Sunday, August 16, 2026

"A Flailing president"

It’s been a summer of profound discontent for Donald Trump. As his poll numbers keep dwindling and he flounders in his war of choice in Iran, he continues to suffer a series of body blows in the courts, hampering his attempts to break the law, weaponize his power to punish the innocent, and use the government as a personal piggybank.... 

Perhaps the most embarrassing flop has been right in Trump’s backyard, where the Reflecting Pool fiasco continues. We at Democracy Defenders Fund, along with our co-counsel Washington Litigation Group and Steptoe LLC, represent Davey Hearn, the decorated Olympian who was falsely blamed for damage at the Reflecting Pool.

The Department of Justice charged Davey with a felony, threatening him with jail for doing nothing wrong. The case was finally dismissed last week, after Jeanine Pirro admitted they didn’t have evidence to support the charges and that the damage to the pool was because of contractor failure — a contractor selected by the Trump administration without the normal competitive bidding process.

But even after the case was dismissed, Trump and his acolytes, including Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, have continued to bash our client and promote the false narrative that vandalism, rather than shoddy construction work, is to blame for the mess. And this week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Department of Justice is looking into potentially bringing new charges against Davey. 

So, on Thursday night, we filed our latest brief, further demonstrating why the court needs to dismiss these charges with prejudice. If the case is dismissed without prejudice, as the government wants, that leaves open the possibility that the government could bring this case back, even after its damning admissions. 

As we said in our brief, “The record in this case demonstrates a substantial and specific risk that, if the indictment is dismissed without prejudice, Mr. Hearn will face renewed charges, however meritless, driven by political pressure rather than the evidence.”

That’s why Norm Eisen and I, along with our colleagues representing Davey, will be back in court in Washington, D.C., on September 4 fighting to make sure this case is closed for good.

This tussle comes on the heels of two other seminal victories that we, with our partners, secured against Trump at the Supreme Court this term: his unconstitutional attempt to outlaw birthright citizenship and his illegal endeavor to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

Trump’s effort to unconstitutionally rewrite the 14th Amendment by fiat and eradicate our nation’s bedrock principle of birthright citizenship was one of the central missions of his administration. He signed an executive order purporting to outlaw birthright citizenship on day one of his second term.

But, just minutes later, we were in court with our wonderful colleagues to defend this essential constitutional protection. We immediately secured an injunction to prevent the order from going into effect, and after a winding road, with Trump fighting vigorously for this cruel and unlawful policy, we argued the case before the Supreme Court — and won. The court affirmed that the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause puts “the question of citizenship ‘once and forever [to] rest.’”

But, failing to take the hint, Trump has come back with another EO targeting birthright citizenship. And within moments, we went right back to court to stop that dead in its tracks and ensure that the protections currently in place — which the Supreme Court just affirmed — continue to protect all our clients and babies born in the United States.

And finally, after our second Supreme Court victory against Donald Trump this term, in which the court ruled that Trump could not peremptorily fire Cook, a letter from the White House last week indicated that the president was “considering” trying to remove her from her role again. 

As Norm said in a statement with our co-counsel representing Cook, Abbe Lowell: “These allegations are as baseless now as they were a year ago when President Trump tried to remove Governor Cook and interfere with the independence of the Federal Reserve. 

No matter what President Trump tries to do next, this much is clear under the facts and Supreme Court precedent — there is no valid cause for removing Governor Cook. As we did before, we will challenge this latest pretext and preserve her position and the historic role of the Fed.”

All told, this paints a picture of a flailing president, unable to accept defeat, making futile attempts to revive his dead darlings. But his losses, which aren’t just limited to these three cases, continue to pile up. And no matter how often he tries to come back, with your support, we will be there to stop him. Your paid subscriptions help us fight these battles... 

-Joshua Kolb, The Contrarian 


Saturday, August 15, 2026

"Why November Matters So Much" -Heather Delaney Reese

 


After days spent largely hiding away from the public view, the President of the United States finally reemerged this afternoon for a campaign rally at the Nassau County Police Academy in Garden City, New York. With “God Bless the USA” already blaring from the speakers, Donald Trump soaked in the excitement as he gripped the handrail, pushed aside one side of the curtains, and thrust himself into the room full of cheering police officers.  

Once on stage, he clapped his hands, fist-bumped the audience, threw his hands out parallel to where his suit jacket had bunched at his waist, and puckered his mouth to make kissing faces towards the police officers in the stands.

The event was promoted as the unveiling of the FBI’s 2025 Crime Statistics Report, but it was really a highly produced campaign rally ahead of the midterm elections. Because over the 70 minutes that Donald Trump spoke, he praised loyalist politicians, while attacking the press and the Democrats. He lost his train of thought often, even sharing, “I hate reading these boring speeches… to be honest with you.”

