Podcast appearances and mentions of Hannah Arendt

Miroslav Volf explores agapic love, creation's goodness, and God's grief—an alternative to despair, power, and world rejection.“When a wanted child is born, the immense joy of many parents often renders them mute, but their radiant faces speak of surprised delight: ‘Just look at you! It is so very good that you are here!' This delight precedes any judgment about the beauty, functionality, or moral rectitude of the child. The child's sheer existence, the mere fact of it, is ‘very good.' That's what I propose God, too, exclaimed, looking at the new-born world. And that unconditional love grounds creation's existence.”In this fourth Gifford Lecture, Miroslav Volf contrasts the selective and self-centered love of Ivan Karamazov with the radically inclusive, unconditional love of Father Zosima. Drawing deeply from Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, Genesis's creation and flood narratives, and Hannah Arendt's concept of amor mundi, Volf explores a theology of agapic love: unearned, universal, and enduring. This is the love by which God sees creation as “very good”—not because it is perfect, but because it exists. It's the love that grieves corruption without destroying it, that sees responsibility as mutual, and that offers the only hope for life in a deeply flawed world. With references to Luther, Nietzsche, and modern visions of power and desire, Volf challenges us to ask what kind of love makes a world, sustains it, and might one day save it. “Love the world,” he insists, “or lose your soul.”Episode Highlights“The world will either be loved with unconditional love, or it'll not be loved at all.”“Unconditional love abides. If the object of love is in a state that can be celebrated, love rejoices. If it is not, love mourns and takes time to help bring it back to itself.”“Each is responsible for all. Each is guilty for all. Each needs forgiveness from all. Each must forgive all.”“Creation is not primarily sacramental or iconic. It is an object of delight both for humans and for God.”“Agapic love demands nothing from the beloved, though it cares and hopes much for them and for the shared world with them.”Show NotesSchopenhauer and Nietzsche's visions of happiness: pleasure and power as substitutes for love“Love as hunger”: the devouring nature of epithemic desireIvan Karamazov's tragic love for life—selective, gut-level, and self-focused“There is still… this wild and perhaps indecent thirst for life in me”Father Zosima's universal love for “every leaf and every ray of God's light”“Love man also in his sin… Love all God's creation”Sonya and Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment: love as restoration“She loved him and stayed with him—not although he murdered, but because he murdered”God's declaration in Genesis: “And look—it was very good”Hannah Arendt's amor mundi—“I want you to be” as pure affirmationCreation as gift: “Each is itself by being more than itself”Martin Luther on marriage, sex, and delight as godly pleasuresThe flood as hypothetical: divine grief replaces divine destruction“It grieved God to his heart”—grief as a form of agapic love“Each is responsible for all. Each is guilty for all.”Agape over erotic love: not reward and punishment, but faithful presence and care“Agapic love demands nothing… It is free, sovereign to love, humble.”Closing invitation: to live the life of love, under whatever circumstancesProduction NotesThis podcast featured Miroslav VolfEdited and Produced by Evan RosaHosted by Evan RosaProduction Assistance by Taylor Craig and Macie BridgeA Production of the Yale Center for Faith & Culture at Yale Divinity School https://faith.yale.edu/aboutSupport For the Life of the World podcast by giving to the Yale Center for Faith & Culture: https://faith.yale.edu/giveSpecial thanks to Dr. Paul Nimmo, Paula Duncan, and the media team at the University of Aberdeen. Thanks also to the Templeton Religion Trust for their support of the University of Aberdeen's 2025 Gifford Lectures and to the McDonald Agape Foundation for supporting Miroslav's research towards the lectureship.

Join Beth Rudden at the Artificiality Summit in Bend, Oregon—October 23-25, 2025—to imagine a meaningful life with synthetic intelligence for me, we and us. Learn more here: www.artificialityinstitute.org/summitIn this thought-provoking conversation, we explore the intersection of archaeological thinking and artificial intelligence with Beth Rudden, former IBM Distinguished Engineer and CEO of Bast AI. Beth brings a unique interdisciplinary perspective—combining her training as an archaeologist with over 20 years of enterprise AI experience—to challenge fundamental assumptions about how we build and deploy artificial intelligence systems.Beth describes her work as creating "the trust layer for civilization," arguing that current AI systems reflect what Hannah Arendt called the "banality of evil"—not malicious intent, but thoughtlessness embedded at scale. As she puts it, "AI is an excavation tool, not a villain," surfacing patterns and biases that humanity has already normalized in our data and language.Key themes we explore:Archaeological AI: How treating AI as an excavation tool reveals embedded human thoughtlessness, and why scraping random internet data fundamentally misunderstands the nature of knowledge and contextOntological Scaffolding: Beth's approach to building AI systems using formal knowledge graphs and ontologies—giving AI the scaffolding to understand context rather than relying on statistical pattern matching divorced from meaningData Sovereignty in Healthcare: A detailed exploration of Bast AI's platform for explainable healthcare AI, where patients control their data and can trace every decision back to its source—from emergency logistics to clinical communicationThe Economics of Expertise: Moving beyond the "humans as resources" paradigm to imagine economic models that compete to support and amplify human expertise rather than eliminate itEmbodied Knowledge and Community: Why certain forms of knowledge—surgical skill, caregiving, craftsmanship—are irreducibly embodied, and how AI should scale this expertise rather than replace itHopeful Rage: Beth's vision for reclaiming humanist spaces and community healing as essential infrastructure for navigating technological transformationBeth challenges the dominant narrative that AI will simply replace human workers, instead proposing systems designed to "augment and amplify human expertise." Her work at Bast AI demonstrates how explainable AI can maintain full provenance and transparency while reducing cognitive load—allowing healthcare providers to spend more time truly listening to patients rather than wrestling with bureaucratic systems.The conversation reveals how archaeological thinking—with its attention to context, layers of meaning, and long-term patterns—offers essential insights for building trustworthy AI systems. As Beth notes, "You can fake reading. You cannot fake swimming"—certain forms of embodied knowledge remain irreplaceable and should be the foundation for human-AI collaboration.About Beth Rudden: Beth Rudden is CEO and Chairwoman of Bast AI, building explainable artificial intelligence systems with full provenance and data sovereignty. A former IBM Distinguished Engineer and Chief Data Officer, she's been recognized as one of the 100 most brilliant leaders in AI Ethics. With her background spanning archaeology, cognitive science, and decades of enterprise AI development, Beth offers a grounded perspective on technology that serves human flourishing rather than replacing it.This interview was recorded as part of the lead-up to the Artificiality Summit 2025 (October 23-25 in Bend, Oregon), where Beth will be speaking about the future of trustworthy AI.

This week, the HBS hosts discuss Hannah Arendt's concept of the banality of evil.In 1961, Adolf Eichmann was put on trial in Israel for crimes against humanity and crimes against the Jewish People. The philosopher Hannah Arendt covered the trial for The New Yorker. Her articles were collected in the book Eichmann in Jerusalem, which had the subtitle, A Report on the Banality of Evil. What did she mean by the phrase “banality of evil?” She remarks that there is nothing monstrous, hideous, or outrageous about Eichmann that one could point to as the root of his evil actions. Rather, she argued, he was “thoughtless,” that is, he lacked the imagination to understand the position of others. In this way, the evil he brought about has its source in a kind of unremarkable everydayness. Is her notion useful to us today to think about the multiple evils we confront?Full episode notes available at this link:https://hotelbarpodcast.com/podcast/arendts-banality-of-evil-------------------If you enjoy Hotel Bar Sessions podcast, please be sure to subscribe and submit a rating/review! Better yet, you can support this podcast by signing up to be one of our Patrons at patreon.com/hotelbarsessions! ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Miroslav Volf critiques Nietzsche's vision of power, love, and suffering—and offers Jesus's unconditional love as a more excellent way.The idea that competitive and goalless striving to increase one's power is the final Good, does very important work in Nietzsche's philosophy. For Nietzsche, striving is good. Happiness does not rest in feeling that one's power is growing. In the modern world, individuals are, as Nietzsche puts it, ‘crossed everywhere with infinity.' …And therefore condemn to ceaseless striving … The will to power aims at surpassing the level reached at any given time. And that goal can never be reached. You're always equally behind.Striving for superiority so as to enhance power does not just elevate some, the stronger ones. If the difference in power between parties increases, the weak become weaker in socially significant sense, even if their power has objectively increased. Successful striving for superiority inferiorizes.”In this third installment of his Gifford Lectures, Miroslav Volf offers a trenchant critique of Friedrich Nietzsche's moral philosophy—especially his exaltation of the will to power, his affirmation of eternal suffering, and his agonistic conception of love. Nietzsche, Volf argues, fails to cultivate a love that can endure possession, withstand unworthiness, or affirm the sheer existence of the other. Instead, Nietzsche's love quickly dissolves into contempt. Drawing from Christian theology, and particularly Jesus's teaching that God causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good alike, Volf explores a different kind of love—agapic, unconditional, and presuppositionless. He offers a vision of divine love that is not driven by need or achievement but that affirms existence itself, regardless of success, strength, or status. In the face of suffering, Nietzsche's amor fati falters—but Jesus's embrace endures.Episode Highlights"The sun, in fact, has no need to bestow its gift of light and warmth. It gains nothing from imparting its gifts.""Love that is neither motivated by need nor based on worthiness—that is the kind of love Nietzsche thought prevented Jesus from loving humanity and earth.""Nietzsche aspires to transfiguration of all things through value-bestowing life, but he cannot overcome nausea over humans.""God's love for creatures is unconditional. It is agapic love for the states in which they find themselves.""Love can only flicker. It moves from place to place because it can live only between places. If it took an abode, it would die."Show NotesMiroslav Volf's engagement with Nietzsche's workFriedrich Nietzsche's critique of Christianity as life-denying and his vision of the will to powerSchopenhauer's hedonism vs. Nietzsche's anti-hedonism: “What is good? Everything that heightens the feeling of power.”The will to power as Nietzsche's supreme value and “hyper-good”“The will to power is not a philosophy of life—it's a philosophy of vitality.”Nietzsche's agonism: the noble contest for superiority among equally powerful opponents“Every GOAT is a GOAT only for a time.”Amor fati: Nietzsche's love of fate and affirmation of all existenceNietzsche's ideal of desire without satisfaction: “desiring to desire”Dangers of epithumic (need-based, consuming) love“Love cannot abide. Its shelf life is shorter than a two-year-old's toy... If it took an abode, it would die.”Nietzsche's nausea at the weakness and smallness of humanity: “Nausea, nausea... alas, man recurs eternally.”Zarathustra's conditional love: based on worthiness, wisdom, and power“Joy in tearing down has fully supplanted love's delight in what is.”Nietzsche's failure to love the unworthy: “His love fails to encompass the great majority of actually living human beings.”Volf's theological critique of striving, superiority, and contempt“Nietzsche affirms vitality at the expense of concrete human beings.”The biblical God's love: “He makes his sun rise on the evil and the good.”“Even the poorest fisherman rows with golden oars.”Jesus's unconditional love versus Nietzsche's agonistic, conditional loveKierkegaard and Luther on the distinction between person and workHannah Arendt's political anthropology and enduring love in the face of unworthinessVolf's proposal for a theology of loving the present world in its broken form“We can actually long also for what we have.”“Love that cannot take an abode will die.”A vision of divine, presuppositionless love that neither requires need nor merit

In this episode, rabble editor Nick Seebruch sits down with Jason Toney, director of media advocacy at Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), to discuss Prime Minister Mark Carney's recent comments on recognizing Palestine as a state—and the conditions he attached. The two break down what those conditions mean and also talk about  CJPME's work to ensure fair and accurate media coverage of Palestine in Canada. About our guest and CJPME Jason Toney is the director of media advocacy at Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), where he leads the Media Accountability Project, monitoring Canadian media coverage of Palestine.  He has been active in Palestine solidarity for over a decade, including cultural exchanges and organizing debate conferences in the region. He previously worked in independent publishing with Black Rose Books and Daraja Press. He is the editor of Take the City (Black Rose Books, 2022) and co-editor of When Genocide Wasn't News (Breach Books, 2025). He has published essays on media, Palestine, municipalism, Hannah Arendt, and Murray Bookchin. He lives in Montréal. CJPME's mission is to enable Canadians of all backgrounds to promote justice, development and peace in the Middle East, and here at home in Canada. To learn more about Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, please visit: https://www.cjpme.org/ If you like the show please consider subscribing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you find your podcasts. And please, rate, review, share rabble radio with your friends — it takes two seconds to support independent media like rabble. Follow us on social media across channels @rabbleca.

When you think of evil, characters like Hannibal Lecter, the Joker, and Michael Myers probably come to mind.  But what is evil really? Evil can take different forms: sadistic and brutal, but it can also be boring and normalized.  During the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann, political philosopher Hannah Arendt reported on the trial for the New Yorker Magazine. Her journalism became incredibly controversial due to her account of Eichmann, viewing him as “banal,” “normal,” and a “clown.” Learn about the “banality of evil,” what it means, how it can be used to interpret Nazi Germany, and its controversy on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily. Sponsors Newspapers.com Get 20% off your subscription to Newspapers.com Quince Go to quince.com/daily for 365-day returns, plus free shipping on your order! Mint Mobile Get your 3-month Unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com/eed Jerry Compare quotes and coverages side-by-side from up to 50 top insurers at jerry.ai/daily. Subscribe to the podcast!  https://everything-everywhere.com/everything-everywhere-daily-podcast/ -------------------------------- Executive Producer: Charles Daniel Associate Producers: Austin Oetken & Cameron Kieffer   Become a supporter on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/everythingeverywhere Discord Server: https://discord.gg/UkRUJFh Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/everythingeverywhere/ Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/everythingeverywheredaily Twitter: https://twitter.com/everywheretrip Website: https://everything-everywhere.com/  Disce aliquid novi cotidie Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ein Standpunkt von Felix Feistel.Ein wiederkehrendes Thema in der deutschen Öffentlichkeit und in politischen Bewegungen und Parteien ist die Identifikation mit diesem Land, mit Deutschland. Diese Identifikation wird vom gesamten politischen Spektrum immer wieder in die Debatte gebracht, und scheint daher ein ungelöstes Thema darzustellen. So lehnt die eine Seite eine Identifikation mit Deutschland rundheraus ab – immerhin ist aus dieser in der Vergangenheit das größte Menschheitsverbrechen erwachsen – und verteufelt jeden, der sich in irgend einer Weise mit diesem Land identifiziert. Nationalstolz ist in dieser Weltsicht etwas, das den Keim des absolut Bösen in sich trägt. Denn Rassismus und Antisemitismus, und letztlich auch der zweite Weltkrieg seien, so die Argumentation, aus diesem Nationalstolz hervorgegangen. Diese Haltung ist mittlerweile sogar in der Klasse der politischen Vertreter dominierend. Vielleicht erinnert sich der ein oder andere noch an jene Szene, als die ehemalige Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel nach einer erfolgreichen Wiederwahl einem ihrer Parteikollegen die deutsche Fahne aus der Hand nahm, um sie wegzulegen.Andere, etwa aus den Reihen der Grünen haben ihre Ablehnung gegenüber Deutschland klar und deutlich zum Ausdruck gebracht. Sie könnten eigenem Bekunden zufolge mit Deutschland nichts anfangen, und verschreiben sich daher eher einem Internationalismus, das unter dem Slogan „No border, no nations“ den unbegrenzten Zustrom von Menschen aus aller Herren Länder organisiert und jede Identifikation mit Deutschland und jedes Bewahren-Wollen der deutschen Sprache und Kultur sogar als Wiederauferstehung des Nationalsozialismus bekämpft. Hätten diese politischen Vertreter beispielsweise mal Hannah Arendt gelesen dann wüssten sie, dass diese Gleichsetzung zwischen deutschem Nationalstolz und Nationalsozialismus nicht richtig ist. Denn Hannah Arendt zufolge ist der Totalitarismus in seinem Wesen eine internationalistische Bewegung, die darauf zielt, die ganze Welt zu unterwerfen. Dabei nutzte der deutsche Nationalsozialismus Deutschland lediglich als Ausgangspunkt, von dem aus das Ziel der Unterwerfung der ganzen Welt organisiert werden sollte. Dennoch findet eine Gleichsetzung jeder Form der Identifikation mit diesem Land mit der dunklen Vergangenheit statt.Dem gegenüber steht genau diese andere Seite, die sich für einen deutschen Nationalstolz einsetzt, und die Ablehnung der Identifikation mit Deutschland stark kritisiert. Nicht ganz zu Unrecht wird in diesen Kreisen die erstere Bewegung als Wegbereiter einer Weltregierung bekämpft, welche die Menschen durch totale Gleichmacherei beherrschbar zu halten wünscht. Die Nationale Identifikation abzuschaffen ist tatsächlich ein wesentlicher Aspekt der Etablierung einer totalen, technokratischen Herrschaft, ebenso, wie die Zerstörung der Familien. Denn erst dann sind die Menschen hinreichend ungebunden und orientierungslos, sodass sie in eine Herrschaftsstruktur und das dazu passende Narrativ eingebunden werden können, eine Bewegung, die bereits weit fortgeschritten ist.Dagegen sprechen sich jene, die gerne als „rechts“ und „Nazis“ beschimpft werden zu Recht aus, und fordern einen neuen Nationalstolz, eine Identifikation mit Deutschland. Im Bundestag wird diese Bewegung zumindest scheinbar mit jeder Wahl vermehrt vertreten, und zwar durch die AfD. Daran kann man sehen: Der Wunsch nach nationaler Identifikation wird lauter. Immer mehr Deutsche wollen sich für ihre Zugehörigkeit zu diesem Land nicht mehr dauerhaft schuldig fühlen für Verbrechen, die sie gar nicht verübt haben. Denn es ist dieser Schuldkomplex, an den die Zerstörung der Identifikation mit Deutschland andockt, und den sie instrumentalisiert. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ylva pratar om läsdebatten och litteraturens transformativa kraft. Vendela har grottat ner sig i kärleksrelationen mellan Hannah Arendt och Martin Heidegger. Och Anna har läst en spänningsroman om att infiltrera miljörörelsen i Frankrike som väcker frågor om vart författaren tagit sin inspiration ifrån. Stötta oss på Radio åt allas Patreon!

Diverse Voices Book Review host Hopeton Hay interviewed Madeleine Thien, author of the novel THE BOOK OF RECORDS. The novel tells a time-bending, seven-year philosophical journey of a young girl named Lina, who is taught by her father and neighbors about the lives of three historical figures. They live in a surreal enclave, where Lina and her father have sought refuge after escaping a disaster in China. In the interview, we talked about how she weaves together the stories of three historical figures: Du Fu, an 8th-century Chinese poet; Baruch Spinoza, a 17th-century Dutch Jewish philosopher; and Hannah Arendt, a mid-20th-century German-American Jewish philosopher and political theorist. Lina learns about their theories and ideas and the grief, love, and tragedy they have experienced. Madeleine Thien is the author of four books, including Do Not Say We Have Nothing, which was shortlisted for the Booker Prize. Her work has appeared in The New Yorker, Granta, The New York Review of Books, and elsewhere.  Diverse Voices Book Review Social Media: Facebook - @diversevoicesbookreview Instagram - @diverse_voices_book_review X - @diversebookshay Email: hbh@diversevoicesbookreview.com 

“In tyranny, you may not have a whole lot of political freedom, but you can still live a pretty free life under tyranny,” says Roger Berkowitz in this week's episode of The World in Time. “In your private world, you can live under a dictator and still read what books you want and talk to people as long as you don't act out in the public sphere. Totalitarianism is quite different. It tries to get inside your head, and make you, and make everyone, believe. And it has secret police, and snitches, and surveillance. And it tries to fully organize society. It's the most organized and successful attack on freedom that one can imagine. And so for Arendt, you can't just be an individual and sit in jail and be free if you're going to protect yourselves from the dangers of totalitarianism and the end of constitutional, free government, which is what she's worried about. You need to act politically, and you need to act politically with a certain amount of power.” This week on the podcast, Donovan Hohn sits down for a conversation with Roger Berkowitz, writer, scholar, and academic director of the Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities at Bard College. They discuss the life and work of Hannah Arendt and two essays that share a name, “Civil Disobedience”—one by Arendt, the other by Thoreau, both recently collected in a volume that Berkowitz edited and introduced. Their conversation touches broadly on the works of the two writers, on their differences and disagreements, on the political tumults that inspired their famous essays, and on the lessons to be learned from them in the present day.

Énorme podcast avec les humoristes Virginie Courtiol et Laurence C. Germain.Nous parlons de l'origine sordide du mot bikini, on se moque de moi quand je cite Hannah Arendt et Simone de Beauvoir, Virginie et Laurence parlent de leur premier baiser et on lit des dates horribles. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Miroslav Volf on how to rightly love a radically ambivalent world.“The world, our planetary home, certainly needs to be changed, improved. But what it needs even more is to be rightly loved.”Miroslav Volf begins his 2025 Gifford Lectures at the University of Aberdeen with a provocative theological inquiry: What difference does belief in God make for our relationship to the world? Drawing deeply from Nietzsche's “death of God,” Schopenhauer's despair, and Hannah Arendt's vision of amor mundi, Volf explores the ambivalence of modern life—its beauty and horror, its resonance and alienation. Can we truly love the world, even amidst its chaos and collapse? Can a belief in the God of Jesus Christ provide motivation to love—not as appetite or utility, but as radical, unconditional affirmation? Volf suggests that faith offers not a retreat from reality, but an anchor amid its disorder—a trust that enables us to hope, even when the world's goodness seems impossible. This first lecture challenges us to consider the character of our relationship to the world, between atheism and theism, critique and love.Episode Highlights“The world, our planetary home, certainly needs to be changed, improved. But what it needs even more is to be rightly loved.”“Resonance seems both indispensable and insufficient. But what should supplement it? What should underpin it?”“Our love for that lived world is what these lectures are about.”“We can reject and hate one form of the world because we love the world as such.”“Though God is fully alive… we often find the same God asleep when our boats are about to capsize.”Helpful Links and ReferencesResonance by Hartmut RosaThe Human Condition by Hannah ArendtThis Life by Martin HägglundThe Home of God by Miroslav Volf and Ryan McAnnally-LinzThe City of God by AugustineDivine Comedy by DanteShow NotesPaul Nimmo introduces the Gifford Lectures and Miroslav Volf's themeVolf begins with gratitude and scope: belief in God and our worldIntroduces Nietzsche's “death of God” as cultural metaphorFrames plausibility vs. desirability of God's existenceIntroduces Hartmut Rosa's theory of resonanceProblem: resonance is not enough; what underpins motivation to care?Introduces amor mundi as thematic direction of the lecturesContrasts Marx's atheism and human liberation with Nietzsche's nihilismAnalyzes Dante and Beatrice in Hägglund's This LifeDistinguishes between “world” and “form of the world”Uses cruise ship metaphor to critique modern life's ambivalenceDiscusses Augustine, Hannah Arendt, and The Home of GodReflections on divine providence and theodicyBiblical images: flood, exile, and the sleeping GodEnds with preview of next lectures on Schopenhauer and NietzscheLet me know if you'd like episode-specific artwork prompts, promotional copy for social media, or a transcript excerpt formatted for publication.Production NotesThis podcast featured Miroslav VolfEdited and Produced by Evan RosaHosted by Evan RosaProduction Assistance by Taylor Craig and Macie BridgeA Production of the Yale Center for Faith & Culture at Yale Divinity School https://faith.yale.edu/aboutSupport For the Life of the World podcast by giving to the Yale Center for Faith & Culture: https://faith.yale.edu/giveSpecial thanks to Dr. Paul Nimmo, Paula Duncan, and the media team at the University of Aberdeen. Thanks also to the Templeton Religion Trust for their support of the University of Aberdeen's 2025 Gifford Lectures and to the McDonald Agape Foundation for supporting Miroslav's research towards the lectureship.

Günümüz dünyasında kişisel sorumluluğun derin anlamını keşfedin. Hannah Arendt'in bireysel sorumluluk vurgusundan yola çıkarak, fiat paranın ve küresel devletlerin yarattığı felaket ortamını sorguluyoruz. Suçluların ve gangsterlerin başbakanlarla işbirliği yaptığı, korku ve terörle yönetilen bu sistemde, bireyin gücü ne olabilir?Kant'ın 'Sapere aude!' yani 'kendi başına düşünme cesareti' çağrısıyla, medyanın ve uzmanların dayattığı 'papağan' söylemlerden uzaklaşarak, gerçek düşüncenin ne anlama geldiğini araştırıyoruz. Bu sadece entelektüel bir egzersiz değil, aynı zamanda devletin 'mores' kavramıyla manipüle ettiği ahlaki pusulamızı yeniden kalibre etme girişimi.Bu bölümde, Bitcoin'i yalnızca bir finansal araçtan öte, bireylerin devletin baskısından kurtulup, özel hayatlar ve topluluklar inşa edebileceği bir köprü olarak ele alıyoruz. Bitcoin, gelecek nesiller için servetin enflasyondan, el koymalardan ve bankacılığın hilelerinden korunmasını sağlayan eşsiz bir güvence sunuyor. Bu, 'gelecektekiler' için 'bunu sizin için sakladık' deme sözü ve insanlık için yeni bir başlangıç vaadidir.Dünyanın gidişatından kişisel olarak sorumlu olmanın ve değişimin anahtarı olarak düşünmenin önemini vurgulayan bu sohbet, Bitcoin'in şifrelenmiş egemenliğini ve getireceği 'dijital ortak refah alanını' anlamak için derinlemesine bir davettir. Korku ve itaatle şekillenen bir dünyada, kendi hayatlarımızın ve onurumuzun sorumluluğunu üstlenerek, yolsuzluğun çözüldüğü bir geleceği nasıl güvence altına alabiliriz?Kaynak

XI JINPING MUST ANSWER TO THE UYGHUR PEOPLE: 1/4: No Escape: The True Story of China's Genocide of the Uyghurs Kindle Edition by  Nury Turkel https://www.amazon.com/No-Escape-Chinas-Genocide-Uyghurs-ebook/dp/B09CMRPZL1/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2HQXI67T1UBCW&keywords=NO+ESCAPE+TURKEL&qid=1669243597&s=books&sprefix=no+escape+turkel%2Cstripbooks%2C73&sr=1-1 In recent years, the People's Republic of China has rounded up as many as three million Uyghurs, placing them in what it calls “reeducation camps,” facilities most of the world identifies as concentration camps. There, the genocide and enslavement of the Uyghur people are ongoing. The tactics employed are reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution, but the results are far more insidious because of the technology used, most of it stolen from Silicon Valley. In the words of Turkel, “Communist China has created an open prison-like environment through the most intrusive surveillance state that the world has ever known while committing genocide and enslaving the Uyghurs on the world's watch.” As a human rights attorney and Uyghur activist who now serves on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, Turkel tells his personal story to help explain the urgency and scope of the Uyghur crisis. Born in 1970 in a reeducation camp, he was lucky enough to survive and eventually make his way to the US, where he became the first Uyghur to receive an American law degree. Since then, he has worked as a prominent lawyer, activist, and spokesperson for his people and advocated strong policy responses from the liberal democracies to address atrocity crimes against his people. The Uyghur crisis is turning into the greatest human rights crisis of the twenty-first century, a systematic cleansing of an entire race of people in the millions. Part Anne Frank and Hannah Arendt, No Escape shares Turkel's personal story while drawing back the curtain on the historically unprecedented and increasing threat from China

In deze aflevering van Trends Talk gaat Francesca Vanthielen in gesrpek met Christof Busch, criminoloog, historicus en medestichter en huidig directeur van het Hannah Arendt Instituut.In Trends podcasts vind je alle podcasts van Trends en Trends Z, netjes geordend volgens publicatie.  De redactie van Trends brengt u verschillende podcasts over wat onze wereld en maatschappij beheerst.  Vanuit diverse invalshoeken en met een uitgesproken focus op economie en ondernemingen, op business, personal finance en beleggen.  Onafhankelijk, relevant, telkens constructief en toekomstgericht. 

Hi, everyone. Here's an audio version of yesterday's post…MWThe big-beautiful-actually-big-ugly bill that passed through Congress and hit the President's desk on July 4th will cause untold damage to our country. Ironically, the pain will be felt most acutely by those who have supported the President most. Many legislators who voted for the 940-page bill have admitted they didn't actually read it, but rather took other people's (namely Trump's) word for it that it didn't, for instance, cut Medicaid - which it decidedly did, and to the tune of a trillion dollars.As if depriving almost 12 million people of their healthcare isn't enough, that's not even the most dastardly thing about this bill. The most dangerous piece of the legislation, one that cuts into the very heart of our Constitutional system, is its expansion of ICE. The 2024 ICE budget was $9.7 Billion; it now will be increased to an annual expenditure of $48 Billion. Over the next four years ICE will receive $170 Billion, making it bigger than most of the militaries of the world. The ICE budget will now be more than the FBI, the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm), the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency), US Marshalls, and the Bureau of Prisons combined. The bill orders 10,000 new ICE agents, adding to the 20,000 agents already on the streets. The annual budget for detentions now rise from $3.4 billion to $45 billion a year, constituting a 365% increase. While ICE is currently holding around 59,000 detainees - nearly half of whom have no criminal records - the new bill calls for adding 100,000 more. And the power of ICE lies not only in its size. It operates outside of due process and the judicial system, meaning the administration has effectively hired its own private police force to do whatever it is they want it to do. Just as Trump forces have managed to effectively neuter the U.S. Congress and our Supreme Court, with the latest changes to ICE they have effectively neutered the regulatory statutes that protect us from police overreach as well. This is not normal.The President campaigned on getting violent criminals off our streets - a goal no one would argue with - but what's happening now is much bigger than that. The administration is not going after criminals; if that were the case, it wouldn't be pardoning some of the biggest while collar criminals in America. They're not just going for criminals; they're going for numbers. Stephen Miller is demanding 3,000 arrests be made per day, even suggesting ICE agents stand outside Home Depots and see who they can round up. They might target one person, then just pick up whoever is standing near them whether they're on a target list or not. This is not about helping America, it's about reshaping it. E Pluribus Unum - the “Out of many, One” First Principle of the United States - provides for a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society united by common principles of liberty and justice for all. Yet those principles are considered anathema to the White Nationalists, Christian Nationalists, and techno fascists who are behind all this. Their goal is to shred the Constitution and demolish our democracy; Victor Orban didn't hang out at Mar-a-Lago just for the scones. Between Project 2025, this Big Bad Ugly bill, and a militarized ICE, they're following a specific blueprint for war on our basic institutions.Paul Dans, former director of the Heritage Foundation and one of the authors of Project 2025 , has said it's succeeding “beyond our wildest dreams.”Millions are asking, “My God, how did all this happen?” There are complicated answers to that question, but what should not be underestimated is the role of Trump's propaganda machine. As with Hitler's Nuremberg Rallies, he has mesmerized millions with the performative power of his lies. In both my campaigns for President, I stated often: “Trump has ushered in an age of political theatre, and we will not be going back.”Using the biggest megaphone in the world, Donald Trump gained the power to do the hateful things he is doing by propagating hateful ideas. He then injected them like poison into the veins of our body politic.Remember when he rode down his elevator and announced about Mexico, ‘They're not sending us their best people?” That was the first shot not in a war against Mexico, but in a war against the United States. Now he's gone all the way to suggesting that immigrants have “criminal genes.” This is more than fear-mongering; it's strategy. The biggest mistake we can make is to laugh at anything he says.Without the President's strategy of demonizing our immigrant community, none of this could have occurred. Those who so often said, “Take him seriously, but do not take him literally,” were seriously wrong. He's not just trolling. He says he hates you today, and he comes after you tomorrow.And he's not done. He now calls liberals and progressives “left wing lunatics” and he says Senators who disagree with him are people who “hate their country.” He went so far in fact as to say he hates Democrats. “Don't you?” he asked his audience. He actually said that he “can't stand” us. When a reporter asked a reasonable question about the the Camp Mystic tragedy, the President said that only an “evil person” would ask such a question.What is being perpetrated here is grand plan to transform the United States from a flawed democracy to an authoritarian dictatorship. It's unwise to assume that the forces behind all this have any intention of stopping with immigrants.Yesterday the President said he's “giving serious consideration” to taking away Rosie O'Donnell's citizenship because she's “a Threat to Humanity.” This is something the Constitution does not give the President the authority to do, of course. But Donald Trump has obvious disdain for anything the Constitution says that might limit his power. Already he has called for ICE to go after American citizens, and both Trump and Pam Bondi have called for a plan to denaturalize some who have become American citizens. The fact that an idea is deranged doesn't make it less dangerous. DOGE has worked with ICE to create the federal government's first “national citizenship data bank.”If all of this feels to you profoundly Un-American, it's because it is. If it bothers you, rankles you, and infuriates you, that means you're a patriot. And you are not alone.The good news is that the American people do not like what's going on. In a new Gallup poll, only 35% of Americans approve Trump's immigration policies now, which means that 27% more people disapprove of them. 79% of Americans now say they believe that immigration is good for the country. Even Joe Rogan is now going after the President about this, unhappy at all the innocent people who have been arrested in the ICE raids. But none of this should surprise him; it's not like all of a sudden the President became a pathological liar. None of it is new. The only thing new is that he doesn't even try any more to cover his tracks. From crypto deals to taking bribes from Middle East power brokers to suing media companies to selling his own brand of unisex fragrance, the President's corruption knows no end. He has increased his personal fortune by billions since he was inaugurated in November. At this point, the question isn't “What will he do next?” The most important question is, “What will we do next?”The only thing that can save us now is for the American people to wake up. A spiritual awakening, mocked and derided by America's pseudo-sophisticated political class (you know, the guys who lost to Trump twice) is the most powerful antidote to the forces of hate. If we allow them to, those forces will kidnap more than our bodies; they will kidnap our spirits. But if we're truly dedicated to love, the purveyors of hatred cannot snatch our soul. From there it follows that they cannot snatch our mind, and then they cannot snatch our country.Love does not make us weaker, it makes us stronger. It makes us stronger because it makes us smarter. It restores reason and not the other way around. Evil is the mental energy of love when inverted and turned into something else. Recognizing the existence of evil, the loving mind understands how to prevent it (start by not allowing tens of millions of people to live for years in chronic economic anxiety, lacking health care, economic or educational opportunity) and knows what it takes to override it (provide those things now). It recognizes the anger and despair which people lacking such things feel, making them vulnerable to all manner of societal dysfunction. Disease doesn't start on the level of symptoms; it starts on the level of feeling and thought.And that's where we must counter it. We must meet the forces of hate with the force of our love. Today's “arsenal of democracy” begins in the mind. No one can take away your conscience unless you are willing to surrender it. Do not allow anyone to limit your willingness to love your fellow man.That is not woo woo; it is the salvation of the human race. Totalitarianism is an extreme and perverse consequence of a world in which we've been taught to think that the needs and interests of others should be seen as secondary to our own. It is the opposite of “love thy neighbor as thyself.” Let's not forget Elon Musk told Joe Rogan that “empathy is the biggest weakness in Western civilization.” And damn right that was a Nazi salute. He didn't even deny it; I don't know why anyone else would.Hannah Arendt, premier political philosopher of the 20th Century, said “the death of human empathy is one of the earliest and most telling signs of a culture about to fall into barbarism.” She said that a lack of empathy, as well as a lack of critical thought, could lead people otherwise not inherently evil to acquiesce to atrocities.Arendt said the modern mind's obsession with itself led to what she called the “loss of the world.” We become so self-referential that we stop caring about one another, seeing the notion of a “common good” as some quaint relic of former times. This has disunited the United States, endangering us as a country and weakening the gates to the city. It became inevitable then that barbarians would come in.Hitler himself said this: "They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes we are barbarians. We want to be barbarians; it is an honored title to us. We shall rejuvenate the world.”So much for “It could never happen here.” In our arrogance, our complacency, our distractedness, and our social and political immaturity we made it way too easy for the barbarians to enter. Now that they are here, they are sacking the city. Latino immigrants are just first on their list.So what do we do now? There are some who are seriously focused on the political externalities of the 2026 and 2028 elections, and well they should be. This will include countering all efforts on the part of the administration to rig or even suppress all upcoming elections. TrumpWorld's forces have already begun with plans to further gerrymander Texas, criminalize the behavior of election officials who don't “safeguard” our elections, and so forth.Traditional political and legal efforts are needed, and they are needed badly. But they alone will not be enough to compensate for the lack of moral clarity that made us vulnerable to all this to begin with. That is what we lost, and what we must regain if we are to defeat fascism in our time.Reclaiming that power is up to each of us. No matter what happens, do not allow yourself to lose your own commitment to the humane treatment of other human beings. Do not let them take from you your own moral compass. Do not pass up any opportunity to speak your truth. Do not compromise and do not surrender to the administration's excuses, much less glorification, of sadism and human cruelty. No, “Alligator Alcatraz” is not funny. It is sick and it is inhumane. It is not hyperbole to call it a modern internment camp, and the savage conditions described by those who have been inside the facility are merciless. What is happening in America today is barbaric.To those who say “Well, this is what we voted for,” I do not believe that. I know good people who voted for Trump, and I don't believe that in their hearts they thought they were voting for human cruelty, or masked goons disappearing people, or any of the trauma or terror that our government is now inflicting on innocent men, women and children.I think many of those who voted for Trump do not know what is actually happening, because many of his voters who I've spoken to, when I show them evidence of certain things, make comments like, “Well that wouldn't be right.” And I've realized that our opponent here is algorithms. Their algorithms are so different than ours - we're not just seeing different content, we're being shown different universes. Greedy, sociopathic elements in our society have fostered those differences. Media and social media giants who could care less about providing an honest, objective presentation of facts, and care only about their already multibillion dollar profits, will one day be looked back on as some of the biggest villians in this story. At the end of all this we will have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and it will be a doozy.Others who voted for Trump were simply reacting in anger to a system that had failed them, and had the Democratic party responded to their despair in more fundamental ways - universal health care, a guaranteed living wage, repealing the 2017 tax cut when we had the chance, increasing access to higher education and tech school - the rise of a political strongman would have been far less likely. As it is, the political elite in America chose to ignore every lesson in history and allow this scourge to fester. The Republican party lost its mind over the last few years, but it didn't help that Democrats lost their spine.The institutions we have lived our entire lives thinking would protect us from any enemies of democracy have either fallen, or been deeply compromised. The message of history is now this: “American people: over to you.” I know in my heart we have what it takes to rise to the occasion, to handle this moment, and to save our dying democracy. In the words of Winston Churchill, "Never give in, never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense.”That's our charge today. This isn't an easy time, in fact it's heartbreaking and infuriating. But dark chapters challenged our ancestors too, and they responded with strength and courage. Now so must we. We are called to be deep and serious and mature and wise, and all those things we were born to be. I have no doubt in my mind that we have it in us. The choice whether to become the people we need to be, in order to do the things we need to do, is up to each of us.It's an inside job. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.transformarticles.com/subscribe

Hannah Arendt explora el juicio moral como diálogo interno entre el yo que desea y el yo que decide. Esta tensión define nuestra ética y nuestra libertad. Al distinguir entre mal radical y banal, advierte que el pensamiento es clave para evitar el daño. Pensar es, en última instancia, nuestra responsabilidad política.

Para la filósofa estadunidense, la pluralidad es la condición del mundo; sin embargo, tras décadas luchando por sistemas democráticos liberales e inclusivos, hay un retroceso, considera Lyndsey Stonebridge, profesora de Humanidades de Birmingham...

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt - w/Tom Libby and Jesan Sorrells---00:00 Welcome and Introduction: Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt 01:00 The Nature of Conscience-less Leadership09:39 Thoughtlessness and Evil Uncovered11:49 Hannah Arendt's Political Philosophy19:08 Lost Stories of Past Generations27:22 Questioning Authority and Responsibility29:06 Opioid Crisis and Accountability35:46 AI Accountability and Regulation Needed41:53 Eichmann's Distorted Kantian Ethics46:30 Courage to Say "No"50:58 Evolving Reactions to Pandemic Information59:20 AI Search Quality Issues01:04:38 Leaders Resisting AI Conformity01:07:05 Navigating Leadership and Feedback01:14:30 Staying on the Path: Lessons from Eichmann in Jerusalem.---Opening and closing themes composed by Brian Sanyshyn of Brian Sanyshyn Music.---Pick up your copy of 12 Rules for Leaders: The Foundation of Intentional Leadership NOW on AMAZON!Check out the 2022 Leadership Lessons From the Great Books podcast reading list!--- ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ Subscribe to the Leadership Lessons From The Great Books Podcast: https://bit.ly/LLFTGBSubscribeCheck out HSCT Publishing at: https://www.hsctpublishing.com/.Check out LeadingKeys at: https://www.leadingkeys.com/Check out Leadership ToolBox at: https://leadershiptoolbox.us/Contact HSCT for more information at 1-833-216-8296 to schedule a full DEMO of LeadingKeys with one of our team members.---Leadership ToolBox website: https://leadershiptoolbox.us/.Leadership ToolBox LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ldrshptlbx/.Leadership ToolBox YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@leadershiptoolbox/videosLeadership ToolBox Twitter: https://twitter.com/ldrshptlbx.Leadership ToolBox IG: https://www.instagram.com/leadershiptoolboxus/.Leadership ToolBox FB: https://www.facebook.com/LdrshpTl

Hannah Arendt's 1963 book, “The Banality of Evil,” is actually wrong. It portrayed the lie Eichmann told when he was on trial. He said that he was “just following orders.” Arendt got conned. Eichmann was a true believer in Hitler's final solution and a committed Anti-Semite. On this episode of Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum, I spoke with accomplished Israeli filmmaker Yariv Mozer about his award-winning series The Devil's Confession: The Lost Eichmann Tapes documenting senior Nazi SS officer Adolf Eichmann's role as architect in the planning and implementation of the Holocaust's Final Solution. We also discussed Mozer's latest Emmy Award winning documentary, the Paramount+ movie, We Will Dance Again, based on footage, facts, and stories from the October 7th, 2023, Nova Festival, in which Hamas militants suddenly attacked Israel. He is a third-generation descendant of Holocaust survivors from his mother's family, which he noted was an essential aspect of his story and identity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Part 1: We talk with Larry Tye about the role of the Pullman Porters in the early days of labor organizing and organizing to support civil rights.This is a rebroadcast of an interview with Larry Tye.Part 2:This is a rebroadcast.We talk with Elizabeth Minnich.We discuss the ideas of Hannah Arendt.This is a rebroadcast,  WNHNFM.ORG   production 

Rüdiger Haude und Thomas Wagner zur Frage der Stabilisierung staatsloser, egalitärer Gesellschaften.   Shownotes Rüdiger Haude an der RWTH Aachen (inkl. einer Übersicht seiner Publikationen): https://www.nz.histinst.rwth-aachen.de/cms/HISTINST-NZ/Der-Lehrstuhl/Mitarbeiterinnen-und-Mitarbeiter/Lehrbeauftragte/~jfqk/Dr-phil-Ruediger-Haude/ Haude, R., & Wagner, T. (2019). Herrschaftsfreie Institutionen. Texte zur Stabilisierung staatsloser, egalitärer Gesellschaften. Verlag Graswurzelrevolution. (Erstveröffentlichung 1999). https://www.graswurzel.net/gwr/produkt/herrschaftsfreie-institutionen/ Haude, R. (2023). Als Adam grub und Eva spann. Herrschaftsfeindschaft in der Hebräischen Bibel.  Matthes & Seitz Berlin. https://www.matthes-seitz-berlin.de/buch/als-adam-grub-und-eva-spann.html?lid=1 Haude, R. (2022). Weise Wilde. Schrift und Politik bei den Hanunoo-Mangyan auf Mindoro. In: Ines Soldwisch/ Rüdiger Haude/ Klaus Freitag (Hrsg.), Schrift und Herrschaft. Transcript Verlag. S.205-248. https://www.transcript-open.de/doi/10.14361/9783839456262-008 Haude, R. (2008). Frei-Beuter. Charakter und Herkunft piratischer Demokratie im frühen 18. Jahrhundert. Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft Nr. 7/8, 593–616. https://www.nz.histinst.rwth-aachen.de/cms/histinst-nz/forschung/publikationen/~gxhm/details/?file=131040&mobile=1 Wagner, T. (erscheint am 2.10.2025). Wege aus der Gewalt. Impulse für ein neues politisches Denken. Matthes & Seitz Berlin. https://www.matthes-seitz-berlin.de/buch/wege-aus-der-gewalt.html?lid=8 Wagner, T. (2022). Fahnenflucht in die Freiheit. Wie der Staat sich seine Feinde schuf – Skizzen zur Globalgeschichte der Demokratie. Matthes & Seitz Berlin. https://www.matthes-seitz-berlin.de/buch/fahnenflucht-in-die-freiheit.html Wagner, T. (2004). Irokesen und Demokratie. Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie interkultureller Kommunikation. LIT Verlag Münster. https://lit-verlag.de/isbn/978-3-8258-6845-1/ zu Anarchie/Anarchismus: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchismus https://www.anarchismus.at/ zu Libertarismus: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarismus zu Pierre Clastres: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Clastres Clastres, P. (2020). Staatsfeinde. Studien zur politischen Anthropologie. Konstanz University Press. https://www.wallstein-verlag.de/9783835391215-staatsfeinde.html zu Christian Sigrist: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Sigrist Amborn, H. (2016). Das Recht als Hort der Anarchie. Gesellschaften ohne Herrschaft und Staat.  Matthes & Seitz Berlin. https://www.matthes-seitz-berlin.de/buch/das-recht-als-hort-der-anarchie.html Sahlins, M. (2024). Die ursprüngliche Wohlstandsgesellschaft. Matthes & Seitz Berlin Verlag. https://www.matthes-seitz-berlin.de/buch/die-urspruengliche-wohlstandsgesellschaft.html zum Hambacher Forst und dem Widerstand gegen seine Rodung für den Braunkohleabbau: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hambacher_Forst zu Niklas Luhmann: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann Luhmann, N. (2012). Macht. UVK Verlag. https://www.utb.de/doi/book/10.36198/9783838537146 Gockel, S. (2016) Zur Trennung von Macht und Gewalt bei Hannah Arendt und ihrem Praxisgehalt. Soziologieblog. https://soziologieblog.hypotheses.org/9953 zu Liberalismus: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalismus Kuch, H. (2023). Wirtschaft, Demokratie und liberaler Sozialismus. Campus Verlag. https://www.ifs.uni-frankfurt.de/publikationsdetails/ifs-hannes-kuch-wirtschaft-demokratie-und-liberaler-sozialismus.html zu Ralf Dahrendorf: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralf_Dahrendorf zu Adam Smith: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith zu funktionaler Differenzierung in modernen Gesellschaften: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funktionale_Differenzierung zu Max Weber: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber Weber, M. (2002).  Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. Mohr Siebeck. https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/buch/wirtschaft-und-gesellschaft-9783161477492/ zu Ferdinand Tönnies' Begriffspaar „Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft“: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinschaft_und_Gesellschaft zum Konzept des „Urkommunismus“: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urkommunismus Reinisch, D. (Hrsg.). (2012). Der Urkommunismus. Auf den Spuren der egalitären Gesellschaft. Promedia Verlag. https://mediashop.at/buecher/der-urkommunismus/ zum (Anarcho-)Primitivismus: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitivismus zum demokratischen Konföderalismus in Rojava: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demokratischer_Konf%C3%B6deralismus zum Weltpostverein: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltpostverein zu Thomas Hobbes: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes zum „utopischen“ Sozialismus/Frühsozialismus inkl. Robert Owen und Charles Fourier: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%BChsozialismus zum „Ethnopluralismus“: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnopluralismus zu Omri Boehm: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omri_Boehm zu Martin Buber: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Buber „Frieden“ von K.I.Z. (2024): https://youtu.be/lnsf4b69JbI?si=CInsjZZ6L-fWDgrr Lenz, I., & Luig, U. (Hrsg.). (1995). Frauenmacht ohne Herrschaft. Geschlechterverhältnisse in nichtpatriarchalischen Gesellschaften. Fischer. https://www.zvab.com/Frauenmacht-Herrschaft-Geschlechterverh%C3%A4ltnisse-patriarchalischen-Gesellschaften-Lenz/32223118773/bd zu Elizabeth Cady Stanton: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Cady_Stanton zu Arnold Gehlen: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Gehlen Gehlen, A. (1983) Philosophische Anthropologie und Handlungslehre. Vittorio Klostermann. https://www.klostermann.de/Gehlen-Philosoph-Anthropologie-Ln zu Habermas' Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns und dem Konzept der herrschaftsfreien Kommunikation: https://soztheo.de/soziologie/schluesselwerke-der-soziologie/juergen-habermas-theorie-des-kommunikativen-handelns-1981/#google_vignette Callenbach, E. (2022). Ökotopia. Reclam. https://www.reclam.de/produktdetail/oekotopia-9783150114179 Groos, J. & Sorg, C. (Hrsg.). (2025). Creative Construction - Democratic Planning in the 21st Century and Beyond. Bristol University Press. https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/creative-construction zu David Graeber: https://davidgraeber.org/ Bey, H. (1994) T.A.Z. Temporäre Autonome Zone. Edition ID Archiv. https://monoskop.org/images/1/1b/Bey_Hakim_TAZ_Die_Temporaere_Autonome_Zone_1994.pdf Scott, J. C. (2020) Die Mühlen der Zivilisation. Eine Tiefengeschichte der frühesten Staaten. Suhrkamp https://www.suhrkamp.de/buch/james-c-scott-die-muehlen-der-zivilisation-t-9783518299340 Scott, J. C. (2009) The Art of Not Being Governed. An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. Yale University Press. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300169171/the-art-of-not-being-governed/ Thematisch angrenzende Folgen S03E41 | Hannes Kuch zu Liberalem Sozialismus https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e41-hannes-kuch-zu-liberalem-sozialismus/ S03E27 | Andreas Gehrlach zur ursprünglichen Wohlstandsgesellschaft https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e27-andreas-gehrlach-zur-urspruenglichen-wohlstandsgesellschaft/ S02E39 | Daniel Loick zu Freiheit, Souveränität und Recht ohne Gewalt https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e39-daniel-loick-zu-freiheit-souveraenitaet-und-recht-ohne-gewalt/ S02E31 | Thomas Swann on Anarchist Cybernetics https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e31-thomas-swann-on-anarchist-cybernetics/ S02E24 | Gabriel Kuhn zu anarchistischer Regierungskunst https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e24-gabriel-kuhn-zu-anarchistischer-regierungskunst/   Future Histories Kontakt & Unterstützung Wenn euch Future Histories gefällt, dann erwägt doch bitte eine Unterstützung auf Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/join/FutureHistories   Schreibt mir unter: office@futurehistories.today Diskutiert mit mir auf Twitter (#FutureHistories): https://twitter.com/FutureHpodcast auf Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/futurehistories.bsky.social auf Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/futurehpodcast/ auf Mastodon: https://mstdn.social/@FutureHistories   Webseite mit allen Folgen: www.futurehistories.today English webpage: https://futurehistories-international.com   Episode Keywords #RüdigerHaude, #ThomasWagner, #JanGroos, #FutureHistories, #Podcast, #Herrschaft, #Herrschaftsfreiheit, #HerrschaftsKritik, #Institutionen, #Anarchismus, #Macht, Ethnologie, #Soziologie, #Emanzipation, #Gesellschaft, #PolitischeImaginationen, #Staat, #Nationalstaat, #Liberalismus, #Anthropologie

Tomorrow's inauguration may spell the end for Donald Trump's disastrous presidency, but the monster he unleashed upon us January 6th will be with us for a generation. Michael discusses how the rioters were not some extraordinary group of hardened extremists, but rather, they come from our own communities; representing, as writer Hannah Arendt noted in her landmark 1963 New Yorker essay about the trial of Adolf Eichmann, "the banality of evil." The Lincoln Project's Rick Wilson joins Michael to discuss how we go about dismantling Trump's ugly legacy and hold the rioters and those who supported them accountable. For cool Mea Culpa gear, check out www.meaculpapodcast.com/merch To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices Tomorrow's inauguration may spell the end for Donald Trump's disastrous presidency, but the monster he unleashed upon us January 6th will be with us for a generation. Michael discusses how the rioters were not some extraordinary group of hardened extremists, but rather, they come from our own communities; representing, as writer Hannah Arendt noted in her landmark 1963 New Yorker essay about the trial of Adolf Eichmann, "the banality of evil." The Lincoln Project's Rick Wilson joins Michael to discuss how we go about dismantling Trump's ugly legacy and hold the rioters and those who supported them accountable. For cool Mea Culpa gear, check out www.meaculpapodcast.com/merch To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

John recently published “Lying in Politics: Hannah Arendt's Antidote to Anticipatory Despair" in Public Books. It makes the case against anticipatory despair in the face of the Trump administration's relentless campaign of lies, half-lies, bluster, and bullshit by turning for inspiration to his favorite political philosopher, Hannah Arendt. Half a century ago, in "Lying in Politics: Reflections on the Pentagon Papers" (1971) she showed how expedient occasional lies spread to become omnipresent--not just in how America's campaigns in Vietnam were reported, but throughout Nixon-era governance. Recall this Book 153 is simply John reading the article aloud. It is an experiment (akin to Books in Dark Times and Recall This Story and Recall This B-Side) in soliloquy. Reach out and let us know if you think it should be the first of many, or simply a one-off. Mentioned in the episode: M. Gessen, Surviving Autocracy Harry Frankfurt, "On Bullshit" Vaclav Havel, "The Power of the Powerless" (1978) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

John recently published “Lying in Politics: Hannah Arendt's Antidote to Anticipatory Despair" in Public Books. It makes the case against anticipatory despair in the face of the Trump administration's relentless campaign of lies, half-lies, bluster, and bullshit by turning for inspiration to his favorite political philosopher, Hannah Arendt. Half a century ago, in "Lying in Politics: Reflections on the Pentagon Papers" (1971) she showed how expedient occasional lies spread to become omnipresent--not just in how America's campaigns in Vietnam were reported, but throughout Nixon-era governance. Recall this Book 153 is simply John reading the article aloud. It is an experiment (akin to Books in Dark Times and Recall This Story and Recall This B-Side) in soliloquy. Reach out and let us know if you think it should be the first of many, or simply a one-off. Mentioned in the episode: M. Gessen, Surviving Autocracy Harry Frankfurt, "On Bullshit" Vaclav Havel, "The Power of the Powerless" (1978) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Few people have spent more of their lives thinking about the Nazis than the English filmmaker and writer Laurence Rees. In his new book, The Nazi Mind, Rees offers a lifetime of knowledge about the Nazis to warn about today's fragility of democracy. Borrowing from his extensive interviews of both former Nazis and Holocaust survivors, Rees discusses how Nazi ideology developed, why democracy proved so vulnerable in 1930s Germany, and what modern societies must understand about the enduring appeal of authoritarianism. Institutions we take for granted, he warns, can be far more fragile than we imagine.1. Democracy is More Fragile Than We Think"Everything is fragile and often a great deal more fragile than we think. That's the recurring theme of many of the interviewees that I met. Never saw this coming... You can have the most fragile piece of glass on your mantelpiece and it can stay there for 50 years, but someone can just touch it and it breaks." Democratic institutions require constant vigilance to survive.2. The Nazis Started as a Fringe Movement"Crucial statistic people should hold onto is that in 1928, the Nazis only got 2.6% of the vote. The vast majority of Germans rejected them... And then five years later, Hitler's chancellor." Economic crisis and democratic failure allowed extremism to flourish.3. Nazi Anti-Semitism Was Uniquely Dangerous"Unlike in previous anti-Semitic attacks going back hundreds and hundreds of years, there wasn't a possibility of a Jew saving themselves by saying, no, I'm baptized Christian... The Nazis saw you as a Jew based on your Jewish heritage, and so you found that there was no escape." This racial ideology made the Holocaust uniquely all-encompassing and deadly.4. Charismatic Leadership Requires Hero Worship"It was vital for a charismatic leader that the population see him as a hero... The notion of a charismatic leader being a hero figure is incredibly useful and important." Modern propaganda techniques were pioneered by figures like Goebbels.5. Historical Ignorance Enables Extremism"The bigger issue is absolute historical illiteracy... All this nonsense, all this misinformation, all this fake history, to coin a phrase, comes in to fill the gap." Without understanding history, people become vulnerable to manipulation and conspiracy theories.Forget the 12 warnings. There are only two ways of thinking about the Nazi mind: either it's evil or it's banal. In his historical movies and books, Rees treats Nazis as uniquely literal manifestation of pure evil. In contrast, Hannah Arendt's 1963 book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, focuses on its human ordinariness - what she called the banality of evil. It's an argument that Jonathan Glazer brilliantly develops in his controversial 2023 Oscar-winning movie, The Zone of Interest. As you can probably sense from my conversation with Rees, I'm in the Arendt/Glazer camp on this. Evil is always all around us. It's in Guantanamo and Gaza, as well as Belsen and Auschwitz. Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

John recently published “Lying in Politics: Hannah Arendt's Antidote to Anticipatory Despair" in Public Books. It makes the case against anticipatory despair in the face of the Trump administration's relentless campaign of lies, half-lies, bluster, and bullshit by turning for inspiration to his favorite political philosopher, Hannah Arendt. Half a century ago, in "Lying in Politics: Reflections on the Pentagon Papers" (1971) she showed how expedient occasional lies spread to become omnipresent--not just in how America's campaigns in Vietnam were reported, but throughout Nixon-era governance. Recall this Book 153 is simply John reading the article aloud. It is an experiment (akin to Books in Dark Times and Recall This Story and Recall This B-Side) in soliloquy. Reach out and let us know if you think it should be the first of many, or simply a one-off. Mentioned in the episode: M. Gessen, Surviving Autocracy Harry Frankfurt, "On Bullshit" Vaclav Havel, "The Power of the Powerless" (1978) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

John recently published “Lying in Politics: Hannah Arendt's Antidote to Anticipatory Despair" in Public Books. It makes the case against anticipatory despair in the face of the Trump administration's relentless campaign of lies, half-lies, bluster, and bullshit by turning for inspiration to his favorite political philosopher, Hannah Arendt. Half a century ago, in "Lying in Politics: Reflections on the Pentagon Papers" (1971) she showed how expedient occasional lies spread to become omnipresent--not just in how America's campaigns in Vietnam were reported, but throughout Nixon-era governance. Recall this Book 153 is simply John reading the article aloud. It is an experiment (akin to Books in Dark Times and Recall This Story and Recall This B-Side) in soliloquy. Reach out and let us know if you think it should be the first of many, or simply a one-off. Mentioned in the episode: M. Gessen, Surviving Autocracy Harry Frankfurt, "On Bullshit" Vaclav Havel, "The Power of the Powerless" (1978) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

John recently published “Lying in Politics: Hannah Arendt's Antidote to Anticipatory Despair" in Public Books. It makes the case against anticipatory despair in the face of the Trump administration's relentless campaign of lies, half-lies, bluster, and bullshit by turning for inspiration to his favorite political philosopher, Hannah Arendt. Half a century ago, in "Lying in Politics: Reflections on the Pentagon Papers" (1971) she showed how expedient occasional lies spread to become omnipresent--not just in how America's campaigns in Vietnam were reported, but throughout Nixon-era governance. Recall this Book 153 is simply John reading the article aloud. It is an experiment (akin to Books in Dark Times and Recall This Story and Recall This B-Side) in soliloquy. Reach out and let us know if you think it should be the first of many, or simply a one-off. Mentioned in the episode: M. Gessen, Surviving Autocracy Harry Frankfurt, "On Bullshit" Vaclav Havel, "The Power of the Powerless" (1978) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt ---00:00 Welcome and Introduction - Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt 01:00 Revisiting Nuremberg and Moral Accountability06:07 Revisiting Historical Narratives and Bias08:07 Highlighting Hannah Arendt: Political Philosopher13:24 Hannah Arendt: Controversies and Legacy15:02 Eichmann's Autobiographical Reflections18:52 Eichmann's Fabricated Past Exposed22:17 Eichmann's 1932 Turning Point25:43 Reportage in 20th Century Journalism32:29 Eichmann's Lack of Imagination35:22 Eichmann: Bureaucracy and Individual Guilt36:51 "Bureaucracy and Dehumanization"40:08 Eichmann Trial's Complex Controversy44:41 "Conformity, Thoughtlessness, and Evil"46:38 Leadership Lessons from Eichmann in Jerusalem52:32 "Secular Justice and Rising Antisemitism"54:23 Immaturity Endangers Political Responsibility---Opening and closing themes composed by Brian Sanyshyn of Brian Sanyshyn Music.---Pick up your copy of 12 Rules for Leaders: The Foundation of Intentional Leadership NOW on AMAZON!Check out the 2022 Leadership Lessons From the Great Books podcast reading list!--- ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ Subscribe to the Leadership Lessons From The Great Books Podcast: https://bit.ly/LLFTGBSubscribeCheck out HSCT Publishing at: https://www.hsctpublishing.com/.Check out LeadingKeys at: https://www.leadingkeys.com/Check out Leadership ToolBox at: https://leadershiptoolbox.us/Contact HSCT for more information at 1-833-216-8296 to schedule a full DEMO of LeadingKeys with one of our team members.---Leadership ToolBox website: https://leadershiptoolbox.us/.Leadership ToolBox LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ldrshptlbx/.Leadership ToolBox YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@leadershiptoolbox/videosLeadership ToolBox Twitter: https://twitter.com/ldrshptlbx.Leadership ToolBox IG: https://www.instagram.com/leadershiptoolboxus/.Leadership ToolBox FB: https://www.facebook.com/LdrshpTl

The Anthem Companion to Karl Jaspers (Anthem Press, 2025) edited by Hans Joas and Matthias Bormuth is a collection of articles by an international group of leading experts has its special focus on the relevance of Karl Jaspers's philosophy for the social sciences. It also includes classical evaluations of Jaspers's thinking by renowned authors Talcott Parsons and Jürgen Habermas. Several chapters are devoted to the relationship between Jaspers and his teacher (Max Weber), his famous student (Hannah Arendt) and crucial figures in his intellectual world (Wilhelm Dilthey, Georg Simmel). Others deal with his relevance for disciplines from psychiatry to the study of religion and the historico-sociological research about the Axial Age, a term coined by Jaspers. In his introduction, editor Hans Joas tries to systematise Jaspers's relevance for the contemporary social sciences and to explain why Parsons had called him a ‘social scientist's philosopher'. The contributions to this volume deal, on one hand, with thematic areas for which Jaspers's work has been crucial: the Axial Age debate, a non-theological and non-reductive theory of religion; the understanding of psychoanalysis and psychiatry; and the possibilities of a diagnosis of one's own age. On the other hand, they put Jaspers in contrast with Max Weber, Wilhelm Dilthey, Georg Simmel and Hannah Arendt. The volume also contains important chapters by Talcott Parsons, who called Jaspers ‘a social scientist's philosopher', and by Jürgen Habermas, who contrasts his own views on the role of communicative ethics in an age of religious pluralism with those of Jaspers. The book promises to become an indispensable source in the re-evaluation of Jaspers's thinking in the years to come.Hans Joas is the Ernst Troeltsch Professor for the Sociology of Religion at the Humboldt University of Berlin. Matthias Bormuth is Professor for Comparative Intellectual History at the University of Oldenburg and is also the Director of the Karl Jaspers Haus.Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar with research areas spanning Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, Military History, War Studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, and Russian and East European history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The Anthem Companion to Karl Jaspers (Anthem Press, 2025) edited by Hans Joas and Matthias Bormuth is a collection of articles by an international group of leading experts has its special focus on the relevance of Karl Jaspers's philosophy for the social sciences. It also includes classical evaluations of Jaspers's thinking by renowned authors Talcott Parsons and Jürgen Habermas. Several chapters are devoted to the relationship between Jaspers and his teacher (Max Weber), his famous student (Hannah Arendt) and crucial figures in his intellectual world (Wilhelm Dilthey, Georg Simmel). Others deal with his relevance for disciplines from psychiatry to the study of religion and the historico-sociological research about the Axial Age, a term coined by Jaspers. In his introduction, editor Hans Joas tries to systematise Jaspers's relevance for the contemporary social sciences and to explain why Parsons had called him a ‘social scientist's philosopher'. The contributions to this volume deal, on one hand, with thematic areas for which Jaspers's work has been crucial: the Axial Age debate, a non-theological and non-reductive theory of religion; the understanding of psychoanalysis and psychiatry; and the possibilities of a diagnosis of one's own age. On the other hand, they put Jaspers in contrast with Max Weber, Wilhelm Dilthey, Georg Simmel and Hannah Arendt. The volume also contains important chapters by Talcott Parsons, who called Jaspers ‘a social scientist's philosopher', and by Jürgen Habermas, who contrasts his own views on the role of communicative ethics in an age of religious pluralism with those of Jaspers. The book promises to become an indispensable source in the re-evaluation of Jaspers's thinking in the years to come.Hans Joas is the Ernst Troeltsch Professor for the Sociology of Religion at the Humboldt University of Berlin. Matthias Bormuth is Professor for Comparative Intellectual History at the University of Oldenburg and is also the Director of the Karl Jaspers Haus.Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar with research areas spanning Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, Military History, War Studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, and Russian and East European history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

The Anthem Companion to Karl Jaspers (Anthem Press, 2025) edited by Hans Joas and Matthias Bormuth is a collection of articles by an international group of leading experts has its special focus on the relevance of Karl Jaspers's philosophy for the social sciences. It also includes classical evaluations of Jaspers's thinking by renowned authors Talcott Parsons and Jürgen Habermas. Several chapters are devoted to the relationship between Jaspers and his teacher (Max Weber), his famous student (Hannah Arendt) and crucial figures in his intellectual world (Wilhelm Dilthey, Georg Simmel). Others deal with his relevance for disciplines from psychiatry to the study of religion and the historico-sociological research about the Axial Age, a term coined by Jaspers. In his introduction, editor Hans Joas tries to systematise Jaspers's relevance for the contemporary social sciences and to explain why Parsons had called him a ‘social scientist's philosopher'. The contributions to this volume deal, on one hand, with thematic areas for which Jaspers's work has been crucial: the Axial Age debate, a non-theological and non-reductive theory of religion; the understanding of psychoanalysis and psychiatry; and the possibilities of a diagnosis of one's own age. On the other hand, they put Jaspers in contrast with Max Weber, Wilhelm Dilthey, Georg Simmel and Hannah Arendt. The volume also contains important chapters by Talcott Parsons, who called Jaspers ‘a social scientist's philosopher', and by Jürgen Habermas, who contrasts his own views on the role of communicative ethics in an age of religious pluralism with those of Jaspers. The book promises to become an indispensable source in the re-evaluation of Jaspers's thinking in the years to come.Hans Joas is the Ernst Troeltsch Professor for the Sociology of Religion at the Humboldt University of Berlin. Matthias Bormuth is Professor for Comparative Intellectual History at the University of Oldenburg and is also the Director of the Karl Jaspers Haus.Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar with research areas spanning Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, Military History, War Studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, and Russian and East European history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Hannah Arendt witnessed the rise of Nazism in Germany and her groundbreaking works, including The Origins of Totalitarianism, sought to understand how regular people could be seduced by horrendous ideologies such as antisemitism and fascism. In this episode, Ben speaks with documentarian Jeff Bieber, whose new film Hannah Arendt: Facing Tyranny, documents Adendt's life as an intellectual, refugee and, eventually, an American citizen whose concerns about power remain as relevant today as they were half a century ago.   Hannah Arendt: Facing Tyranny premiered on PBS on June 27 and is available to watch on pbs.org by clicking here.   For more on Jeff Bieber's work, check out his website: JeffBieberProductions.org.   This episode was edited by Ben Sawyer.

On this episode, John and Rachael discuss the poetic output of Hannah Arendt's poetry, newly translated into English in a new book from Norton, translated by Samantha Rose Hill and Genese Grill, plus Fred Lambert delivers another masterful installment of the Booze News Roundup.

“If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. And the people that no longer believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act, but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people, you can then do what you please.” Those are the words, written more than 6 decades ago, of political philosopher Hannah Arendt, whose life and work is vividly explored in "Hannah Arendt: Facing Tyranny," which will premiere on PBS broadcast and digital channels on June 27 as part of the "American Masters" series.   Jeff Bieber, the executive producer and co-writer/director of this timely and compelling documentary, joins host Michael Azevedo on this episode of Making Media Now.   The film explores Arendt's fearless examination of power, propaganda and moral responsibility in the face of authoritarianism.   Making Media Now is sponsored by Filmmakers Collaborative, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting media makers from across the creative spectrum. From providing fiscal sponsorship to presenting an array of informative and educational programs, Filmmakers Collaborative supports creatives at every step in their journey. About the host: www.writevoicecreative.com and https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-azevedo/   Sound Engineer: A.J. Kierstead

Toño Fraguas rinde homenaje a la filósofa alemana Hannah Arendt en el año en el que se cumple medio siglo de su fallecimiento. Brillante y comprometida, luchó contra el nazismo, fue refugiada política y la primera mujer catedrática de la Universidad de Princeton, en Estados Unidos. Escuchar audio

In The Banality of Good: The UN's Global Fight against Human Trafficking (Duke University Press, 2024), Dr. Lieba Faier examines why contemporary efforts to curb human trafficking have fallen so spectacularly short of their stated goals despite well-funded campaigns by the United Nations and its member-state governments. Focusing on Japan's efforts to enact the UN's counter-trafficking protocol and assist Filipina migrants working in Japan's sex industry, Dr. Faier draws from interviews with NGO caseworkers and government officials to demonstrate how these efforts disregard the needs and perspectives of those they are designed to help. She finds that these campaigns tend to privilege bureaucracies and institutional compliance, resulting in the compromised quality of life, repatriation, and even criminalization of human trafficking survivors. Dr. Faier expands on Hannah Arendt's idea of the “banality of evil” by coining the titular “banality of good” to describe the reality of the UN's fight against human trafficking. Detailing the protocols that have been put in place and evaluating their enactment, Dr. Faier reveals how the continued failure of humanitarian institutions to address structural inequities and colonial history ultimately reinforces the violent status quo they claim to be working to change. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In The Banality of Good: The UN's Global Fight against Human Trafficking (Duke University Press, 2024), Dr. Lieba Faier examines why contemporary efforts to curb human trafficking have fallen so spectacularly short of their stated goals despite well-funded campaigns by the United Nations and its member-state governments. Focusing on Japan's efforts to enact the UN's counter-trafficking protocol and assist Filipina migrants working in Japan's sex industry, Dr. Faier draws from interviews with NGO caseworkers and government officials to demonstrate how these efforts disregard the needs and perspectives of those they are designed to help. She finds that these campaigns tend to privilege bureaucracies and institutional compliance, resulting in the compromised quality of life, repatriation, and even criminalization of human trafficking survivors. Dr. Faier expands on Hannah Arendt's idea of the “banality of evil” by coining the titular “banality of good” to describe the reality of the UN's fight against human trafficking. Detailing the protocols that have been put in place and evaluating their enactment, Dr. Faier reveals how the continued failure of humanitarian institutions to address structural inequities and colonial history ultimately reinforces the violent status quo they claim to be working to change. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/east-asian-studies

In The Banality of Good: The UN's Global Fight against Human Trafficking (Duke University Press, 2024), Dr. Lieba Faier examines why contemporary efforts to curb human trafficking have fallen so spectacularly short of their stated goals despite well-funded campaigns by the United Nations and its member-state governments. Focusing on Japan's efforts to enact the UN's counter-trafficking protocol and assist Filipina migrants working in Japan's sex industry, Dr. Faier draws from interviews with NGO caseworkers and government officials to demonstrate how these efforts disregard the needs and perspectives of those they are designed to help. She finds that these campaigns tend to privilege bureaucracies and institutional compliance, resulting in the compromised quality of life, repatriation, and even criminalization of human trafficking survivors. Dr. Faier expands on Hannah Arendt's idea of the “banality of evil” by coining the titular “banality of good” to describe the reality of the UN's fight against human trafficking. Detailing the protocols that have been put in place and evaluating their enactment, Dr. Faier reveals how the continued failure of humanitarian institutions to address structural inequities and colonial history ultimately reinforces the violent status quo they claim to be working to change. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/southeast-asian-studies

In The Banality of Good: The UN's Global Fight against Human Trafficking (Duke University Press, 2024), Dr. Lieba Faier examines why contemporary efforts to curb human trafficking have fallen so spectacularly short of their stated goals despite well-funded campaigns by the United Nations and its member-state governments. Focusing on Japan's efforts to enact the UN's counter-trafficking protocol and assist Filipina migrants working in Japan's sex industry, Dr. Faier draws from interviews with NGO caseworkers and government officials to demonstrate how these efforts disregard the needs and perspectives of those they are designed to help. She finds that these campaigns tend to privilege bureaucracies and institutional compliance, resulting in the compromised quality of life, repatriation, and even criminalization of human trafficking survivors. Dr. Faier expands on Hannah Arendt's idea of the “banality of evil” by coining the titular “banality of good” to describe the reality of the UN's fight against human trafficking. Detailing the protocols that have been put in place and evaluating their enactment, Dr. Faier reveals how the continued failure of humanitarian institutions to address structural inequities and colonial history ultimately reinforces the violent status quo they claim to be working to change. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In The Banality of Good: The UN's Global Fight against Human Trafficking (Duke University Press, 2024), Dr. Lieba Faier examines why contemporary efforts to curb human trafficking have fallen so spectacularly short of their stated goals despite well-funded campaigns by the United Nations and its member-state governments. Focusing on Japan's efforts to enact the UN's counter-trafficking protocol and assist Filipina migrants working in Japan's sex industry, Dr. Faier draws from interviews with NGO caseworkers and government officials to demonstrate how these efforts disregard the needs and perspectives of those they are designed to help. She finds that these campaigns tend to privilege bureaucracies and institutional compliance, resulting in the compromised quality of life, repatriation, and even criminalization of human trafficking survivors. Dr. Faier expands on Hannah Arendt's idea of the “banality of evil” by coining the titular “banality of good” to describe the reality of the UN's fight against human trafficking. Detailing the protocols that have been put in place and evaluating their enactment, Dr. Faier reveals how the continued failure of humanitarian institutions to address structural inequities and colonial history ultimately reinforces the violent status quo they claim to be working to change. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

In The Banality of Good: The UN's Global Fight against Human Trafficking (Duke University Press, 2024), Dr. Lieba Faier examines why contemporary efforts to curb human trafficking have fallen so spectacularly short of their stated goals despite well-funded campaigns by the United Nations and its member-state governments. Focusing on Japan's efforts to enact the UN's counter-trafficking protocol and assist Filipina migrants working in Japan's sex industry, Dr. Faier draws from interviews with NGO caseworkers and government officials to demonstrate how these efforts disregard the needs and perspectives of those they are designed to help. She finds that these campaigns tend to privilege bureaucracies and institutional compliance, resulting in the compromised quality of life, repatriation, and even criminalization of human trafficking survivors. Dr. Faier expands on Hannah Arendt's idea of the “banality of evil” by coining the titular “banality of good” to describe the reality of the UN's fight against human trafficking. Detailing the protocols that have been put in place and evaluating their enactment, Dr. Faier reveals how the continued failure of humanitarian institutions to address structural inequities and colonial history ultimately reinforces the violent status quo they claim to be working to change. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/anthropology

In The Banality of Good: The UN's Global Fight against Human Trafficking (Duke University Press, 2024), Dr. Lieba Faier examines why contemporary efforts to curb human trafficking have fallen so spectacularly short of their stated goals despite well-funded campaigns by the United Nations and its member-state governments. Focusing on Japan's efforts to enact the UN's counter-trafficking protocol and assist Filipina migrants working in Japan's sex industry, Dr. Faier draws from interviews with NGO caseworkers and government officials to demonstrate how these efforts disregard the needs and perspectives of those they are designed to help. She finds that these campaigns tend to privilege bureaucracies and institutional compliance, resulting in the compromised quality of life, repatriation, and even criminalization of human trafficking survivors. Dr. Faier expands on Hannah Arendt's idea of the “banality of evil” by coining the titular “banality of good” to describe the reality of the UN's fight against human trafficking. Detailing the protocols that have been put in place and evaluating their enactment, Dr. Faier reveals how the continued failure of humanitarian institutions to address structural inequities and colonial history ultimately reinforces the violent status quo they claim to be working to change. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

In The Banality of Good: The UN's Global Fight against Human Trafficking (Duke University Press, 2024), Dr. Lieba Faier examines why contemporary efforts to curb human trafficking have fallen so spectacularly short of their stated goals despite well-funded campaigns by the United Nations and its member-state governments. Focusing on Japan's efforts to enact the UN's counter-trafficking protocol and assist Filipina migrants working in Japan's sex industry, Dr. Faier draws from interviews with NGO caseworkers and government officials to demonstrate how these efforts disregard the needs and perspectives of those they are designed to help. She finds that these campaigns tend to privilege bureaucracies and institutional compliance, resulting in the compromised quality of life, repatriation, and even criminalization of human trafficking survivors. Dr. Faier expands on Hannah Arendt's idea of the “banality of evil” by coining the titular “banality of good” to describe the reality of the UN's fight against human trafficking. Detailing the protocols that have been put in place and evaluating their enactment, Dr. Faier reveals how the continued failure of humanitarian institutions to address structural inequities and colonial history ultimately reinforces the violent status quo they claim to be working to change. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/geography

Some might argue that the concept of evil is outdated in our relativistic age. And yet—how can we speak of war crimes, cruelty, or the neglect of human dignity without invoking the word evil? Perhaps it's time to take it seriously again, to revisit the thinkers who have grappled with its meaning. One of them, of course, is Hannah Arendt. This is a conversation about Hannah Arendt and the concept of evil, which took place in Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine, on June 1st, at the Kyiv Book Arsenal—one of the country's major literary events. Despite the ongoing war, the fair was full of people. My guest was Marci Shore, an American intellectual, historian, and university professor. She specializes in 20th-century European intellectual history, with a particular focus on Hannah Arendt. This year, Marci co-curated the Kyiv Book Arsenal's focus topic, alongside Oksana Forostyna. My name is Volodymyr Yermolenko. I'm a Ukrainian philosopher, the editor-in-chief of UkraineWorld, and the president of PEN Ukraine. UkraineWorld is an English language media outlet about Ukraine run by Internews Ukraine, one of the country's leading media NGOs. *** You can support our work at https://www.patreon.com/c/ukraineworld Your support is vital, as we increasingly rely on crowdfunding. Even a small monthly donation can make a big difference. You can also help fund our regular volunteer trips to Ukraine's front-line areas, where we provide aid to both soldiers and civilians—mainly by delivering vehicles for the military and books for local communities. To support these efforts, you can donate via PayPal at ukraine.resisting@gmail.com. *** Contents: 00:00 Intro 01:18 Support our work 04:44 Why is Hannah Arendt essential to understanding the 20th and 21st centuries? 06:16 What is Hannah Arendt's concept of 'radical evil'? 07:48 How are people made superfluous? 10:12 How has World War II shaped Arendt's thought? 17:17 From “radical evil” to the “banality of evil”: connecting Arendt's key concepts. 26:34 Marci Shore on the current situation in America 30:46 Thoughts on human dignity 32:14 Is the idea that 'everyone is replaceable' starting to repeat itself? 34:49 Why Sartre's idea of “nothingness” might be dangerous? 42:14 Hannah Arendt: vita activa versus vita contemplativa 50:15 Outro

It took author Madeleine Thien nearly a decade to write her new novel The Book of Records. In the story, 7-year-old Lina and her father take refuge at an imagined place called the Sea. There, buildings serve as a waystation for people who are fleeing one place to make home in another. Thien says she wanted to set her novel in a location where centuries and histories might converge. In today's episode, Thien talks with NPR's Ari Shapiro about her personal relationship to the three historical thinkers who enter the story: Hannah Arendt, Baruch Spinoza, and Du Fu.To listen to Book of the Day sponsor-free and support NPR's book coverage, sign up for Book of the Day+ at plus.npr.org/bookofthedayLearn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Help MuggleCast grow! Become a MuggleCast Member and get great benefits like Bonus MuggleCast! Patreon.com/MuggleCast  Grab official merch! MuggleCastMerch.com Pick up overstock merch from years past, including our 19th Anniversary Shirt! MuggleMillennial.Etsy.com On this week's episode, we're starting Pride Month 2025 off by revisiting the topic of Potter series author J.K. Rowling, whose recent actions along with the continued assault on the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals worldwide, warrant further discussion. We are joined by a guest who is an ethicist, philosopher and college instructor, and all of our hosts dive head-first into sharing their feelings on what is happening. And to lead off our discussion, we cover the topic of the casting of the new trio for HBO's upcoming TV series. This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Receive 10% off your first month of therapy at BetterHelp.com/mugglecast News: Harry, Ron and Hermione have now been cast in HBO's Harry Potter TV series! The hosts react. Welcome to the podcast, Sunny Williams! Sunny's roots in fandom and wizard rock, and her impressive academic career, make her a perfect fit for our episode today. We revisit the topic of J.K. Rowling, whose new 'Women's Fund' will help advance anti-trans legal cases. Our previous episodes that addressed the author were Episode 447b and Episode 469, both worth a re-listen. The hosts share their thoughts on the last 5 years of disappointment, from infinite double-downs to behavior that is antithetical to the works which we celebrate. Eric takes us through the most recent year in anti-trans legislation, featuring two huge pseudoscientific reports, not peer reviewed and forcefully discredited by major medical organizations, which are nevertheless being used to strip transgender people from accessing healthcare through legislation. The actual science is so in-favor of trans people receiving healthcare, that its opponents have suggested other ways of measuring its efficiency, like whether receivers currently have a job. Rowling's astonishing cruelty is on display daily on X, and her initiatives and gender-policing have been shown to affect ALL women, as the rise on assaults of women in rest areas has grown around hostility towards anyone seen as gender non-conforming by strangers empowered to act. The hosts use scenarios from the Potter books to illustrate what's presently happening. Sunny guides us through the ethics of financially supporting problematic creators, with thoughts from Socrates, Hannah Arendt, Henry David Thoreau, and others! To wrap, we discuss our continued strategy for keeping the fandom progressive and inclusive. Next week, a return to Chapter-by-Chapter will see us introduced to another bully, as it's time to experience Chapter 28, “Snape's Worst Memory.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today we talk about Kafka's book The Castle and how the symbolism is interpreted by two powerhouse philosophers: Theodore Adorno and Hannah Arendt. Hope you love it! :) Sponsors: Incogni: https://www.Incogni.com/philothis Quince: https://www.QUINCE.com/pt ZocDoc: https://www.ZocDoc.com/PHILO Thank you so much for listening! Could never do this without your help.  Website: https://www.philosophizethis.org/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/philosophizethis  Social: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/philosophizethispodcast X: https://twitter.com/iamstephenwest Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/philosophizethisshow Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices