The Sprite of Mischief Strikes Again

And #DogShirtDaily has an exclusive interview

Good Morning:

I don’t normally break news on #DogShirtDaily, but I’m going to do so today: Read here if you want the back story on the operation to interrupt the speeches of Trumpist officials with mocking music.

You might recall that a few weeks ago, a certain Sprite of Mischief somehow managed to cause a Jim Jordan speech to be interrupted with strains of “Send in the Clowns” and “You Ain’t Nothing But A Liar.”

I covered the first Sprite of Mischief attack here:

Well, the Sprite of Mischief, as I shall now forever call him, her, it, or they has struck again, this time against Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who on Aug. 6 attempted a fireside chat with former Wisconsin Governor Scot Walker (R) at the Young America's Foundation's annual Conservative Student Conference in Washington, D.C. Here is C-SPAN’s coverage of the whole affair.

And here are some choice excerpts:

This one is particularly excellent. Circuit music!

This time, the Sprite of Mischief got some media attention for his, her, its, or their stunt. “Linda McMahon Interrupted by Circus Music at Conservative Conference,” reports Newsweek. “

The Independent covered it here.

Here’s The Daily Beast.

And the Sprite of Mischief clearly got under the skin of Scott Walker, who speculated in real time, perhaps jokingly, that it was probably the Chinese Communist Party (I’m not making that up; check out the first video clip) and later told Newsweek: "Radicals tried to stop Secretary McMahon from being heard, just like they do to conservative voices on college campuses." He also said that “Our students are not deterred, nor was the Secretary. We have the truth on our side!"

He also whined about it on Twitter:

So who is the Sprite of Mischief? Short answer: I have no idea. But I will say this, on his, her, its, or their behalf.

First of all, the Sprite of Mischief is not me. This is not some secret identity of mine. I promise. Nor do I direct the Sprite of Mischief in any sense. This is an independent actor.

Second, the Sprite of Mischief is not the Chinese Communist Party or, for so Walker also jokingly suggested, a Democratic senator. Rather, the Sprite of Mischief is an individual or group engaged in civil disobedience because he, she, it, or they is outraged

Third, I am authorized by the Sprite—who has found ways of contacting me anonymously—to inform you that the Sprite was inspired by this “The Situation” some months ago.

Fourth, while the Sprite of Mischief is not me and I do not direct in any sense his, her, its, or their activities, I do want to say that I wholeheartedly support these activities. They are not, despite what Scott Walker may think, an effort to silence conservative voices or prevent people from speaking. They are an effort, as the Sprite puts it, briefly to mock people that wield a tremendous amount of power in a fashion that will garner public attention—an audio version of holding up a protest sign at a speech. The Sprite describes his, her, its, or their mission as follows:

The focus is on those who use their position and platform in ways that I/we believe are degrading the country’s democratic values and rule of law, and that mislead Americans about what they are doing, why, or how. The brief audio disruptions aim to serve as a reminder to both them and those watching that there is no ultimate impunity from being called out for this; that at least some segment of the population is aware of what they are doing and disagrees adamantly. Also, as they always seem to tell others, can’t people just take a joke?

Fifth, I want to correct the impression that the Sprite of Mischief is a hacker who is “hacking” the sound system at these events. This implies some illegality on the sprite’s part that, at least as I understand what he, she, it, or they is doing, it not true. Hacking of an audio system, after all, might conceivably violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, at least if the hack involves unauthorized access to computer system. I don’t want to reveal anything about the Sprite’s technique, but as far as I understand it, that is not what he, she, it, or they is doing.

In short, whoever the Sprite may be, I wish him, her, it, or they well and am proud to have inspired the enterprise.

---

Wednesday on #DogShirtTV, the estimable

Eve gaumond

and I discussed the actual process of writing books, as well as dissertations and other long form writing projects. Kleio the dog joined us with a stolen shoe:

Thursday on #DogShirtTV, the estimable

Holly Berkley Fletcher

and I discussed the situation for fired federal workers seeking jobs, considered what animals we’d like to be reincarnated as, and pondered the merits of selling meth and starting a smuggling ring. Also, the number of cacti is growing rapidly, posing an important linguistic issue (see below):

---

Recently On Lawfare

Compiled by the estimable Mary Ford

From Russian Interference to Revisionist Innuendo: What the Gabbard Files Actually Say

Renee DiResta parses through a trove of documents released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who claimed they reveal former President Barack Obama and top intelligence officials’ years-long “treasonous conspiracy” to sabotage President Trump. DiResta argues that Gabbard’s claims of a conspiracy are baseless, and that the documents drop is yet another attempt by the Trump administration to create doubt about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

These documents don’t negate “interference” in any way, and the Crossfire Hurricane “collusion” investigation had already been active for six months. Either Gabbard is acting in bad faith, or she can’t comprehend the meaning of her own documents.

In short: this first go at a treasonous-conspiracy theory collapses under the weight of its own misunderstandings.

The World Learned the Wrong Lesson from Hiroshima

Graham Parsons—on the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima—questions the commonly held notion that there is conflict between morality and military strategy in war. Parsons explains that law and morality can, in fact, serve as important safeguards against unnecessary harm.

This is the basis of his vision of military readiness. He is overseeing reforms of the military that he thinks are a return to the military’s “warrior ethos.” Military service members should be focused only on lethality. They are killers, nothing more. Everything else, including international law, inclusivity, and liberal education, is being sidelined or curtailed.

Hegseth has chosen his side in the conflict between strategy and morality that Hiroshima supposedly reveals.

America’s Costly Retreat from the Pacific

In the latest installment of Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Essay series, Charles Edel and Kathryn Paik argue that the United States’s neglect of smaller Pacific Island nations has created an opportunity for China to establish a stronger foothold in the region, and suggest five steps Washington can take to reengage with these countries.

Beijing is capitalizing on Washington’s perceived retreat. In April 2025, China announced direct flights between Shanghai and Nadi, Fiji, with the Chinese ambassador noting that the U.S. trade war presented an opportunity for enhanced trade. In May, Beijing hosted Pacific foreign ministers in China for the first time, and during the summit unveiled plans for more than a hundred climate-related projects for the region—a stark contrast to the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and cuts to climate-focused grants.

Building Public Compute for the Age of AI

Sarosh Nagar and David Eaves compare how the United States, China, and the European Union are building ways for public-goods-creating entities to access compute power—the infrastructure and services needed to perform essential computational operations—to stay competitive in an age where artificial intelligence (AI) is being deployed rapidly.

Together, these efforts paint a disparate picture of the global race to give researchers and other public goods creators access to compute. The United States has had a series of programs and pilots, but they need to be scaled up to meet researchers’ needs. China is embarking on a state-led effort, but export controls may hamper its effectiveness. Europe’s EuroHPC is similarly embarking on an effort targeted at public goods creators (and other players) but faces structural challenges owing to its deficiencies in the computer market.

Evaluating the “Woke AI” Executive Order

Alan Rozenshtein evaluates three big questions about technology, law, and politics that the “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government” executive order raised, arguing that, despite its transparent political posturing, the order is reasonably substantive.

The executive order raises three distinct questions that get to the heart of current debates over technology, law, and politics. First, is the order a constitutional exercise of the government’s procurement power, or does it violate the First Amendment? Second, regardless of its legality, are the principles it champions good policy for government AI systems? And third, what does the order’s strange blend of MAGA rhetoric and technocratic policy reveal about how this administration operates?

The short answer is that the order is likely constitutional, its principles are normatively reasonable (if imperfectly articulated), and its structure shows the compromises necessary when trying to make rational policy under an irrational regime.

Podcasts

On Lawfare Daily, Mykhailo Soldatenko sits down with Oona Hathaway to discuss the deterioration of the norm prohibiting the use of force in international relations, why it’s concerning, and what to do about it.

On Lawfare Daily, Justin Sherman sits down with Sam Bresnick to discuss his recent report entitled, “Big Tech in Taiwan: Beyond Semiconductors,” how companies think about geopolitics and the security threat landscape, and perspectives on “derisking” versus “decoupling” from Taiwan or China.

On Scaling Laws, Kevin Frazier sits down with Brian Fuller to discuss the challenges to creating policies that ensure that AI technologies are safe, aligned, and socially beneficial.

---

Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is the giraffe, seen here in newly documented 10,000 year old rock paintings:

Libya Review reports:

Authorities in southern Libya have uncovered a potentially significant archaeological site dating back approximately 10,000 years, in the Al-Hasawna mountain region near “Wadi Mubarak.”

The discovery was made after a citizen reported suspicious markings believed to be of historical value to the Sabha branch of the Tourist Police and Antiquities Protection Agency. Following the alert, a formal investigation was launched and the Public Order Prosecution in Sabha, along with the Fezzan Antiquities Authority, were notified…

Preliminary analysis confirmed the site’s historical significance. The location contains multiple rock engravings spanning several key prehistoric art phases in the Libyan Sahara.

In honor of today’s Beast, report any “suspicious markings” to the appropriate authorities immediately. #seesomethingsaysomething

---

A Linguistic Conundrum

I (

EJ Wittes

) found myself with a problem yesterday, as I was posting #DogShirtTV. My problem was that I wished to refer to the multitude of cacti descending upon my family home, and realized that I could not think of the appropriate collective noun. Is it a herd of cacti? A pack of cacti? A flock, a horde, a school, a brood? I am stymied.

I of course consulted various sources on the matter, but found no definitive answer. Even this exhaustive list of English collective nouns—with which you may be sure I entertained myself for some time—provided no aid. It did, however, lead me on a short detour through the history of English collective nouns, during which I was briefly convinced that terms such as “a parliament of owls” and “a pride of lions” were invented as a joke by Juliana Berners, the 15th Century nun who authored the essay on hunting in the Book of St. Albans. Alas, that was too good to be true. The BBC reports:

According to Treese, very little of Berners’s animal glossary is original. She called it, “mostly translations and adaptions of other works, which is an older literary tradition.” In her book What Made the Crocodile Cry?, Susie Dent asks who decides on the right collective noun for something. The answer, she states, is no-one. “English… evolves with its own momentum,” she writes. “Collective nouns are no exception to the rule: many have been with us for centuries, while new versions of the old are emerging all the time, as well as completely new ones when a need arises.”

Treese does, however, concede that if anything can be deduced about Berners from her work, it’s that the woman had a sense of humour. In addition to a number of common animal terms that are still in use, like ‘a swarm of bees’ and ‘a gaggle of geese’, The Book of St Albans also includes groupings for people. ‘A disguising of tailors’, ‘a doctrine of doctors’ and ‘a neverthriving of jugglers’ likely served as the day’s commentary on such professions.

“Since the entire list fell under the heading of ‘Beasts and Fowls’, it had to have been Berners’ tongue-in-cheek means of putting people in the same category,” Treese noted. “Many of the groupings are so satirical that she must have had a playful, humorous attitude about this area of the work.”

Anyway, we need a collective noun for Cacti. I propose that the nature of a proper English collective noun is that it relates to the actual characteristics of the Beast it describes only metaphorically or tangentially, not directly. Fish don’t go to school, and lions aren’t actually proud. Onomatopoeia is a definite plus, as well. “A gaggle” doesn’t really mean anything, but it sure does sound like the noise made by a bunch of annoying birds.

So, given those guidelines, what is the proper collective noun for the Cactus? Discuss.