“Land acknowledgements have become de rigueur at commencement ceremonies, film and music award events, and other programs. Something like this: ‘We acknowledge that the land on which we gather is the stolen and occupied territory of the Indigenous First Nation People who stewarded the land through many generations before White European colonialists seized it.’ Many take these acknowledgements quite seriously. Indeed, professors and employees have been disciplined for mocking them, because employers find mockery ‘offensive’ and ‘disruptive’ – unlike their reactions to ‘mostly peaceful’ Antifa, BLM and pro-Palestinian harassment and riots. When accepting her Grammy, singer-songwriter Billie Eilish used her onstage opportunity to criticize Trump’s immigration policies, saying ‘no one is illegal on stolen land’. Unless, of course, someone tried to enter her gated community and assert ownership over or enjoy a sandwich in her million-dollar mansion.” (03/07/26)
“OpenAI says Americans shouldn’t worry about the ethics of its new Pentagon contract. You’ll have to take their word for it (and Pete Hegseth’s).” (03/08/26)
Source: Ludwig von Mises Institute
by Ryan McMaken
“Historians have long noted that demands for unconditional surrender have worked to prolong conflicts rather than shorten them, leading to needless death on both sides. After all, Trump is essentially saying that the Iranians should put themselves in a position of accepting whatever terms the United States seeks to unilaterally impose, including the total dissolution of the Iranian state, plus sanctions, punishments, occupations and other humiliations. What government would accede to this? Very few would, which is why only very weak, small, and relatively unarmed regimes can be forced into accepting unconditional surrender after anything less than a protracted war. Iran, however, is not weak, small, or relatively unarmed. And, geography is in its favor.” (03/06/26)
Source: Common Dreams
by Medea Benjamin & Nicolas JS Davies
“The United States has once again launched a war in the Middle East based on false claims about weapons of mass destruction. Like the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US assault on Iran rests on allegations that international inspectors have already debunked. But beyond the false pretext lies an even more pressing question that few officials in Washington seem willing (or able) to answer: What is the US exit strategy from its war on Iran? President Trump has justified the attack by claiming that Iran refuses to renounce nuclear weapons. As he prepared to launch the war, Trump repeatedly claimed, ‘We haven’t heard those secret words: “We will never have a nuclear weapon”.’ Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, responded by reiterating Iran’s long-standing policy, stating plainly: ‘Iran will under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon.'” (03/07/26)
“Every new war that the U.S. wages — at least over the past six decades — is accompanied by a series of official lies, shifting and inconsistent claims about the war’s goals, and constant exaggerations about the grand progress toward glorious victory. Now, a full week into the Iran War started by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his partner, the American President Donald Trump, this war already equals, if not surpasses, the brazen war propaganda that instigated and fueled those prior ones.” (03/06/26)
“President Donald Trump has plunged the United States into an open-ended war with Iran, lacking clearly defined and achievable objectives, a discernible endgame, or a viable exit plan. This is a war of choice — Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States, and the White House is now scrambling to devise a strategy for a war already underway and proving more difficult than anticipated. The war will likely escalate as Iran digs in and hawkish voices push Trump toward maximalist — and largely unachievable — aims. By setting this crisis in motion, the Trump administration is repeating the same failures that have long defined US Middle East policy. Absent a course correction, the United States is on the path to another forever war.” (03/06/26)
Source: Responsible Statecraft
by Katherine Thompson
“This week efforts under the War Powers Act to check President Trump’s unconstitutional and unauthorized war in Iran failed on a mostly party line split in both the House and the Senate. The result isn’t all that surprising. The naivety, however, on the role of Congress in matters of war is staggering. Congress is in desperate need of a civics refresher.” (03/06/26)
“Other than among his devotees, Donald Trump has only the trust and empathy he has earned: none. It is too late for him to prudently increase Congress’s buy-in with his Iran policy by consulting it. So, the language and processes of law are the only arrows in his critics’ quivers. Those are, however, unavailing. Courts will not intervene where Congress is, as a practical matter, precluded by presidential nimbleness. There are many kinds of wars, and as many ways for presidents to evade Congress.” (03/06/26)
Source: Foundation for Economic Education
by Cláudia Ascensão Nunes
“Switzerland is the freest country in the world, according to the Human Freedom Index. Small in territory but giant in institutional autonomy, it has built a decentralized, monetarily stable, and deeply participatory democracy, all outside the European Union. While Member States have no alternative to the uniform directives designed in Brussels, Switzerland negotiates sectoral agreements according to its national interest and the democratic consent of its citizens. The new ‘Bilaterals III’ package, whose entry into force depends on approval by the Swiss Parliament and possibly a referendum, is a reminder that there is an alternative to the European integrationist ‘one size fits all’ model. Switzerland’s institutional architecture limits central power.” (03/06/26)
