More on the military

Posted by on

Fewer than 1 percent of the population currently serve in uniform, and 7 percent are military veterans. The number of Gold Star families — the term for those who lost a family member to combat — is about 7,000 from Iraq and Afghanistan. Among  military families, veterans and scholars there is a basic premise — that civil society and military circles are culturally, socially and geographically separate This represents a form of isolation with real consequences for the country.

There is a prevalent attitude in some military and veteran circles — a feeling of pride for taking on a tough job in some of the most dangerous places on Earth, coupled with a simmering resentment that civilians are oblivious to their mission.  White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly suggested that discourse about those killed in action can only reasonably occur in the walled-off segments of society where losses on the battlefield are most directly and painfully felt, a dreadful comment. Geography heightens the separation. Military families and veterans tend to come from the South and Midwest, and recruitment often draws on those who already have military ties, making service in uniform a family business of sorts.

If military people  feel that America is disengaged from the never- ending wars, the problem is not going to be fixed if only people personally involved have the right to ask questions. We should value military service, but still critique  missions and the way they are conducted. We are paying the servicemen, after all.  On the other hand , as  one commentator remarked: “Military courage is something society needs to have and we should value it.  But we also need a civic body that makes this a country worth fighting for”.   Quite!  At the same time the public is tuned out because it is never consulted about new military commitments, or their outcomes.  Why, for instance, are U.S. forces in Niger?  We can sort-of guess, but nothing is explained.  There has to be more dialogue.  Personally, I think we need more military personnel back in their barracks, re-training.  And we need to retire swathes of senior officers and give opportunities to young officers with new ideas.

.

My predictions for 2018

Posted by on

I think it’s fair to say that I have a terrible record at predicting political events. In 2016, I predicted that Clinton would win the US election and that Britain would vote to stay in the EU. Then in 2017, I thought the EU would weaken because of a lethargic economy and divisions on how to deal with Brexit; in fact, the EU’s economy is growing much faster than expected and the bloc is united on Brexit. I thought the Conservative would win a landslide majority in Britain- they failed to win a majority at all. But with my abysmal record in mind, I thought I would make some predictions for 2018.

  1. Trump will survive any attempt to be impeached, but his popularity ratings will continue to dip. Despite having obviously colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election, Trump is unlikely to be impeached, regardless of whatever Robert Mueller finds out. Sadly, most Republicans will put party before country. Having said that, more scandals will emerge. Some people close to Trump may be accused of sexual harassment. I certainly believe a scandal related to Trump’s refusal to divest himself of his property and investments to prevent a conflict of interest will become headlines.
  2. Healthcare reform will pass, but it won’t be the full Obamacare repeal Republicans have been promising since the Affordable Care Act was passed. On the one hand, Republicans are desperate to repeal Obamacare- failure to do so will look incredibly embarrassing given how vehemently they have opposed it.  They will use the Budget Reconciliation process to avoid a Senate filibuster. On the other hand, deep cuts to Medicaid and a big spike in the number of people uninsured would cause too much damage in the 2018 midterms. So although the ACA as a whole will be repealed, key provisions of it will be kept in any Republican healthcare reform law. In the long term, the trend towards government-run healthcare remains on track. As soon as the Democrats win elections, a push towards single-payer will be a top priority.
  3. The Democrats will make gains in the 2018 midterms, but they will be largely inconsequential. In 2018, most of the politically controversial aspects of the Republicans’ agenda will be rushed through Congress before the end of the year, to take advantage of Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate. In 2019, regardless of the outcome of the midterms, Democrats will not be able to repeal or alter any major aspects of legislation. Trump will still control the executive, so most foreign policy decisions and the nature of immigration enforcement will remain unchanged. The best the Democrats can hope for until 2020 is to block more minor Republican bills.
  4. Putin will win the Russian presidential election, but the result will be hotly contested. Expect mass protests in the streets of Russia’s major cities, lots of arrests and a few coincidental deaths. Putin will continue to enjoy relatively high approval ratings. But without involvement in major conflicts abroad, expect discontent to grow regarding the Kremlin’s domestic policies. The Russian economy will continue to suffer from high inflation and low oil prices.
  5. Britain will become even more divided regarding Brexit. It will become apparent that Brexit means having to stick by the EU’s regulatory regime to avoid a hard border with Northern Ireland. The combination of low wage growth and high inflation will consolidate majority public opinion against a hard Brexit, but key aspects of society- the elderly, most Conservatives, working class post-industrial towns- will support it. Most people will continue to support Brexit on the basis of respecting the referendum result, but the number of people who support overturning Brexit or a second referendum will grow. Brexit’s opponents will point to opinion polls showing a majority of people believing that in retrospect, leaving the EU was the wrong decision. Expect anti-Brexit protests to increase in size, filled with young people worried about their life chances in post-Brexit Britain.
  6. The Conservative Party will become too divided to function properly, particularly by the latter end of the year. But an early election won’t be held, because no one wants it. Consequently, Theresa May will hang on to being Prime Minister, however weak her position may seem. The Conservative Party’s divisions means it is unable to unite behind a successor, and they won’t want a contest as this crucial stage of the Brexit negotiations.
  7. Germany’s political troubles will continue. Either another ‘Grand Coalition’ will be formed, or there will be another election. Regardless, Germany, and Angela Merkel, will have lost much of their authority on the European stage. Without a strong Germany or Britain, expect France to provide leadership. Emmanuel Macron’s approval ratings will rise, driven by an improving economy, the success of his labour market reforms, and the new-found prominence France will enjoy in foreign affairs. This will be good for European unity; not only is Macron a committed pro-European, but his pragmatic centrism is closer to European public opinion than the ideologically austerity of Merkel. A French-led EU will push ahead will creating a single digital market in Europe, fostering closer co-operation on defence and security policy, and negotiating free trade deals with non-EU countries. By contrast, Britain will look less relevant than ever.
  8. The World Cup will be held in Russia. There will be some controversy, particularly the record Russia’s football fans have of being racist against black footballers. Many gay football fans won’t attend for fear of their safety. Germany to win, I think, though my footballing predictions are even worse than my political ones.

The Epicurean solutions to climate change

Posted by on

Climate change is without doubt the biggest threat facing the world. Although it doesn’t mean the end of civilisation just yet, the adverse effects of climate change are getting progressively worse. Extreme weather is becoming more frequent. Crop yields in many parts of the developing world are becoming more common. Drought has become a routine way of life for many. In the developed world, such problems can seem distant and non-urgent. But climate change has already affect life in the rich world, from the drought in California, to the refugee crisis being exacerbated by poor crop yields in Syria https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-hastened-the-syrian-war/. Having said that, one of the cruellest ironies of climate change is that it affects the developing world more, despite per capita CO2 emissions being worse in the developed world.

The question then becomes what to do about it. Now to an extent, technology can be of great assistance. The cost of renewable energy has come down considerably in recent years. Wind and solar power are far more efficient than they used to be. But it’s not good enough simply to let the ‘free market’ solve climate change, as some American conservatives propose. Addressing the problem requires swift and decisive government action, because the companies aren’t inclined to solve the problem if it hurts their profits. This shouldn’t involve punishing companies with unnecessarily high taxes, but tax codes and regulatory regimes need to be fundamentally altered with climate change in mind. Here are a few of my proposals, some of which are already in the process of being implemented:

A high carbon tax, offset by lowering other consumption taxes. If carbon is taxed at a high rate, it will become far more profitable for energy companies to switch to renewables quicker. It has the benefit of incentivising renewable energy without the cost of a government takeover of the energy industry. Companies would be free to decide which renewable are the most efficient. The tax would have to be high enough to force substantial change. Having said that, other consumption taxes would have to be lowered to prevent a spike in inflation. A carbon tax would also have the benefit of discouraging car use, reducing congestion and paying for much-needed road maintenance.

A carbon trading system, where each company is given a limit on the amount of carbon they can emit. They can then buy and sell their limits with other companies. The European Union is in the process of implementing this. But the problem is that the carbon allowances were too high, so it didn’t make much difference. Instead, carbon limits should be much lower, and companies should have to pay more to increase their carbon allowance.

A moratorium on airport expansion. Businesses and frequent flyers wouldn’t like this. But the fact is that aeroplanes are enormous polluters. And in the age of the internet, flying has become less necessary than ever before. Flying also causes considerable noise and light pollution. It’s time people simply learnt to fly less.

Heavy subsidies for electric cars, financed by higher gasoline taxes. This is already happening in Norway, where electric cars are extremely common. Not only does this help reduce climate change, it also reduces premature deaths caused by air pollution. There is currently a transition to electric cars. But it is happening too slowly. Making electric cars more affordable, combined with more congestion charges for gasoline cars in our major cities, will make a considerable difference.

Encourage people to have fewer children. Now I’m a bit torn on this one, because I realise a lower birth rate can damage an economy because the working age population have to pay higher taxes to subsidise the elderly. But at the end of the day, climate change is more important than economic growth. All of these measures will be near-useless if the world population continues to expand at the current unsustainable rate. Aside from greater access to contraception and family planning, perhaps being childless should be incentivised using the tax system.

The good news about climate change is that the solutions are more affordable than ever before. The cost of renewable energy has come down, and people increasingly realise the urgency of the problem. Although Trump’s intransigence on this issue is infuriating, many American mayors and governors are choosing to ignore him. Trump won’t be around forever- his approval ratings are in decline and his supporters are disproportionately old. I’m certain there will once again be a global consensus on climate soon. I just hope that by then, it won’t be too late.

Leaders

Posted by on

Without realising, we can tell who is likely to become a leader, automatically giving them more of our attention. When a group of people who don’t know each other meet for the first time, leaders naturally emerge, signaling charismatic behaviour and a variety of vocal cues.

A group from Vrije University in Amsterdam have studied whether such signals triggered more automatic changes in who we pay attention to. They filmed meetings held by teams who had never met before over a period of seven weeks. At the end of this time, independent mentors rated each team member on whether they had emerged as a leader or follower. The researchers then edited the videos into 42 soundless clips, and showed them to 18 new people.

As the volunteers watched the videos, the researchers measured where they were looking, and for how long. They found that the volunteers looked more often, and for longer, at people who went on to become leaders within the group. The basic idea was that from an evolutionary perspective it might have been very helpful to recognise quickly who you should follow.

To find out how the leaders were able to trigger changes in others’ attention, the team analysed how the people behaved. They found that emerging leaders used active gestures more often when others were speaking, such as constantly moving their bodies, and large hand movements, and were “present” with their whole bodies and expressions throughout. Their negative facial expressions, such as yawning or staring blankly, were less frequent, although both followers and leaders smiled equally frequently. The unpublished data suggests that talking a lot helps to signal leadership, but what a person says becomes more important over time. Vocal pitch can also signal if someone intends to dominate or submit to another person. (The Leadership Quarterly, doi.org/cgzs).

Initially talking a lot and being present in the discussion is important, but as the discussion develops it’s more about what you say than how much you chatter on. “Being a solution-orientated person who doesn’t focus on problems is what seems to pick you out as a leader.”
The team’s results also suggest that women face additional obstacles in becoming leaders. In situations where women went on to emerge as leaders, people spent slightly less time looking at them than they did at men who went on to become leaders in other scenarios. The researchers assumed (correctly?) that there is a preference for male emergent leaders and this could explain why more men end up in leadership roles. (Helen Thomson. New Scientist 9Sept 2017).

My take: this seems to suggest that people will follow those who talk a lot, maybe quite charmingly, sound very positive, but actually say very little of substance, just look good. We have all encountered these people, who like the sound of their own voices, avoid difficult (negative) problems and monopolise the conversation. Missing is any attempt to include the quiet and shy in the discussion (What do you think?) or encouragement (Good idea!). If the researchers are right and have been reported correctly, no wonder we get some superficial people in positions of power. In America, to be a CEO you need to be male, tall, fairly slim, remember people’s names, play golf, dominate meetings without committing yourself to action, and, most importantly, be very handsome. I met people like that at General Motors years ago. The huge company was badly managed and nearly went bankrupt in 2008. Followers of Epicurus listen rather than talk and wave their hands (I’m joking)

Is the US military as good as it claims to be?

Posted by on

In June, an American Green Beret was reportedly strangled to death in Mali by U.S. Navy SEALs, allegedly in connection with a shadowy money-skimming scheme. (The military is currently investigating.) In July, The Intercept, the London-based research firm Forensic Architecture, and Amnesty International. revealed that a drone base used by U.S. forces in Cameroon was also a site for illegal imprisonment, brutal torture,and even killings on the part of local forces. (The military is investigating.) In August, according to a blockbuster investigation by the Daily Beast, U.S. Special Operations forces took part in a massacre in which 10 Somali civilians were killed. (The military is investigating.) In October, four Special Operations soldiers were killed in murky circumstances during an ambush by militants in Niger. (The military is investigating.)

This spate of questionable, or even criminal, activity involving U.S. forces in Africa should come as little surprise. Over the last decade and a half, operations on that continent have exploded. A cast of thousands is now carrying out about 10 separate missions per day, ranging from training to combat operations, which are up 1,900% since last year alone. U.S. commandos sent to that continent have jumped from 1% of special ops forces deployed overseas in 2006 to nearly 17% today, the highest total outside the Middle East. There have also been numerous indications of U.S. forces behaving badly from one side of the continent to the other, a sign of lousy morale. Few in the mainstream media or among those tasked with oversight of such operations have, however, taken any significant notice of this. (Nick Turse. TomDispatch) 12/17/1917.