He declared he would be taking over territories that do not belong to our country, and he said he is not sorry for the high prices we are paying because of his war in Iran. But the most disgusting moment of the entire event was when he became completely fixated on young women and girls in the White House and went into a bizarre tangent about how ‘beautiful’ they were and how he knows he shouldn’t say what he was saying but that he was going to say it anyway.


“Every day I come to the White House, people are thanking me. ‘Thank you, sir! Thank you! Thank you, sir!’ Now, these young, beautiful girls. These young, beautiful girls. These young, beautiful girls in the White House, you know, they come in. Now, I’m not supposed to say beautiful, but what the hell? These young, these gorgeous, beautiful girls, they want to be safe, and they come. ‘Mr. President, may I speak to you?’ Yes. ‘Thank you, sir, thank you.’”

That was the President of the United States speaking. An 80-year-old man whose name is referenced more than 38,000 times in the Epstein files, while he was standing in a room full of law enforcement officers. He spoke about young girls like that in front of all of them, including many women. He told the audience he knows he should not say it, and then he said it over and over again. He could not stop himself. On X, Aaron Rupar shared a clip of the president saying this and wrote, “Epstein’s best friend says what?”

The irony of his words at an event that was supposed to be about crime was not lost. His purpose for even being at this event was for the release of the FBI’s 2025 Crime Statistics Report, which showed a 9.3 percent drop in violent crime, an 18.1 percent drop in murder, and an 18.5 percent drop in robbery. Trump stood at that podium and took credit for every single one of them. He called it the largest single-year drop in violent crime since 1937 and added that “Every single number is the lowest number in recorded history.”

But what he forgot to mention was that violent crime has been declining since 2022, more than two years before he returned to office. He did not mention that the murders had already begun falling in 2022, and then dropped sharply in 2023 and 2024 while President Biden was still in office. He also said nothing about how during his 2024 campaign, he called these same FBI crime statistics “a lie,” “fake news,” “phony,” and “a fraud.” When a reporter from Time magazine presented him with FBI data showing a drop in homicides in 2023, Trump said, “There is no way that crime went down.” He has no shame and no conscience. He just says whatever benefits him in the moment.

I kept thinking about something today while I was watching the President’s speech. When we live our lives trying to tell the truth, it can actually be shocking to watch someone lie so easily. Lying makes most of us uncomfortable. 

We might worry about the consequences and about hurting someone. We feel that little knot in our stomach even thinking about lying because we physically can’t imagine being untruthful. But when lying becomes second nature, that discomfort disappears. There is no hesitation, and there is no shame. They don’t have a conscience that steps in and says to stop. The lies just come out one after the next.

And that is what I kept seeing today. Donald Trump would say something that was demonstrably untrue and simply keep moving. There was no concern that the police officers standing in front of him might know better. No respect for their training or intelligence. No apparent embarrassment that someone could check what he had just said or how it would make him look. He simply said whatever served him in that particular moment and trusted that the outlandishness of it would cover for the obvious lie.

With Donald Trump, there is no moral center underneath any of this. He is not bothered or concerned about truth or facts. He only cares that people are cheering for him. Everything is transactional and exists only to serve Donald Trump. And I think that is also why he is so comfortable surrounding himself with some of the worst people in the world.

They don’t require decency from him or ask him to become a better person. They don’t care whether he tells the truth because truth isn’t particularly useful to them either. They accept the hollow version of him exactly as he is, because that version is useful to them. They can manipulate and use him. And in return, he doesn’t just accept them, he elevates and legitimizes them.

The entire event was a performance in grandstanding. Trump and his enablers were attempting to position his administration as powerful men who have performed well in their positions. They were hoping this would distract from everything that is actually going wrong.

And the officers in that room played their part. They cheered when Trump called Democrats “Dumocrats.” They laughed on command, and they booed when he mentioned Kamala Harris. They booed the sitting governor of their own state. And when they did this, the harm went far beyond publicly aligning themselves with someone who has no regard for the rule of law. They weren’t just standing behind and cheering for someone convicted on 34 felony counts. They were sending a message that further divides our country.

Police departments across this country are constantly fighting for public trust and to prove that they serve all communities equally. They are supposed to be nonpartisan when they are in uniform and on the clock so that the public can trust that they protect everyone regardless of who they vote for. This is for everyone’s safety. The more the public trusts its law enforcement officers, the safer everyone is. In one afternoon, the officers in that room reinforced some of the deepest fears communities across this country already have about the people who are supposed to keep them safe.

And then he lied directly to them about their own area of expertise. Trump attacked New York’s no-cash-bail law, saying, “You kill somebody, you rob a store, you go right back out on the streets. It is the craziest thing I’ve ever seen.” 

Every single officer in that room knows that is not how cashless bail works. They know it does not apply to serious violent crimes, and they know that people charged with murder are not simply released to go kill again the next day. He was lying about the very system they operate within every day, and they stood there and let him do it. They just stood there while the President of the United States made a mockery of their training. He disrespected every single person there today.

And when Trump told them he would “always protect our qualified immunity,” he said it as if he were offering them a gift. “Would you like qualified immunity, everybody?” he asked, and they cheered. What he was really offering them was protection. The suggestion that if they stand with him, he will stand between them and accountability.

That is not what qualified immunity is supposed to mean. It is a legal doctrine meant to shield government officials from certain civil liability, not a blanket promise from a president that law enforcement can do whatever it wants without consequences. Donald Trump was not strengthening good policing today. He was encouraging impunity. He was telling law enforcement that he will protect them, and asking for their loyalty in return.

He also tested a new talking point today, repeatedly layering the phrase “common sense” throughout his speech. “I’m a commonsense guy more than a conservative guy,” he said. “It’s all about common sense.” He doesn’t want his audience to examine whether what he is saying is actually true. He wants them to accept his words as the obvious conclusion that any reasonable person should already understand.

Once people accept that, everything else he says becomes the logical response, even the unpopular culture-war distractions become “common sense.” Even policies that might otherwise sound extreme can begin to feel reasonable because he has already told the audience that respectable people agree with him.

That is what makes this kind of rhetoric so effective. It flatters the listener into believing they are part of the rational group, the people who simply “get it,” while anyone who disagrees must therefore lack common sense. Facts and scrutiny no longer matter because disagreement itself becomes evidence that the other side is irrational. He is making everyone who challenges him on anything at all seem unreasonable simply for asking questions.

Dividing people is one of Donald Trump’s favorite weapons, and he will use anything available to do it. He called Chuck Schumer ‘a Palestinian,’ adding that “The radical extremists has not been disavowed by Chuck Schumer, who’s a Palestinian. He’s a full-fledged Palestinian. In fact, I’m looking for Palestinian garb. I’m going to send it to him for his birthday.” Chuck Schumer is Jewish. He is the highest-ranking Jewish elected official in American history. Donald Trump used “Palestinian” as a slur to describe a political opponent who is Jewish.

This moment had nothing to do with Israel or Gaza. This was about Trump seizing the opportunity to take an entire group of human beings, strip away their individuality and humanity, and turn their identity into something his followers are supposed to fear, hate, or laugh at.

He does it to immigrants when he calls them animals and invaders. He does it to women when he reduces them to their appearance. And today he did it to Palestinians and to the Jewish people. Every one of these attacks pushes us a little further apart from each other. It teaches one group of Americans to look at another group of human beings as something beneath them, something to fear and to ridicule.

And he didn’t stop there. He called New York Attorney General Letitia James “a real slob” and “essentially a dirty cop.” He called communism and by extension Democrats “the greatest threat to our country in history, including World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, or even 9/11.” Then he pointed toward the press gathered at the back of the room and said, “Well, look at all that fake news,” encouraging a room full of law enforcement officers to turn around and boo the journalists covering the event. And they did.

He is trying to strip what we have in common. He wants us to remember that there is always someone we are supposed to hate and blame. He wants us to walk around always feeling like there is not enough for everyone here, that our resources are stretched too thin, and that some of us are less American than others and less deserving of dignity. And that the people he is telling us to hate are somehow responsible for everything that is wrong in our lives.

The targets keep growing, but the purpose never changes. He needs us to stay angry and suspicious of one another. If he can do that and keep us fighting among ourselves, we might never stop long enough to look at the power and taxpayer money he is taking from all of us.

When it came to the gas prices his war has created, he told the room, “For you to pay a tiny little bit more for your gasoline, just remember, you’re doing it so that a very evil country cannot have a nuclear weapon... you’re at $4. It’s OK. I mean, it’s... I’ll never apologize.” According to AAA, we are paying the highest August gas price in recorded history.

Trump continues to present a version of the world that simply does not exist. He said once again today that we are the “hottest country” in the world. But that is not even close to being true. Not even inside his own company.

This week, The New York Times reported that traffic to Trump’s Truth Social platform plummeted 36 percent last month compared with the same period last year. Shares of Trump Media have fallen from a high of around $60 to roughly $9. The company reported a net loss of $238.1 million in the second quarter of 2026 alone.

And its grand strategy to monetize the platform by selling Wall Street traders early access to Trump’s posts for as much as $100,000 a month attracted just over ten customers. His loyal fans, the Americans who hang on every word he says, are even growing tired of him. And the big donors and businesses he expected would pay for this new membership simply because he offered it are jumping off his sinking ship and starting to distance themselves from him.

He rounded out his event today by telling those in the room with him that what is happening in their state is going to fail. He said,  “They’re destroying the city. They’re destroying the state. We want to be there for the state, but we don’t like... what’s happening is a guaranteed failure. It’s a guaranteed failure. It’s not like, oh, maybe it’ll work. It’s a guaranteed failure.” He might have been talking about New York, but he was describing himself and his presidency. He ended his time on stage with that awkward dance and then left the stage.

Looking around that room today, I just kept thinking about how different most Americans are from the man standing on that stage. Because for the average American, the people who are not getting richer from Trump or benefiting from access to his inner circle, life is actually pretty simple.

We want to do right by our neighbors. We want our families to be safe. We want to be able to afford our homes and groceries, send our kids to good schools, go to work, come home, and believe that if something terrible happens, the people around us will still care. Nearly everyone agrees that we don’t want to keep living like this. There are fringe people who enjoy the cruelty and like being entertained by watching other people suffer.

But I don’t believe that is most of the people. I think about the people we used to have relationships with, our friends and those we called family. Somewhere underneath everything they have been told to fear and hate, there is still a human being in there. And I have to believe that matters.

I don’t write every night because I think I am going to convert Donald Trump’s most devoted followers. I write these for you and for me. For those of us who see what is happening and sometimes feel completely alone, exhausted, angry, and frustrated, but know we cannot stay quiet in the face of what is happening to our country.

And maybe part of why I keep doing this is because I need the reminder too. I need to remind myself every single day that humanity still exists inside most of us, even when it doesn’t feel that way. Because beneath all of the propaganda and anger, the truth is still the truth. It remains true no matter how many times someone twists it, or how much money or power someone gains by convincing other people to believe a lie.

In two and a half months, we all get to decide what we want the future to look like. Because lies will not keep us safe. Turning against our neighbors will not make our families richer or our lives easier. Surrendering our judgment to an authoritarian will never give us the freedom he promises in return. It only makes us participants in whatever comes next. History has a way of catching up with people who convince themselves that they were only going along with it, and that they didn’t really mean it, or that they thought they would somehow be spared. In the end, we are remembered not only for what we believed we were building, but for what we were willing to help tear down.

And that is why November matters so much. We cannot control what Donald Trump says tomorrow or who he chooses to target next. But we can slow down his destruction of our country, and we can send a message to his enablers that we will never forget what they did.


Donald Trump wants us divided. He wants us looking across the street at our neighbors and seeing enemies instead of looking up at the people accumulating power while the rest of us fight over what remains. We do not have to participate in that. We can choose each other instead. He is trying to drag all of us down with him. But we are not going to let that happen. That is why I still have hope for America. And you should, too.

I’ll see you tomorrow,
Heather Delaney Reese


Summary of Illinois Gun Laws

Illinois is a shall-issue state, meaning that Illinois State Police must issue a concealed carry license if the applicant meets certain qualifications. However, Illinois differs from other states in that it still gives law enforcement the right to object to a concealed carry license being issued if they think the applicant is a danger to public safety or himself/herself. If the police do object, then the case is heard by the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board, who will make the final decision as to whether or not a license is issued. The applicant is notified by mail of the Board’s decision. There is an appeal process.

Open carry of a handgun on your person or in a vehicle is illegal. An Illinois Concealed Carry License (CCL) is required to concealed carry a firearm in Illinois. 

Applicants must be 21 or older. The license permits the licensee to carry a loaded or unloaded handgun on or about the person completely or mostly concealed from view of the public or on or about a person within a vehicle. 

A 16-hour firearms training course conducted by a state-approved instructor is required for all new concealed carry license applications. Non-resident licenses are only available for residents of Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, Nevada, Texas and Virginia. In terms of reciprocity, Illinois does not honor CCW licenses from any other state.      

Illinois law requires residents to have a Firearm Owners Identification Card (FOID) to possess a firearm or ammunition. FOID card holders (without a CCL) can legally carry unloaded firearms that are enclosed in a case. You must be 21 years old to apply or have a parent or guardian sponsor who is eligible for a FOID card. 

Use of Force in Defense of Other Property

A person is justified in the use of force when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other’s trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in one’s possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property one has a legal duty to protect. 

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Use of Force in Defense of Person

A person is justified in the use of force when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of deadly force only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.

Use of Force in Defense of Dwelling

A person is justified in the use of force when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other’s unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, one is justified in the use of deadly force only if the entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, and he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, oneself or another then in the dwelling, or he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

Liability   

In no case shall any act involving the justified use of force give rise to any claim or liability, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

[720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/24-1, 5/7-2 & 5/7-3]

Self-Defense

Illinois is a Castle Doctrine state. You are under no legal duty to retreat if threatened; using deadly force is justified.

-USCCA 

For other articles: glen brown: self-defense 

Illinois Quick Links

RECIPROCITY

LICENSE INFORMATION

LICENSE APPLICATION

REQUIRED TRAINING

LICENSE RENEWAL

LEOSA CARRY

LOCATION RESTRICTIONS

FAQ's

LINKS

RECENT UPDATES

RELATED BLOG POSTS


Friday, August 14, 2026

The USS Abraham Lincoln

Disturbing anonymous text messages revealed the alleged lack of food aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, as lawmakers demanded answers about conditions on the ship, which has reportedly seen sailors trying to jump overboard during a more than eight-month-long deployment.

Bleak conditions aboard the aircraft carrier have reportedly prompted desperate sailors to try to leap into the sea, and text messages from those aboard have shed new light on how gross things have become, according to a report by Meidas Touch’s Aaron Parnas.

More than 5,000 sailors and Marines set sail from San Diego on the Lincoln on Nov. 21, but the deployment — originally set to end in May — has been extended as the Iran war continues.

“This deployment is the worst one and I pray no other boat goes through the same,” one sailor wrote to a relative in a message shared with the outlet.

“Even people that have been deployed a hundred times claim this one to be the worst and believe it can get worse than this. The Navy does not care. The mission will always come first.”

“Haven’t had milk in 3 months,” the sailor said in another text.

“It takes so long for supplies to arrive, nothing fresh is included,” the sailor explained in another message.

“So, we haven’t had anything fresh except meat caused its freezed [sic],” they wrote. “Sometimes it gets here rotten.”

The messages come as lawmakers have begun demanding answers about reports of clogged toilets, mold or mildew in the showers, a lack of supplies and problems with the food supply.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) sent a letter to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao Wednesdayasking for details on the deployment and how reported problems including lack of “hygiene products, mold, broken toilets or laundry facilities, inadequate water supplies, or other deteriorating living conditions” are being addressed:

"There have been widespread reports of shortages of basic supplies, water contamination, plumbing issues, deteriorating mental health, deck safety concerns, and disruptions in the mail system, which have caused many care packages in route to the ship to be lost in transit for months. These reports warrant immediate attention, but they also raise a broader question: whether the Navy can sustain the operational tempo now being demanded of its carrier force, particularly as this Administration repeatedly commits U.S. forces to conflicts of its own choosing and increasingly relies on aircraft carriers to sustain those operations."

About 200 relatives turned out for a meeting with Navy officials last week, begging for help for their loved ones, MS NOW reported. One parent said that during that meeting, their sailor had told them they thought they would die on the ship, according to the outlet. Multiple families have reported similar instances, according to Navy Times.

The Navy has denied that any of the sailors are suicidal. “The health and well-being of every Sailor aboard Abraham Lincoln is a priority,” it said in a statement. “Based on information available to the command, we have not identified an increase in reported suicidal ideation or suicide attempts aboard the ship. We take every service member’s well-being seriously and have religious, medical and mental health professionals available to assess and address concerns as they arise,” the Navy said.

“Lincoln is providing a comprehensive support network, including onboard deployment-resilience counselors, chaplains, Fleet and Family Support Center services, Military OneSource, and medical professionals.”

The post Desperate Texts From USS Abraham Lincoln Sailors Reveal They’re Served Rotten Food: ‘Navy Does Not Care’ first appeared on Mediaite.

 

Thursday, August 13, 2026

Iran Has Changed the Question by Vijay Prashad

For more than three decades, the United States has treated Middle Eastern diplomacy as an exercise in writing the terms for others. Iran’s emerging regional strategy is challenging that privilege. The immediate evidence is emerging in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran and Oman are negotiating an arrangement under which Tehran could oversee vessels entering the Gulf while Muscat manages outbound traffic. The proposal remains unsettled, but it represents something larger than a maritime agreement: Iran is attempting to move the diplomatic agenda away from the narrow question of its nuclear compliance and towards the wider architecture of Gulf security.

Since the end of the Cold War, US diplomacy in the Middle East has often begun with a conclusion: Washington defines the crisis, identifies the acceptable parties, and sets the boundaries of the eventual settlement. Negotiation then becomes less a discussion over the political order than a process through which weaker states are asked to accept it. The agreements produced under this system were not literally surrender documents. Yet they frequently carried the political logic of surrender: one side retained the power to decide what counted as compliance, while the other was required to prove its fitness for economic relief, political recognition or limited self-rule.

Iraq and Palestine

Iraq was the starkest example. After the 1991 Gulf War, comprehensive sanctions devastated an already battered society. The United Nations’ Oil-for-Food Programme, established by Security Council Resolution 986 in 1995, permitted Iraq to sell limited quantities of oil while the proceeds passed through a UN-controlled escrow system to pay for humanitarian goods. It was presented as relief, but its deeper message was unmistakable: Iraq could access its own principal resource only within a structure designed and supervised from outside. Sovereignty had become conditional and punishment – including punctual bombardment by the United States – became commonplace.

The Oslo process operated differently, but it reflected a similar imbalance. The 1993 Declaration of Principles was negotiated directly by Israelis and Palestinians through a Norwegian channel and signed in Washington. It brought mutual recognition and created Palestinian interim institutions, but the arrangement postponed the decisive questions (statehood, borders, Jerusalem, refugees and settlements) while leaving the occupying party in control of territory and facts on the ground. Washington sponsored a ‘peace process’ without correcting the asymmetry that made a just peace so elusive. Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank became structurally permanent.

In both cases, the United States and the institutions it dominated, exercised a powerful privilege: they determined the question everyone else was required to answer.

Iran

With Iran, that question has for more than two decades been the nuclear weapons file. Concern did not begin in 2005 (the International Atomic Energy Agency’s chronology traces intensive engagement to 2002 and 2003) but the confrontation hardened after 2005, as Iran resumed nuclear energy related uranium-conversion activity and the dispute moved toward the UN Security Council. Iran’s leadership said that it was uninterested in nuclear weapons but was ignored.

From then on, almost every discussion of Iran was organised around enrichment levels, centrifuges, inspections, breakout time, and sanctions relief. The framing of Iran’s nuclear energy programme as a nuclear proliferation issue was politically convenient for Washington. It reduced a broad struggle over Israel’s nuclear weapons programme, US military bases, sanctions, and maritime control to a test of Iranian compliance. The United States could maintain an enormous military footprint across the Gulf while presenting Iran’s capabilities as the singular source of instability.

Iran is now attempting to invert that debate. Through diplomacy involving Oman, Pakistan, and other regional states, Tehran’s position is that the nuclear issue cannot be separated from the architecture of regional security. The question is no longer simply what limits Iran will accept, but it is also what limits should apply to the military presence and coercive power of the United States and its allies.

This is why the issue of US bases in the Gulf matters. 

For Washington, those installations are infrastructure that protects allies, energy supplies, and navigation. From Tehran’s perspective, they are the forward positions of a power capable of attacking Iran while remaining insulated from retaliation at home. Iran’s argument is that no durable settlement can demand permanent restraint from Tehran while treating the military posture of the United States in West Asia as beyond negotiation.

The emerging discussion over the Strait of Hormuz makes this reversal concrete. Iran and Oman have reported progress on a new arrangement for maritime traffic through the waterway. According to accounts of the proposal, Iran would oversee inbound traffic to the Gulf and Oman the outbound lane, with some form of payment for security or environmental services still under dispute. The plan is not final, and Washington opposes any arrangement that compromises free passage or gives Tehran control over its own territorial waters. Even so, the political significance of this arrangement that is being discussed is considerable.

For decades, the United States has long cast itself as the ultimate guarantor of Gulf navigation. The Iran-Oman talks suggest an alternative principle: the states that border a strategic waterway can construct its operating order themselves. That possibility also exposes a contradiction in sanctions policy. If commercial vessels must enter the Gulf through a lane administered by Iran, shipowners, insurers, and banks will need to know whether required Iranian services, data systems or fees trigger US restrictions. Merely sailing through Iranian territorial waters would not automatically violate every US sanction.

The legal problem would arise not from passage alone, but from payments to Iranian entities, the use of sanctioned service providers, insurance exposure, and the processing of vessel data through an Iranian-administered mechanism. 

But a functioning Iranian-administered system could force Washington to issue licenses, tolerate narrowly defined transactions or risk obstructing the commerce it says it is protecting. Sanctions would no longer be an instrument applied in a political vacuum; they would collide with the practical requirements of maritime passage. What this means for the broader US sanctions policy will become clearer only afterwards for insurers and shipping companies.

The wider regional picture reinforces Iran’s argument. 

The 2023 reconciliation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, brokered by China after earlier talks hosted by Iraq and Oman, restored diplomatic relations between the Gulf’s two main rivals. It did not settle their competition or erase their conflicts. But it demonstrated that de-escalation could be produced by regional bargaining and non-Western mediation (in this case, substantially, by China) rather than a US bombing campaign.

Pakistan’s mediation and the growing security dialogue among Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan point in the same direction, although they should not be mistaken for an Iranian-led bloc. These states have their own interests and, at times, deep suspicions of Tehran. Their significance lies elsewhere: regional governments are experimenting with overlapping arrangements in which Washington is no longer the sole convenor, guarantor, or author. 

US military action has repeatedly promised deterrence while producing escalation, displacement, and new grievances. Bombardment can destroy facilities and commanders, but it cannot create a legitimate regional order. Nor can a system be stable when one state (Israel) has undeclared nuclear weapons, continues to occupy a people and conduct a genocide against them (the Palestinians), and feels emboldened to attack its neighbours (Lebanon, Iran, Syria) whenever it wishes.

The real questions

The real challenge Iran has placed before Washington is therefore conceptual. Who defines the agenda? Who decides which weapons, bases, and alliances are destabilizing? Who controls the waterways through which the region’s wealth passes? And must every settlement be guaranteed from outside, or can regional powers (with all their rivalries) build enforceable arrangements among themselves?

The next Middle Eastern settlement will not be durable if it resembles a surrender document. It will have to address nuclear restraint, foreign military deployments, maritime access, sanctions, missiles, and mutual non-aggression as parts of one security problem. Iran’s achievement is not that it has solved that problem. It is that, after decades of being forced to answer Washington’s question, it has compelled the region to consider a different one. The issue is no longer only what Iran must surrender. It is what every power (including the United States) must be prepared to negotiate.

-Vijay Prashad is the Director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. His most recent book (with Grieve Chelwa) is How the International Monetary Fund Suffocates Africa (from Inkani Books).

Iran Has Changed the Question

 Vijay Prashad



Wednesday, August 12, 2026

Teachers


Stepping out of our normal lane for a minute, but we're on the eve of (or already into) the first week of school, so this feels worth saying. Public schools, and the people who make them run, are both a security blanket and a safety net for our communities. They're just there, every day, waiting to catch our kids when they need them. For most kids, most days, it's pretty simple. They go to school. They learn. They eat lunch. They see their friends. They come home. But when it's not simple, there's an entire network of people waiting.

When a child is hungry, somebody feeds them.

When they can't see the board, somebody notices.

When they show up without a coat, somebody starts looking for one.

When home isn't safe, somebody has to figure out what happens next.

When a child has a disability, people build supports around them.

When they're grieving, scared, homeless, angry, sick, struggling...or simply need an adult to notice that something isn't right...somebody at school usually does.

And then tomorrow morning, the bus comes back again.

We spend an enormous amount of time arguing
about public schools: test scores, curriculum, discipline, funding, politics, phones, books and a hundred other things.

Those conversations matter. Public schools aren't perfect. Nobody who actually works in one would tell you they are.

But sometimes all that noise obscures something pretty remarkable:

Every weekday morning, communities across America open their doors and essentially say, "Send us your children. We'll take care of them today."

And millions of families build their lives around the assumption that those doors will open.

Before daylight, a bus driver starts a route. A cafeteria worker prepares breakfast. A custodian opens a building. A teacher prepares a lesson. An assistant gets ready to help a child who needs them. A nurse prepares for whatever walks through the door. A counselor gets ready to listen.

And a principal is about to discover a problem at 7:42 that nobody on Earth knew existed at 7:41.

Most of it isn't glamorous. Most of it never makes the news.

Bring us the kids.

The ones who read three grade levels ahead and the ones who can't read yet.

The ones who have everything and the ones who show up with almost nothing.

The easy ones and the ones who will test every ounce of patience we've got.

Bring them all.

We'll teach them. We'll feed them. We'll keep them safe.

We'll make mistakes.

We'll try again tomorrow.

And we'll keep the doors open.

So as another school year begins, maybe this isn't the week for arguing about public schools. There will be plenty of time for that. Maybe this is just the week to notice them.

Notice the yellow buses rolling before sunrise. Notice the lights coming on in buildings all over your community. Notice the people standing at the doors waiting for children who aren't even their own.

Tomorrow morning, millions of families will send the people they love most through those doors...and thousands upon thousands of people will be there waiting for them. That's a pretty extraordinary promise for a community to make.

-Public School Apologist


What do we do best as teachers? by Glen Brown

We inspire others. We influence and move people to action. We take a person’s potentiality and make it an actuality. We offer our help to others because of our compassion and our empathy, because of our humility and our dignity. We communicate truths because of our integrity. We never give up because of our moral responsibility towards one another and the importance of trust among individuals. We fight against all injustices. We understand; we discuss; we mediate, and we act. We do what is right and model our behavior for others. We hold ourselves accountable for what we do and what we believe is true. We set the example.

What are we as teachers? We are leaders, consultants, diagnosticians and evaluators; we are life-long learners; we are architects for the experiences of others. We are what we want to see in others: our idealism, our indomitable spirit, our commitment to human rights and to the creation of a better society. We are responsible, intrepid and just. We are one of last bastions of hope for a society driven by amoral envy, indifferent greed and partisan politics.

We are appalled by hypocrisy and lies, by incompetence, irresponsibility and cronyism. We are appalled by intentional faulty logic and the unethical scapegoating of others, by arrogance and self-interest, by prejudice and the injustices done to others. We are appalled by irrationality, indifference, and authoritarianism; therefore, we must stay united and fight not only for the rights of others but for our teaching profession. 

-Glen Brown

I taught full time for 46 years and loved it: 35 years in public schools (29 in high school and 6 in junior high), plus 11 years in a Catholic University and part time at night in a junior college for many years while working full time as a teacher.

 

Tuesday, August 11, 2026

"One of the biggest blind spots in Public Health is the widespread recommendation for mosquito spraying (adulticiding)" -Jean-Marie Kauth

 

Part of the explanation lies, I believe, in the siloing of Infectious Disease apart from Environmental Health. Already, Environmental Health is given short shrift. But I find astonishing the simplistic, almost magical thinking that goes into decisions to spray dangerous pesticides for mosquitos across whole cities to reduce levels of infectious disease, while ignoring the obvious significant risks of impacts like cancer, autism, ADHD, lower IQs, birth defects, and other effects, particularly in children.

This is a lesson I have learned in the worst way possible – from personal experience.

We have every reason to believe that mosquito spraying in Warrenville killed our daughter Katherine, who died in 2002 at age eight after battling leukemia for four years. The chemicals used are extremely toxic – linked not only to cancer but to autism, ADHD, lower IQs, and other neurocognitive problems.

This has not really been up for debate since 2012, when the American Academy of Pediatrics put out their Statement on Pesticides. We know we are causing harm when we spray, particularly to young children and babies in utero – all to maybe prevent a few cases of West Nile Virus, most of which will not be fatal. We are counting cases of West Nile. We are not counting the deaths and disabilities that abundant evidence shows these ubiquitous chemicals have been causing for decades.

Be sure to call your City and find out if they spray for mosquitoes or treat lawns with toxic chemicals. I am always happy to come help those in the Chicago region with my credentials and PowerPoint if you can get a dozen or so like-minded residents to register their concern. 

I am on my City’s Environmental Advisory Commission (WEAC), and even I don’t always hear about initiatives to spray. Unelected mosquito abatement districts can wield a great deal of power, and they, as well as county health departments, are often influenced by those selling the pesticides. For now, my City’s policy is to not spray or treat lawns, ever since I went before them in tears when I realized to my horror that my children, one with cancer, had been exposed.

We have known at least since Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring came out in 1962 how dangerous exposures like this are. But I suppose it feels easier to just wish away the invisible, often delayed harms, mostly in order to quiet complaints about nuisance mosquitoes.

There is no doubt there will be increases in mosquitoes – as well as ticks – with climate change. But I have read at least four articles about this in just the last week, and they all mentioned increasing the use of pesticides, even though this is a vicious cycle. I can’t help but wonder about the influence of the pesticide industry, just like so many of the corporations destroying human health and polluting public discourse for profits in the US and globally.

Given the injunction in Medicine and Public Health to first, do no harm, such exposures should never occur involuntarily, particularly at the high levels we experienced first in an apartment, and then in our City.

What can you do to protect your family? The first and best thing to do is focus on mosquito and tick prevention. If you need to use some other remedy, make it the least impactful. Here are some suggestions, listed from least to most risky.

-Empty bird baths and other receptacles that collect water – mosquitoes only need a few tablespoons and a few days to make babies.

-Consider promoting bird, bat, and toad populations – a healthy ecology can naturally reduce mosquito populations.

-Cover up to avoid mosquitoes and ticks, and avoid the outdoors at dawn and dusk, when mosquitoes are most active.

-Use larvicides like Bacillus thuringiensis for standing bodies of water like detention ponds.

-Try repellents with natural plant extracts like citronella and lemon eucalyptus.

-Some populations, like older people who are particularly susceptible to West Nile, may want to consider use of DEET.

Pesticides like organophosphates (chlorpyrifos, MosquitoMaster, other names) and pyrethroids (pyrethroids, Sumithrin, Prallethrin, other names) should almost never be used except in cases of real Public Health emergency. Just because applicators say they are using “ultra-low volumes” does not mean you will not experience harm – our whole family was made sick. And keep in mind that chemicals like piperonyl butoxide, which are not labeled as active ingredients, are still toxic.

Never have private spraying done, and if your neighbor hires pesticide applicators, you have the right in many states to register for advance notice from the applicators.

For more help in protecting your family from environmental hazards, see the Toolkit for my forthcoming Poisoning Our Children as well as the highly recommended Midwest Grows Green (https://midwestgrowsgreen.org/what-you-can-do/all-resources/) and the EPA’s Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit toolkit (https://wspehsu.ucsf.edu/curriculum-tools/pediatric-environmental-health-toolkit/). I also highly recommend Pesticide Action Network at https://www.panna.org/resources/ and the Children’s Environmental Health Network at https://cehn.org/

The book I have worked towards for more than 20 years, Poisoning Our Children, is now available for pre-order at https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/54124/poisoning-our-children?srsltid=AfmBOoom9b8VL_44YjXIzfJkCpIVzRaVnN1lcpFkbURbYYGufR4-avTi#book__reviews

Pre-orders are hugely important, as they affect whether bookstores stock the book, how algorithms surface it, and how seriously publishers take it. Your support matters more than you know. All author proceeds will be donated to Environmental Health non-profits.

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Jean-Marie Kauth