Will desperation drive Trump and his henchmen to new violence,? Will he use his gestapo like police force to stop people from voting?
Will desperation drive Trump and his henchmen to new violence,? Will he use his gestapo like police force to stop people from voting?
The eminent moral philosopher Susan Neiman shows how naming and confronting evil is essential for preserving democracy in an age of demagogues.
"Possibly the best book title of 2026, I couldn’t agree more with philosopher Susan Neiman’s rehabilitation of the word evil, a very useful and necessary descriptor for the times we are living through. Setting millennia of moral philosophy against the livestreamed degradations of the 21st century, Neiman calls it as she sees it, and in so doing traces the dark path that has led us to this evil moment in history." —Jonny Diamond, Literary Hub
Call It Evil is a bold reckoning with one of the most fraught words in our vocabulary. Far from being a religious or outdated concept, evil is a vital lens, Susan Neiman argues, through which to understand the threats we face today.
Neiman is one of our most important philosophers, and one of the world’s leading thinkers on the nature and question of evil. She opens this sharp, revelatory work with the idea that the reelection of Donald Trump is the outcome not simply of political and economic forces but the erosion of values that have been subject to derision for more than a century. She goes on to show how we have been quietly bombarded from all sides with messages that undermine basic moral principles. Misreadings of Adam Smith and Charles Darwin have led to a view of human nature we now accept as common sense: ideals are for losers, or for politicians who wish to deceive them. Neiman then explores how that ancient view, first formulated by pre-Socratic philosophers, has been steadily promoted by corporate interests and (pseudo) scientists in the modern era. Drawing on history—from European fascism to the moral failures of recent U.S. leaders—she demonstrates how the normalization of evil corrodes trust, destroys justice, and endangers our future.
This is a book for readers who refuse to accept moral confusion as the price of political life, and who believe that confronting evil is the first step toward renewing it.
“He won’t shut up about having traditional Christian values makes you a bigot, and I got to say, a guy that age who is so obsessed and focused on transgender children — I don’t know about you, but I never want to see that guy’s web browser history.”
Rescued Climbers Relied Too Much on AI
Political Issue: should we have clear signs and policies about behavior on public land. Recently I went down to Headlands Beach which has an annual sand sculpture display. This year there was a sign warning that defacing public artwork was a 5th degree felony and could face a $2500. In all the previous years the art displays had been almost totally destroyed probably by kids who think that half the fun of building sand sculpture is destroying them after wards.
We need to have clear signs and policies about things like camping and hiking on public land. They probably need to have some legal consequences if people are going to pay attention to them. Otherwise, many people may assume that getting into trouble doing these things is all part of the fun of doing them.
And of course, we also need to have clear signs and policies about the use of AI. Otherwise blaming misadventures on AI will also become a part of the whole experience.
Legal Issue: How do people go about finding out about their legal responsibilities before doing things? Especially given the myriad of possibilities: situations, laws, policies, etc.
I hadn't been paying a super amount of attention to the Lindsay Clancy trial. I just thought it was a tragic situation. But it had been going on for nearly six weeks, so impossible not to read some things about it. I thought this article on the America site was good. The title sums it up :
We are expecting too much from the Lindsay Clancy trial - America Magazine
And I think it is true that we are expecting too much from the trial, if the aim is perfect justice.
I thought this article in NCR was interesting, especially since I lived through the liturgical reforms of Vatican II:
The impetus for liturgical reform and more participation of the laity was already happening well before Vatican II. During the later 1950s, and 1960s, when I attended grade school, the nuns who taught us were already implementing the "Dialogue Mass", in which the students learned and recited the responses said by the servers. The responses were still in Latin, and the students had the English and Latin daily missals to follow. Of course this wouldn't have happened without the consent of the pastor.
There were even places where the priest said Mass facing the people, though I think this was "ex officio" not formally permitted yet.
One thing that was very noticeable with the changes of Vatican II was a greater emphasis on the Scriptures, with the three year cycle which we observe now. Before that, it was a one year cycle, with more repetition of readings, and fewer Old Testament readings.
Of course it was a learning curve, and some people didn't like the changes at first. But it seemed like people got used to it, and the vernacular liturgy was well received. But not everybody was on board, including now some younger people who would have had no memory of the "before times".
From the NCR article: