after all, a serial liar. The man who gave us #FakeNews regularly says things that are clearly untrue.

The thing is, those who are doing their damnedest to get him out of office are also blurring the lines between fact and fiction. Truth being the first casualty of war and all that.

In one sense, November's presidential election is similar to what the UK electorate faced in December 2019: What's the least-bad option? The devil you know or the one you don't? 

With an opposition that raises more questions beforehand than answers, Trump is looking like the "safest" bet for US voters, as abhorrent as that is for many on the outside looking in.
_____________________________
Listen to The Colombia Cast podcast here.
Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan – The Blog & IQuiz “The Bogotá Pub Quiz”.