The Centenary of the Battle of the Somme

My friend rather patiently explained to me the meaning of Remembrance Day, and eventually I realized it was America's Veterans Day. For my friend, as for many others of the British baby boom generation (Christopher Hitchens once said the same to me), Remembrance Day was a day for remembering the horrors of war. That is to say, it was a day for remembering, not the sacrifices made by the First World War generation for later generations (which is how the Allied dead of the Second World War are still remembered, the Greatest Generation's sacrifice for us), but instead a day for remembering that the Great War generation had merely been sacrificed. Cruelly, for no particularly worthy end, unintentionally even, by incompetent generals and murderously patriotic politicians, to the bloodthirsty and yet bloodless machines of war, to the machine gun and the artillery.

There are serious dissenters to the view that the First World War was essentially a pointless war, but for many, as for my friend, the so-called "Lost Generation's" sense of the utter senselessness of it all predominated (sympathetically analyzed in Paul Fussell's classic literary study The Great War and Modern Memory). 

Whatever the correct understanding of the Great War, however, no single battle so exemplifies the sense of pointless slaughter, of men being sacrificed, as the Battle of the Somme, which began one hundred years ago today.  On July 1, 1916, British forces attacked the entrenched German forces at the Somme, and took an astounding 55,000 casualties, including 20,000 killed in action in that first day of fighting.  And yet this was merely the beginning, as the British high command continued to press the attack for months, until the operation came to an inconclusive close in November 1916. The final losses for all belligerents were around one million men killed or wounded. 

The Netherlands' Upcoming Experiment With Universal Basic Income

Nowadays, the Dutch city of Utrecht is about to see if such a place, where citizens’ fundamental needs are met without any obligations to work, need not be pure fantasy. There, the local government is planning to conduct an experiment that would give 250 Dutch citizens currently receiving government benefits a guaranteed monthly income. A two-year test period is tentatively set to begin in January of next year, and some citizens of Utrecht and some nearby cities will receive a flat sum of €960 per month (about $1,100).
According to Loek Groot, an associate professor at the Utrecht University School of Economics who is working with the government on the project, the Netherlands’ current welfare system wastes too much money and doesn’t do enough to help its beneficiaries. (Others are quick to say the same of America’s.) Groot’s hope is to learn if a guaranteed income might be a more effective approach.

Supreme Court strikes restrictive Texas abortion law

Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the court’s liberals in the 5-3 decision that struck two key provisions in the Texas law, which the court said placed unconstitutional burdens on women seeking abortion...
...
In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a group of Texas abortion clinics had challenged the state law that required abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and to perform abortions only in ambulatory surgical centers.
Opponents of the law said the restrictions have already closed half of the state’s abortion clinics, imposing an undue burden on a woman’s access to abortion...

Creepy startup will help landlords, employers and online dates strip-mine intimate data from your Facebook page

We should be actively thinking about and debating the coming loss of privacy:

 Its first product, Tenant Assured, is already live: After your would-be landlord sends you a request through the service, you’re required to grant it full access to your Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and/or Instagram profiles. From there, Tenant Assured scrapes your site activity, including entire conversation threads and private messages; runs it through natural language processing and other analytic software; and finally, spits out a report that catalogues everything from your personality to your “financial stress level.”

Egg producers pledge to stop grinding newborn male chickens to death

If we actually saw what happened in industrial farms...

It’s a disturbing practice most Americans probably know nothing about: On the day they’re born, all the fluffy male chicks born to egg-laying hens at hatcheries are gruesomely killed — usually by being run, while conscious, through what is essentially a blender.
That’s because they’re useless to the industry. They can’t grow up to lay eggs, and they weren’t bred to be the fast-growing chickens sold as meat.
But that’s going to change. In what counts as huge news in the animal welfare world, United Egg Producers — the industry group that represents hatcheries that produce 95 percent of all eggs produced in the United States — announced Thursday that it would end this “culling” of millions of chicks by 2020, or as soon as it’s “economically feasible” and an alternative is “commercially available,” according to the Humane League, which negotiated the agreement.

