“When President Donald Trump [pretended he had] changed the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War last year, many saw it as merely a branding exercise, but as the fierceness of Operation Epic Fury in Iran has shown us, it was much, much more than that. On Easter Sunday, our military pulled off a daring rescue of a downed airman behind enemy lines, and what it made clear, once again, is that Trump’s Department of [Defense] is run by soldiers, not by experts, and the results are phenomenal. As Secretary of [Defense] and former frontline veteran Pete Hegseth has put it many times, his Pentagon will focus on ‘maximum lethality, not tepid legality.'” [editor’s note: If Hegseth is Secretary of War and heads a Department of War, he and it need to return all the money Congress appropriated to the Department of Defense – TLK] (04/07/26)
“Over hundreds of pages, Smith patiently shows why both peace and a tolerable administration of justice are historically rare, and continually fragile. To the extent that some society or other happens to have them, it seems to be neither the natural course of things nor the result of wise and judicious statesmanship but rather barely better than luck. Smith was not an esoteric writer, but he was a patient one. He laid out arguments and counterarguments at narrative length and expected readers to follow along with him.” (04/08/26)
“Richard Nixon employed a ‘madman theory’ while he negotiated with the North Vietnamese and Soviets. Nixon wanted the leaders of those countries to think that he was unpredictable, volatile and willing to risk nuclear destruction. In turn this caused the Vietnamese and Soviet leaders to tread with reason and use cool minded methods. It forced them to make concessions and placate the irrational leader of the ‘free world.’ The theory is based on the premise that an irrational leader is more dangerous than a rational one. … It is unlikely the current US president has the calculation and awareness for such methods, let alone the understanding of history.” (04/08/26)
“In the town of Calvin, the married couple Candi Mentink and Todd Collard conceived an entrepreneurial idea that their state’s law says is forbidden. They sell inexpensive caskets wrapped in vinyl graphic designs depicting hunting, fishing, religious motifs, sports teams’ logos, perhaps even the likeness of famous Oklahomans. Imagine whiling away eternity in a Mickey Mantle casket. Heavenly. Thanks to the internet, they can sell caskets to people in Orlando or Ottawa or Oslo or Okinawa. But not Oklahoma, as they learned when the law, in its majesty, pounced on their company’s booth at the state fair.” (04/08/26)
Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation
by Sarah Hamid
“When people remember the 2011 uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), they picture crowded squares, raised phones, and the feeling that the internet had finally shifted the balance of power toward ordinary people. But the past decade and a half is also a story about how governments, companies, and platforms turned those same tools into the backbone of a powerful state surveillance apparatus. For activists, journalists, and everyday users, that means now living with a constant threat: the phone in your pocket, the platforms you organize on, and the systems you rely on for safety and connection can be weaponized at the flip of a switch.” (04/08/26)
Source: The American Conservative
by Liam Childers
“We’ve heard it all before. Pro-war MAGA commentators insist that every move President Donald Trump makes is a strategic masterstroke. The war with Iran is no exception. What appears to be a Middle Eastern quagmire in the making is not a blunder at all. Instead, this war is ‘really’ about China. Another oil shock is nothing to worry about. It is ‘really’ leverage against America’s ‘main rival.’ Another open-ended entanglement is not overextension. It is ‘really’ the opening act of a coherent Indo-Pacific strategy that the ‘America Lasters’ are too daft to understand. This is the 4D chess defense of the Iran war. It is also nonsense, cooked up by propagandists and consumed by those eager to believe Trump hasn’t betrayed his base.” (04/08/26)
“Yesterday began with Donald Trump issuing genocidal threats against Iran on social media and ended (just ten hours later) with the announcement of a 14-day ceasefire, on Iran’s terms. Even by the volatile standards of Trump’s presidency, the whiplash is extraordinary. What, then, have the two sides actually agreed to, and what might it mean? In a subsequent post, Trump asserted that Iran had agreed to keep the Strait of Hormuz open during the two-week pause in hostilities. Negotiations, he added, will proceed over that period on the basis of Iran’s 10-point plan, which he described as a ‘workable’ foundation for talks. … The United States has not, of course, signed on to all ten points. But the mere fact that Iran’s framework will anchor the negotiations amounts to a significant diplomatic victory for Tehran.” (04/08/26)
“Trump’s failed use of force has blunted the credibility of American military threats, introducing an entirely new dynamic into the diplomatic track.” (04/08/26)
