Due Process for "Dangerous" Guantanamo Prisoners

The essence of the problem with detaining allegedly dangerous prisoners is the endless nature of the terrorism war. When we fought Germany we detained prisoners, dangerous or not, until the war ended. No problem. But when the war doesn't end, whether because the opposition is not politically legitimate, or cannot reasonably be expected to control its warriors after a "peace" is agreed (such as, say, Hamas), then fundamental fairness requires some process for judging the dangerousness of battlefield prisoners, and those found to pose risks must be endlessly detained. To release them is suicidal.

What I think Obama wants to do, as do I, is to ensure that the judging process be as fair as possible--due process. But what is due process under these circumstances? We know what due process means for people accused of crimes. And as Sen. Whitehouse recently noted, we even have due process standards for citizens facing endless detainment in civil proceedings. But those standards work here because they apply to people living in a reasonably ordered civil society where there exists a great deal of information about people who have been observed under normal circumstances, and witnesses who can testify under oath. Those circumstances don't usually exist in the case of battlefield prisoners. Consequently, we must create a different set of procedures to provide as much due process as possible under the circumstances of their capture. To summarize: our notions of due process simply don't apply to battlefield prisoners facing endless imprisonment. We need to develop the best notions possible to fit the circumstances of those battlefield prisoners.

Guns in National Parks

Plainly, no Republicans or friends or relatives of Republicans use the National Parks. Should anyone be shot by some crazed carrier of a concealed gun permit, the Republican senators and NRA lobbyists who made concealed guns in the parks would rightfully be guilty of felony-murder.

Roots of the Financial Crisis

Many conservative people share a concern about the recent level of borrowing, and blame excessive borrowing and lax credit standards for the current financial crisis. What seems to trouble them is not just the borrowing itself, but the lack of prudence suggested by the vast increase in borrowing from historical standards. The underlying suggestion is that a greatly increased flow of credit means that there's something seriously wrong; probably, that someone isn't watching the store. But this reading of the data is mistaken. It doesn't take into account the fact that there are excellent reasons why both lenders and borrowers can now expect repayment with far more good reason than was the case a generation ago, and accordingly lend and borrow more than used to be possible. Both lenders and borrowers today enjoy a vastly improved ability to predict financial behavior and to reduce the risk of failure.

It probably sounds idiotic to say this now, but the reality is that even the improvements that make a greater flow of credit reasonable, even those improvements, cannot overcome the kind of faults that created the current mess. Those faults come down to 3: the improper alignment of financial incentives within the financial industry, particular the part dealing with mortgages; the massive growth of key financial institutions, which renders them at the same time "too big to fail" and too big to govern; and the decline of regulation for ideological reasons since Reagan's presidency, culminating of course in the ideologues of W. Bush.

The Greatest Plunder Ever: a Story

They had planned and tried and failed, and planned and tried and failed, and lain in the weeds and planned and planned some more. Finally, the stars aligned, and by the slimmest of possible margins—one Supreme Court vote—they got in. Everybody assumed that after such a close election their feckless and indifferent Presidential candidate would become the compromiser he had promised to be. But their man in the White House, Dick Cheney, along with his brilliant staff of socioopaths, noting the liberal disarray after the corrupt Supreme Court decision, guided George W. Bush to take an uncompromising, highly ideological position that favored the massive looting that they had been waiting and hoping for.
Part of the looting plan had always been to foster a major war, which created unrivaled looting opportunities for many of them, the aerospace people, the defense contractors, the commodities manufacturers, the consultants and the like. The obvious target was Sadaam Hussein’s Iraq. Not everyone agreed, however, since the confinement tactics pursued by NATO seemed to be working. For months the decision hung in the balance. It was the crafty Cheney who found a solution. While Bush, bored with government and interested in physical conditioning, ignored his security staff and met with his foreign policy advisor only because he admired her good looks, Cheney pored over the intelligence reports. He, along with his pal the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, noticed increasing references to terrorists stealing airplanes and attacking US targets with them. But by isolating the experienced and savvy Secretary of State, Colin Powell, keeping the inexperienced and ineffectual National Security advisor Condeleeza Rice confused, ordering the silly Attorney General John Ashforth to keep the FBI out of it, and intimidating the hold-over CIA director George Tenet, they kept the intelligence buried. Then, sure enough, on September 11, 2001 their efforts paid off, and from that date forward the whole nation was primed for war.
It has been estimated that the war in Iraq will end up costing $4 trillion, and apart from expenditures on the salaries of the troops, virtually all of this money has gone to them or their cronies on a cost-plus basis. But that isn’t all! I have been describing the war first, because nothing else lends itself to such massive looting. But the group’s efforts on the domestic front have been both heroic and highly lucrative as well. They have received gifts of the nation’s natural resources, including national forest timber, grazing lands, mining rights, offshore drilling rights, and even reductions in the miniscule royalties that oil companies have to pay for those rights. They have enjoyed enormous tax reductions, reduced or terminated scrutiny of their tax returns, foreign shelters, and accounting tricks, forgivenesses of past fiscal crimes, and virtual complete freedom from regulation in every area, whether health and safety, food, mining, the financial markets, or labor relations. Then there are the actions in violation of the Constitution, and the tawdry efforts to justify them. The catalogue is so long that it becomes tedious to recite.
The result has been to bring the US to the edge of moral and financial bankruptcy. Never in history has any nation so quickly lost its honor among other nations and peoples. Never in history, short of being conquered in war, has a nation lost so much wealth. Can we recover? Will this evil gang of sociopaths be punished in any way?
These are, to some degree, mutually exclusive possibilities. The new President appears capable of using this crisis as an opportunity to do many essential things that would otherwise have proven difficult to do. Such actions promise to make a substantial fiscal recovery possible; more importantly, to restore the health of the society, which in the course of this evil empire has been severely challenged. But if the new administation becomes diverted by pursuing and bringing to justice this evil gang, the redemptive and transformative possibiities of this Presidency will have been wasted. To be sure, if criminal cases can be made, they should be. If the pursuit of these villains costs them their ill-gotten gains and their peace of mind, so much the better. But this matter cannot be a priority, at a time when crisis and opportunity in equal measure require our full attention and effort.

The Great Democratic Party Non-response

One of my gripes is the complete inability of ordinary citizens like myself to engage with the Democratic Party on a national level, apart from sending them money. I have sent many letters and emails to Congressmen, Senators, and organizations in and around the Democratic party over the years. I even joined one of them, New Democratic Network, because it seemed to promise just such a dialogue. Membership was quite expensive, and I did get to speak from time to time to its leader. But as for participation, nada. Typical, if more extreme than most, was the non-response of Sen. Schumer’s office. In 2004, a number of the residents in my apartment building pledged to donate $10,000 to a deserving Democrat. I repeatedly tried to contact the senator or someone on his staff, even dangling the $10,000 as bait, hoping that they could send someone to one of our meetings to give us their ideas about who to support. We never got any response whatsoever.
Recently, however, I logged onto Obama’s website, change.gov and was most pleasantly surprised by the significant efforts being made there to solicit public input. While I haven’t yet joined any of the groups on the site, I am hoping that this is an exception to the great Democratic Party Non-response.

Response to Herve Kempf's "How the Rich are Destroying the Earth."

This is a response to an interview with Le Monde's environmental correspondent Herve Kempf, who has written a book entitled "How the Rich Are Destroying the Earth." One of his points in the interview was that environmental feeling is much stronger and more advanced in Europe than in the US. Having been an active Sierra Club member since the 60s, and aware of the environmental movement's history, I can remember when environmentalists were called conservationists, and their main concern was with preserving wild places. It was primarily from this start, here in the US, that modern environmentalism emerged.

As the stunning ferocity and broad human impact of environmental problems has become clearer, the nature of the required response from different countries has also diverged substantially. Europe, for reasons having nothing to do with virtue or intellect, has developed in a much more population-dense way than the US. Consequently, it now has less opportunity to curb its pollution than the US, while the US faces far more severe dislocations to make the progress it needs. Hence Americans are more cautious, on the whole. At the same time, however, we have a far greater opportunity to make a large impact, and to develop profitable businesses as a result.

Another point Kempf makes is to define capitalism as an ideology that views human motivation as entirely selfish, and competition in the marketplace as the ultimate arbiter of all. I strongly disagree. Capitalism refers to a way of organizing the production and distribution of goods and services that depends on substantially unregulated private entities seeking to sustain and, if possible, enrich themselves in the process. At the other extreme, of course, are command economies in which an authority has the right, usually circumscribed by tradition, to direct the creation and distribution of goods and services. Nevertheless, I think capitalism is a term so fraught with pejorative implications that it is best avoided. I have just finished writing a history of the origins and ancient development of business, and tried very hard never to use the term.

Gloom and doom

The imminent end of the world as we know and want it is now virtually assured. This catastrophe is not due to global warming, disease, or nuclear war, although these are likely to be immediate causal factors. Paradoxically, it is due to two interlocking developments of the 20th century, each of which seemed and under the right circumstances could be extremely beneficial: the rise of popular democracy, and the conversion of economies to competitive private enterprise-driven systems.
The vesting of governmental power in people selected through and responsive to popular democracy has normally been thought to be a great advance, in that it gives the weak and afflicted a voice in public affairs, and therefore a share in the distribution of benefits. Not only is this system fairer than autocratic forms of government, it is economically wiser as well, since the distribution of benefits enlarges markets and increases society’s wealth. Unfortunately, however, the growth of popular democracy has not been accompanied by a similar improvement in popular civic, moral, and practical education. The result, therefore, has been to empower a mass of people whose personal development remains childlike; they are little concerned for their communities, consider the most primitive forms of selfishness and cruelty to be entirely natural and justified, and for lack of worldly understanding remain credulous and easily led.
At the same time, private enterprises have become the principal economic actors. These are marvelously efficient and effective engines of economic activity, and have propelled western economies to previously unimaginable heights of prosperity. They are now doing so in the rest of the world as well. But they are also, by design, oriented toward relatively short-term profits for themselves, and will relentlessly seek to influence governments on their own behalf. Their managers want to gain power as against owners and workers, and they want terms of trade that reduce their costs, subsidize their operations, and refrain from actions that they or their managers dislike.
With the world population now so large, and the environmental impact of economic activity so great, the combination of an ignorant and credulous electorate and a wealthy and selfish business community has become deadly. The business community uses the organs of publicity and persuasion in society to lead the electorate in the directions it prefers. As the de facto leader of the world, however, business is extremely defective. The top managers have an even shorter-term focus than their businesses, and despite the occasional public-spirited exception tend to wield their corporate power for personal gain without regard to any greater good. But even if management’s goals were better aligned with those of the corporation, the result would be similar. In effect, as was true in the Dark Ages, we have delivered worldly power to people who use it unwisely and selfishly. Unfortunately, under modern conditions the entire world is now the community that bears the consequences.

New Israel Fund

I recently received a very nice fundraising letter from the New Israel Fund, which prompted me to look at the NIF website. I was a donor to NIF in 1979 and several subsequent years, but have become what is referred to in the recent news articles on the site as a “disaffected” Jew. As much as I like NIF’s programs and believe that they help some very needy people, I am not persuaded that sending medications to the Titanic, as it were, is a good use of my very limited funds. I suppose my point is to say why I am so disaffected, although you have no doubt heard it all before, and better said to boot.

I am not disaffected out of any sentiments favoring the Palestinians or their Arab enablers. On any comparative scale they are far worse. But the scale is not comparative. Should the day arrive when Israel is judged the same as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Syria, it will be a day of shame for the Israeli and Jewish people.

But it is Israel whose survival is being threatened, and the Jewish people who have much to lose by the viciousness and stupidity of Israel's leaders. I truly believe that the policies Israel’s dominant politicians have been pursuing will lead to its complete destruction within a few years or decades. Their approach, imposing gratuitous humiliation and cruelty on the non-Jews subject to their power, is a tragic failure of leadership, and the American Jewish establishment cheers them on as though we Jews had always been the dominant and privileged people of the world, learning nothing about the horrors of cruelty and unkindness, and having gained no empathy for the oppressed. Even apart from their personal criminality, Israel’s leaders since Likkud first came to power have provided an obscene and depressing spectacle (with the exceptions of Rabin and Barak). Jimmy Carter and Meersheimer and Walt are right in the essentials. Israel’s leaders seem to foolishly believe not only that might makes right, but that they will always have the might. In addition, they have used the basest kind of demagoguery to advance fundamentalist agendas, cynicism, and ignorance at home, with a corresponding malign influence on the nature of Israeli society.



In sum, NIF's struggle against these forces is a noble and honorable one, but unfortunately history is replete with societies that have been destroyed or immiserated for centuries by leaders like Israel’s.

Clintonism

Re Matt Bai's NY Times Magazine article about Clintonism: What Bai calls Clintonism is nothing more than smart liberalism, constrained by the art of the possible. Traditional liberalism came to embrace a lot of dumb, bad policies, the faults of which experience and a better understanding of psychology, sociology, and economics have clarified. Clinton rejected the most obvious of those bad policies. He could not implement major replacement programs, however, because of the political climate he faced, a climate partly engendered by the old-line lefties whose advocacy for those stupid policies helped poison it.

Romney vs Hilary

I agree with the posters who believe Romney will be the GOP nominee. I think it was the Washington Monthly that reported, about a year ago, that Jeb Bush had put his staff and donors at Romney's disposal, and that meant to me that R would likely prevail if McCain faltered, as he has done. If the Dems reject Hilary, I predict that Romney will have an excellent chance of winning the Presidency (or getting so close that the Supremes can steal it for him). That's because he's physically attractive, apparently very competent, and despite current pandering to the crazies who vote in GOP primaries, he's not scarily fanatical. He is by far the most dangerous of the Republican candidates, apart from McCain. I like both Obama and Edwards as well as Hilary, but she's the only Dem candidate who can survive the scurrilous Republican campaign tactics that will be coming.

On the other hand, I doubt that anyone who by winning this election has to deal with Iraq and global warming will manage to last more than one term.

14th Amendment and segregation

The school discrimination cases generated five different opinions, but the ones I wish to discuss are Chief Justice Roberts's, with 3 concurring conservative justices, Justice Breyer's, with 3 concurring liberal justices, and Justice Kennedy's, which therefore decides the case.
The case is about efforts by two different school districts, one in St. Louis and one in Seattle, to overcome residential and income segregation by prohibiting certain white students from attending their preferred school. In other words, it's about when the government may engage in racial discrimination. Roberts says this can be done (1) to correct segregation that can be traced to governmental action, and (2) to implement, in the narrowest possible way, a valid and urgent governmental interest in the goal of the discrimination. Breyer says that governmental discrimination can be done to enhance democracy and social cohesion, and that this reasoning has led to many Supreme Court decisions oking discrimination to combat segregation, whether of government action origin or not.
Kennedy agrees with Roberts’ interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but claims that the government could validly discriminate if it uses ways other than identifying and injuring individuals, which is what it was doing in these cases.
It seems to me that most of the objection to this decision is based on the outcome, and some of it is based on the less than completely candid way in which the majority explained its preference for the narrow over the broad interpretation of acceptable discrimination. But from an outcome point of view, Fish’s argument also has a lot of merit: namely, that the majority’s narrow definition of acceptable discrimination is likely to protect liberal interests in the future, whereas Breyer’s broad definition could easily be used to support unfair State action.
Every Supreme Court case results in two decisions. One decision is about the outcome, as above. The other is about the law, and what matters in the legal decision is both the legal principle that is enunciated, and how the Court reasons its way to that principle. In Bush v. Gore, the legal principle was reached by a lunge for the desired outcome, not through any reasoning supported by jurisprudence. It was a corrupt decision reached by morally corrupt judges, and the five who voted for it will be forever infamous. But the decision in the school cases is far from that. The reasoning by Roberts is scrupulous and plausible, whether one quibbles with certain phrases or not. To me, it indicates that at least Roberts and Alito are prepared to play fair with the Constitution, a document which can be interpreted in many different ways.

Democrat Economic Policy

I don't believe it's necessary for Dems to have economic policies, except as illustrations of our principles and standards. I believe ALL Democrats share such principles and standards. We are wholeheartedly in favor of wealth and its fair distribution, as well as the prevention and punishment of economic crime. We don't have to specify how we would implement these goals, except for purposes of illustration. What distinguishes us from the Republicans is the direction we face: forward, not backwards; toward all the people, not just the privileged.

What is Art?

Dear Fred,
I would like to try out on you a definition of art, sparked by the discussions we have had and what you said last night. I think there are four fundamental elements that must be included in a definition of art: as you keep insisting, it is a mode of communication; more particularly, I think, it is an aesthetic communication; it is an extremely well done (artful) aesthetic communication; and it is recognized as such. I would also say that the label “art” is an accolade. In short, art is a term of respect that we give to the aesthetic communications we consider particularly well done.
Respectfully,
Keith

Impeach them!?

There is quite a lot of discusion among our friends here about impeachment. I would love to impeach Bush and Cheney, and the talk of it is interesting. But there are two big problems. First, impeachment aims at the wrong target. It changes the subject from the terribleness of Republicans and their policies to specific personal crimes by two soon-to-be former politicans. Impeachment would not be for misleading us into a disastrous war, winning elections through lies and slander, shredding the Constitution, subverting the rule of law and the judiciary, enriching cronies and other rich people at everyone
else's expense, kicking the poor and the ill when they're down, squandering our resources, leaving New Orleans for dead, ignoring global warming, turning the environment over to corporate goons, destroying federal efforts to protect health and safety, or even authorizing Abu Ghraib. It would be for some specific, provable, and probably relatively minor set of offenses. The Mitch McConnells, Rudy Giulianis, Mitt Romneys, and Newt Gingriches of this world would emerge completely unscathed, although they have been the ones who made Bush-Cheney possible.

The second big problem is that there may well be no impeachable offense. Not every wrong is a crime, and the greatest wrongs are probably neither criminal nor provable. I read through the entire transcript of the Moyers interview looking for an impeachable offense, and the closest to one was "What you need to look for is a pattern of behavior that says that the presidency is superior not merely to Congress but to the laws of the land, to the rules of law. And that is why we ought to be discussing impeachment. Not because of George Bush and Dick Cheney but because we are establishing a presidency that does not respect the rule of law." Impeachment is for crimes, not contemptuous behavior or the assertion of objectionable viewpoints. For example: If Cheney claims that he doesn't have to show certain documents to Congress, that is not an offense. If a court rules that he must, and he continues to refuse, then he can be held in contempt of court, and that would be an offense. Again: If Bush claims the right to waive the Geneva Convention, that is not a legal offense. If a court rules that he must comply, and he continues to waive the Geneva Convention, that is impeachable. N'est-ce pas?

Torture & Rule of Law

It's too easy for liberals to dismiss torture as ineffective as well as despicable. There are strong arguments for believing that torture can force people to reveal knowledge they might not otherwise disclose. Let us suppose, then, for the sake of argument, that torture can be an effective tool in dealing with terrorists. Given that premise, what is the morality of using torture?

In my view, torture can only be justified when (1) there is an immediate danger, (2) there is reason to doubt the effectiveness of nonviolent interrogation methods, (3) the decision to proceed is made through a procedure that provides for the unanimous agreement of a dispassionate fact-finder and those who would inflict the torture, and (4) the torture would be carefully monitored to prevent sadism or excess. In such a procedure, the people making the decisions would suffer no liability for deciding against torture, but could suffer liability for deciding in favor of it or proceeding with it if they knowingly used false information or personal malice.

In both the first and second conditions, there must be independent evidence. That is, the premises must be established by some evidentiary indication, not simply the captor's fear or speculation. Torture, then, should be available in extreme situations as a last resort.

Getting Analysis of NJ Budget Dispute

Today, hoping to find some discussion of the rights and wrongs of the NJ budget dispute between Gov. Corzine and the State Assembly's Democrats, I searched Google for articles, even blogs, on the subject. All I could find were news reports about the existence of the dispute, and the effect of the shutdown. Not a word anywhere that I could find about the merits of the positions. This is the pathetic state of the press in America today.

Jobs

Rob Shapiro of NDN's Globalization Project recently commented that low job creation in the US is the result of higher energy and healthcare costs in the US than elsewhere. I question both premises. First, US energy costs are, if anything, lower than in our competitors because we have low energy taxes, subsidize our energy business, possess abundant fuel resources, and have an infrastructure that allows industry to switch between fuels fairly easily. In addition, since we have been worse than other countries in conserving energy since the Reagan administration, we have more ability to reduce our consumption if necessary.

As to healthcare costs, we know that we pay about twice as much as other industrialized countries, and in return receive a lower quality of care. But that doesn't mean industry pays more than elsewhere. Companies receive tax deductions for their expenditures, while other countries charge higher taxes. In addition, US companies have fewer retirees compared to Japan and Europe. I don't know the costs after factoring in these considerations, and perhaps they are still higher, but until someone does the study, the claim that we suffer from higher healthcare expenses is just conventional wisdom.

Neoconservative idealism

Francis Fukuyama's wonderful article in a recent NY Times Magazine, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/magazine/neo.html, gives a succint overview of the intellectual roots of neoconservatism and discusses their idealistic thinking in advocating the Iraq War.

I have some difficulty with terming the neoconservative agenda "idealistic, as Fukuyama does. Idealism is generally thought to be benign, a posture of directly seeking the good because that's the right thing to do. The friendly critique of idealism is that it ignores reality, and in doing so leads to bad results; the unfriendly is that conceptualizing and pursuing the good is not worth doing, either because there is no such thing as the good, or the pursuit inevitable ends badly.

The so-called idealism of the neocons, though, is not exactly a pursuit of the good for its own sake. Whether to preserve access to oil, or safeguard Israel, or foreclose a base for terrorism, or revenge Bush's father, there were more dominant motivations for invading Iraq than an abstract idea that getting rid of the evil dictator would be a good thing to do. It isn't very pure, that is, and it serves more as a fig leaf for baser motives than as anything important in itself. Since the neocons are themselves far from naive people, I assume they know this as well as anyone else. In other words, the use of the term "idealism" to characterize their argument is an unwarranted rhetorical cleansing of what they were actually doing.

That said, I was delighted with Fukuyama's intellectual history, and especially with this gem:
""The End of History," in other words, presented a kind of Marxist argument for the existence of a long-term process of social evolution, but one that terminates in liberal democracy rather than communism. In the formulation of the scholar Ken Jowitt, the neoconservative position articulated by people like Kristol and Kagan was, by contrast, Leninist; they believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support."

Howell's Washington Post piece

I've been following the dust-up over Deborah Howell's biased reporting in the Washington Post. She wrote that Abramoff contributed to both Dem and Repub representatives, as if the wrongs were equal, and when the Post blog got tons of angry comments, she give an insipid and misleading "correction." Recently there was a discussion by bloggers and the Post's editor, Jim Brady, about the Post's shutting down its blog to get rid of obscenity. In all this discussion, the whole point of the brouhaha has been lost: namely, Howell's biased reporting! Amazing to me. If her reporting had been on the Fox network or in some other overtly partisan place, nobody would have objected. But when, like Judith Miller's, it comes as a factual piece in a liberal medium, her falsifications and misleading statements have a lot of malign impact.

Moral Majority

The WSJ this morning has an article about how China, the Islamic world, and other parts of the world are developing new internets. The reason these are gaining some traction, rather than being technological toys, is the world's distrust of American control over the internet through ICANN, a distrust based on its hatred of Bush. In other words, out of a world population of, say, 5 billion people, 150 million support Bush, and the other 97% hate and fear him.

I do not think the hatred of the world, the nearly universal view of the Bush people as villains, derives from their policies per se. Of much greater importance, and danger to human well-being, is their systematic distortion of humanity's core moral values. That they often do so in the name of Christianity is simply hypocritical icing on their stinking cake. The distortions I am talking about consist of a publicly asserted and defended moral relativism that turns values like truth, charity, and justice into propaganda tools, to be used or betrayed as necessary to advance the user's personal agenda. They speak contemptuously of the "reality-based community," proclaim actions compassionate that injure the people they affect, and assert the right of the President to ignore the laws and Constitution when it suits him. These statements openly trivialize and debase the values they purport to use.

Even Richard Nixon, the last truly villainous Republican President, did not go so far. He tried to conceal or deny doing the wrong and immoral things that were eventually proven, but he never tried to deny that those things were in fact wrong or immoral. In other words, when he abused the powers of the Presidency his defense was that he didn't do it. Bush, by contrast, admits that he did it, and claims that it was right and proper for him to do so.

It cannot be truthfully said that terrible people like Bush et al reliably meet their comeuppance. More often than not they prosper from their behavior (except to the extent that they must live with themselves and their ilk), and when such people run political units, they create hell on earth for everyone caught in their web. Often these hells then last for decades or centuries. The good news is that we are still a democracy, with the power to stop and reverse the horrible policies these people are imposing on us and the world at large. The bad news is that every new day makes their impact more indelible.