Omar Mateen, Lone-Wolf Terrorist: What does it mean that the Orlando shooter pledged allegiance to ISIS?

Stopping lone wolf attacks is exceptionally difficult. When an individual travels abroad to fight in Syria or is in contact with ISIS handlers, U.S. intelligence can pick up on the communication and interaction. And by going abroad to fight for a jihadist group, an individual is committing a crime and can be arrested. Lone wolves, by definition, lack such links. The San Bernardino attackers were not on law enforcement’s radar screen before striking. And given permissive U.S. gun laws, even someone like Mateen who allegedly abused his spouse and was repeatedly investigated by the FBI, could legally purchase an semi-automatic weapon because he had not yet openly supported a terrorist group.* The FBI is already aggressive against potential terrorists to the point that civil liberties groups criticize it for entrapment and otherwise using stings too aggressively.
Because even a struggling ISIS retains its appeal and at least some of its supporters will stay off the radar screen, lone wolf attacks are likely to continue. In addition to continuing aggressive law enforcement efforts, the best thing U.S. leaders could do is to promote a sense of resilience and avoid demonizing Muslim Americans, recognizing that even as we mourn the tragic deaths of so many of our countrymen we must ensure that someone like Mateen is portrayed as hateful and pathetic, not as a representative of a broader threat among American Muslims or part of some grandiose ISIS plot.

Inside the donor network: Studies unravel the towering influence money has over politics — on the right and left

Examining two of the largest networks, the Koch network on the right and the Democracy Alliance on the left, Skocpol identifies a number of attributes defining a donor consortium. The first is continual giving, where members of each network contribute tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to the network and its partners. This long-term focus supports these networks’ goals, which are temporally and substantively broad. Donor consortia think beyond election cycles and thus can undertake efforts, like supporting cultural shifts, which take place over a long period of time. They focus on a wide array of endeavors and policies, supporting everything from academics to advocates to political candidates who support work that comports with the network ideology. Finally, there is a major social element of these networks, including a number of in-person meetings where donors can attend sessions with political operatives, members of the media, advocates, and academics, creating a community of like-minded individuals working to overcome the same political challenges. (One of us, Sean, has previously discussed the political science research on the Koch Network). 
While individual donors are the most visible mechanism for money in politics, donor consortia are increasingly important. Whenever journalists criticize the Koch Network, conservatives cry “Soros,” and yet as the graph below shows, the full weight of the Democracy Alliance is below that of the Koch network, and while the number of donors in the Democracy Alliance has remained stable, the Koch Network has increased dramatically...
Skocpol also explores the occupations of donors and finds that finance, insurance and real estate account for a large share of donors on both the left and right. She finds that mining, retail and manufacturing are more common on the right. However, professionals, scientists, information technology (Silicon Valley) and entertainment are more common on the left. Unsurprisingly, there were no workers in either donor consortia (as we’ve discussed previously, workers are underrepresented across the political system).
...Skocpol’s work shows the growing power of organized donors over the American political system. In a paper with Alex Hertel-Fernandez, Skocpol notes the influence of Koch-funded organizations. They find that public opinion has little impact on the passage of anti-union right-to-work laws, while the presence of a paid Americans For Prosperity (a Koch-backed organization) state director did (see Table 1). They find, quite stunningly, that a paid AFP state director (a measure of mobilization) increases the probability of a right-to work law by almost 30 percentage points, equal to the impact of partisan control of government. Big donors are increasingly powerful in shaping policy at the state level, in some cases even more powerful than traditional lobbying forces like the Chamber of Commerce.

U.S. Appeals Court Upholds Net Neutrality Rules In Full

It's the idea that phone and cable companies should treat all of the traffic on their networks equally — no blocking or slowing their competitors, and no fast lanes for companies that can pay more.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit delivered a slam-dunk victory to the Federal Communications Commission as it rejected the petition filed by telecom, cable and wireless industry associations alongside AT&T, CenturyLink and several smaller providers.
The ruling was celebrated as a victory for consumers by various public interest groups and Internet companies that had supported the FCC in the lawsuit. However, the telecom industry is expected to continue battling the regulations in Congress and before the nation's higher court: