Cobb on Politics

12,000 Reasons Why Church and State Must Stay Separate

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Mon, 25 May 2009 15:41:00 +0000

12,000 is the number of Catholic church abuse victims in Ireland to whom the Irish government has already paid compensation, even before the latest damning report of systematic beatings and rape revealed last week.

(This Canadian article and this CSN article are just two from hundreds around the world covering this topic. Google News is packed with over 2,000 results on the subject, some of the most gut-wrenching being Letters to the Editor from victims in both England and Ireland.)

12,000 is number of Catholic church abuse victims in Ireland who had to waive their rights to sue the state or church to get that compensation. Well folks, that's what life is like when your country's constitution begins with these words:

"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred..."

and continues...

"We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ...Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution."

You cannot expect anything other than systematic sexual, physical, and psychological abuse of the citizenry by the clergy when you require all the people who live within your borders to live "under God," and then compound that error by defining god specifically, as in "our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ."

That is not a democracy, that's a theocracy. As such, Ireland gives Jesus Christ's representatives on earth way too much power and influence. It would truly be a miracle if that much power and influence didn't result in boys and girls being raped and beaten by priests on a massive scale while the police and the Department of Educaton just looked the other way.

BTW, I am not making up that "Jesus is our Lord" constitution stuff. Here's a link to the official version of the Irish constitution. Scroll past the amendments to get to the opening lines, bearing in mind that none of the amendments repeal Jesus--who above all people knew he didn't belong there. (Amazingly, there are some Americans who still don't understand why the people who live in the northern part of the island of Ireland don't want to be governed by the Irish constitution.) Go figure!
.

Value of 2008 Bush Bailouts Exceeds Combined Costs of All Major U.S. Wars

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:43:00 +0000

"According to Bloomberg, the federal government has made commitments worth a total of $8.5 trillion in the bailouts of 2008. That includes actual expenditures as well as loan and asset guarantees."

CNSNews.com - Value of 2008 Bailouts Exceeds Combined Costs of All Major U.S. Wars

Beyond the Bailout: Executive pay and corporate welfar

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:34:00 +0000

"Are limits on executive compensation for banks that accept federal funds just the first wave in a future sea of pay measures?"

Beyond the Bailout - CFO Magazine - December 2008 Issue - CFO.com:

Great to see CFO Magazine address exec pay in post-bailout terms. My own "excessive executive pay" theory is that lack of social welfare is a major driver. That's right, corporate executives know just how much money it takes to protect oneself and one's family from all eventualities in the world today. CEOs feel that amassing huge amounts of money is the only way to make sure they and their loved ones don't end up in the gutter.

As our country proceeds to plow billions of corporate welfare dollars into companies whose demise was caused by CEOs and other executives pursuing paycheck maximization at all costs, it behooves us to ponder where all this comes from, what's the driver?

Ironically, the driver is, IMHO, the lack of social welfare in the U.S. For too many Americans their country's social safety net is a nightmare scenario. What awaits the average working American who loses job, house, health, savings? It's a jobless, homeless, life-threatening, shaming and demoralizingly hopeless mess.

How much money do you need to steer clear of this, to rule it out of future? A million dollars? Two million dollars? Noooo. You need way more than that. Tens of millions more. The reality is, and this reality has recently been underlined, you just "need" one real estate market reversal and/or stock market correction and you can kiss your millions goodbye.

And when your net worth drops below seven figures you are one diagnosis, one car crash, away from bankruptcy. With the "right" combination of circumstances your future can quickly shift to one of coupon-clipping, paycheck-to-paycheck, rent's due, viewless living, with zero vacations and a daily grind that extends all the way into old age.

So Looking Forward to 1/20/09!

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:24:00 +0000

You don't have to know me well to know that I am very happy with the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. Heck, I've been wearing my support on my head and my Jeep for all to see. Even on my tractor.

So here's how I see things: We have an energetic president elect who is unlikely to match George Bush's record for vacation days, we have a president elect who will inherit America's worst economy in a lifetime, the worst international reputation ever, and will likely face outright rejection by the unrepentant heart of the Republican party, the folks who drove us headlong into this mess. It's going to be an interesting ride.

An Interesting Lesson in Economics and De-regulation

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:47:00 +0000

As a big believer in trying to learn the lessons of the past, I found this short film (less than 15 minutes) to be very instructive, particularly if you are interested in the effects of banking deregulation (about which you will find some straight talk here). You can also watch a trailer for the video right here:

We're Ba-a-a-ack: And we're looking for our bailout

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:18:00 +0000

After spending more than a year on hiatus (which is an entirely legal thing to do despite the slightly pharmaceutical sound of it) this blog may be coming back. Times are tough and we need as many Google Adword click-thrus from blog pages as we can get. Otherwise the bank is gonna own our ass-ets.

But blogging politics is problematic these days. There are so many blogs out there that a lot of them have a readership of 2 or less. So am I willing to wager my time on the possibility that nobody will read what I write? Unlike maverick candidate McCain, I'm not a betting man.

So I will follow the statistics and see if anyone stops by to read this page. If people read, I will write. In the meantime, here are some posts I have placed eslewhere on the Internet.

And finally, here's a link to some light reading (as in "when I read it I feel light-headed") namely the final version of the $700 billion bankers' bail out bill. I was disappointed to find that no funds had been earmarked to pay off my mortgage, but hey, what was I thinking? I don't work for Goldman, Sachs, Pillages, and Burns.

1-20-09 License Plate Says It All

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:16:00 +0000

January 20, 2009 is the last day that President Bush will be in office (barring any sweeping changes to, or suspension of, the Constitution).

I have it on a license plate on the front on my ride. A great parking lot conversation starter.

Q. "What's that mean on your license plate?"
A. "That's Bush's last day in office."

What happens next is interesting. Most often the person says something like "Can't come quick enough." So if you happen to think Bush is one of the worst American presidents ever, you have found a kindred spirit, without having to nail your colors to the mast. After all, if the person says "I'll be so sad to see him go" you can react accordingly.

Ding Dong Gonzales is Gone: But Bush continues to insult his critics

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:42:00 +0000

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned. But President Mr Bush apparently thinks there was no reason for him to do so, saying Gonzales had been subjected to "months of unfair treatment" and that "his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons."

So Bush thinks that objecting to an AG who tries to strong-arm people who are in intensive care is unfair and political. Funny, it struck me as all about fairness and thus the opposite of political. I mean, Gonzales made me feel sorry for Ashcroft, a guy for whom I previously had little respect.

As reported by the Washington Post: "On the night of March 10, 2004, as Attorney General John D. Ashcroft lay ill in an intensive-care unit...White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr. [went] to the hospital to persuade Ashcroft to reauthorize Bush's domestic surveillance program, which the Justice Department had just determined was illegal...Ashcroft, summoning the strength to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought."

I would say I am delighted that Gonzales is gone, but Bush is still there. He has the power to say who the next AG will be. After Ashcroft, a guy who lost a senate race to a dead man, Bush gave us Gonzales, who was so bad a lawyering I wouldn't have him defend me pro bono on a parking ticket. I dread to think who the next Bush AG will be.
.

Islamic Terrorism: The view from Scotland

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 19:08:00 +0000

The closer you are to acts of terror the more you tend to think about them. That can produce some useful insights. I happened to be in London in October 1992, standing a few hundred yards from where an IRA bomb went off in the Sussex Arms pub, with deadly consequences. That made me think very seriously about terrorism. For example, I like to point out to my fellow Americans that Britain never defeated the IRA, it was forced to craft a political solution.

Fast forward to July, 2007. My wife and I are in Scotland for a few days of rest and relaxation, just as the Scottish parliament opens and a Scot, Gordon Brown, takes over as prime minister of Great Britain from the very English Tony Blair. Then a Muslim man, who is not from England or Scotland, drives a Jeep full of explosive materials into Glasgow airport. Here are some observations:

1. The airport was re-opened less than 24 hours after the attack, a very British response to terrorists: Don't let them change your way of life.

2. Within 2 days of the attack some Scottish Nationalist politicians were publicly speculating as to whether Scotland would be safer if it seceded from the rest of Britain (the SNP has historically opposed the war).

3. In Gordon Brown's first speech to parliament he suggested a change to the British constitution that would shift power to declare war [or not] to parliament. Such a change could have prevented Blair from going to war in Iraq [given that 80% of the British population were opposed to that war].

No wonder Bush looked so sad to see Blair go. It is clear that a lot of people in the UK think the terrorist acts committed by Muslims in the UK are a result of the UK's support of the Iraq war. In other words, they see a connection between acts of terrorism and the acts of other players on the global stage.

Of course, Bush might be consoled by the fact that Tony Blair's wife is no longer "the wife of the Prime Minister." Cherie Blair has frequently been at odds with the official Bush/Blaire doctrine, for example:

The prime minister's wife, Cherie Blair, was last night forced to apologise after she acknowledged that Palestinian suicide bombers may be driven by a lack of hope about their future. On a personal appearance with Queen Rania of Jordon, Mrs Blair told reporters: "As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up you are never going to make progress." Guardian, June 19, 2002

and

Cherie Blair has criticised the policies of the US President George W Bush, attacking his stance on terrorist prisoners and gay rights. Scotsman, October 31, 2004

Army Gets Big Boost in Safer Vehicles: Too much, too late

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:34:00 +0000

The US Army is placing rush orders for up to seven times more specially designed armored vehicles to help protect troops in Iraq in a move that could cost more than $20 billion. The vehicles are MRAPs, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles.

The decision to order up to 17,770 MRAPs for the Army comes as Defense Secretary Robert Gates has made the vehicle the Pentagon's top priority. "The MRAP's V-shaped hull and raised chassis are up to four times safer against the top threat to U.S. troops in Iraq — improvised explosive devices, or IEDs."

How could any true patriot argue dispute the virtue of the Army getting a big boost in safer vehicles? Well, consider:

1. By the time the vehicles are built and deployed in Iraq, America might not be in Iraq.

2. The MRAPs will only escalate the conflict (they are already vulnerable to newer devices being deployed against them).

3. You cannot defeat terrorists by upping the weaponry.

4. You cannot solve a problem today by spending today. The time to provide these vehicles was 2003 when we sent in the troops. Or 2005 when they were urgently requested.

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that our armed forces should get the best possible equipment to do their dangerous jobs as safely as possible. But it is a bit late for that in Iraq. The whole invasion was a blunder and surely the best course of action now is to retreat and conserve resources, physical and fiscal.
.

Charge Bush With Contempt? Go Leahy

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:56:00 +0000

Senator Leahy, not exactly a political hot-head, said on Sunday that he may seek a charge of contempt against President Bush. The contempt charge could come into play if the White House continues to withhold documents pertaining to the firing of US attorneys. Read on in the article and you see that contempt could also be in the cards with respect to the domestic eavesdropping program run by the National Security Agency.

Pulling Back the Curtain on Cheney: Not a pretty sight

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:42:00 +0000

Fine Concord Monitor article pulls back the curtain on Cheney. Pulls together a lot of emerging themes, like John Ashcroft actually being a good guy relative to Cheney. Documents what has to be the most "un-open" administration in US history. To follow a thread from my previous post about emails, this administration seems to have flaunted the law like no other:

"Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC email accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved and the large quantity of missing emails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive." -- Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for the US Congress

Storm Over Missing White House Email: But will anyone be held accountable

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:51:00 +0000

A White House spokesman had stated that only a handful of people were using Republican Party email accounts to conduct government business, but the number has now risen to 88.

Over 50 [of these 88] have no email records at all and there are only 130 emails from Karl Rove during President Bush's first term and none before November 2003 [even though] the Presidential Records Act requires the recording of any communication used in governing [but Bush White House] officials bypassed this by using email accounts set up and run by the Republican Party.

So much for an "open society" any time soon.

China Sentences Former Drug Regulator to Death: Accountability indeed

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Tue, 29 May 2007 19:59:00 +0000

China’s former top drug regulator has been sentenced to death for taking bribes to approve untested medicines. This was announced as the country’s main quality control agency started its first recall system targeting unsafe food products.

One can't help but wonder if there is something America can learn here about accountability. We see Bush appointees departng office, after making dismal and disastrous decisions, loaded with medals on their chests and cheered by pats on their backs. In contrast, the Chinese are executing a public official for taking bribes. A meaner spirited person than I might be tempted to wonder just how many people would be left alive in the White House if we applied the same rule here.

Pew Survey Finds Most Knowledgeable Americans Watch 'Daily Show' and 'Colbert'

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Fri, 25 May 2007 02:12:00 +0000

Yes! I am officially a "most knowledgeable American" according to a Pew Survey. And you know dem Pew guys is smart.

Carter Calls Bush Worst in History: What's wrong with that?

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Mon, 21 May 2007 14:14:00 +0000

So, former President Carter was quoted by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette as saying the Bush administration "has been the worst in history." Fair enough. It is an opinion that I happen to share. But the Bush White House, still determined to undermine the cornerstone of the open society, namely criticism, expressed outrage and called Carter "increasingly irrelevant." Yeah right. The opinion of a former President and Nobel Prize winner is irrelevant. Sadly, Carter felt he had to back-pedal as reported in this story.

Personally, I don't hold with this whole "past presidents don't criticize sitting presidents" thing. After all, Reagan saw fit to criticize Clinton and took several "cheap" shots (remember "I may not be a Rhodes scholar but..."). Consider this:

Eisenhower was critical of John F. Kennedy's domestic policies, the first President Bush pounded on Bill Clinton, now his pal, for his Haiti policy, and Nixon chided the first President Bush (for comparing himself to Harry Truman in his 1992 re-election campaign). Theodore Roosevelt was brutal in his assaults on Taft and Woodrow Wilson. Media Matters

Media Matters - ABC, CBS still have not reported on Comey's revelation of wiretapping "hospital drama"

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Sun, 20 May 2007 23:39:00 +0000

An interesting media watch-dog site reports that ABC and CBS still have not reported on Comey's revelation of wiretapping "hospital drama. This is the bizarre-but-true story of how, in 2004, White House counsel [now Attorney General] Alberto R. Gonzales and White House chief of staff Andrew Card

attempted to pressure then-Attorney General John Ashcroft "at his [hospital] bedside" to approve an extension of the secret NSA warrant-less eavesdropping program over strong Justice Department objections.

I would never have thought I could feel sympathy for John Ashcroft, but it just shows how a really bad job performance [Gonzales as AG] can make a mediocre job performance [Ashcroft as AG] look positively stellar by comparison.

The Comey referred to above is James Comey, who was then the number-two man at the Justice Department but temporarily in charge because his boss, Attorney General John Ashcroft, was seriously ill, hospitalized with pancreas trouble. According to Brian Williams reporting for NBC, Comey was on the way home from work when he got an urgent call and sped to the hospital...

"...he ran up the stairs hoping to get there before Alberto Gonzales, then White House counsel, and Andy Card, White House chief of staff. He [Comey] says when they arrived, they tried to get Ashcroft's approval for an extension of the eavesdroping program despite strong Justice Department objections. He [Comey] says Ashcroft lifted his head off the pillow and adamantly refused to sign. "

I would love to know with what exact words Ashcroft "adamantly refused." I'm hoping it was something like "Heck no!" or "Over my dead body!"

Was it Gonzales' willingness to sink this low that got him Ashcroft's job?

Mitt Romney Wants To Re-Tool Washington

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Wed, 16 May 2007 19:28:00 +0000

Apparently Mitt Romney Wants To Re-Tool Washington, according to a Mike Wallace interview with the contender for the GOP presidential nomination. (That page also has links to several video interviews with Romney).

Now, a lot of people would agree that DC needs a good re-tooling. But I don't think Romney is the person to do it. It's not just that I rarely vote Republican and has nothing to do with the fact that he is a Mormon (dare I say "some of my best friends are Mormons"?). And I don't have a problem with politicians changing their stand on issues. How else are we going to get change? If we insist that every politician who changes his or her mind be discarded because of it, we are not going to have a democracy for very long. A free and open society must leave room for criticism and change. I just happen to disagree with him. Consider:

"Among the things he wants to do as president is increase U.S. troop strength overall by at least 100,000 and modernize military equipment."

We need less military, not more. We have more better equipment than any other standing army of comparable size. We just use the stuff wrong. No equipment overhaul or troop increase is going to put a stop to terrorism. You defeat terrorism with humint and diplomacy. Not laser guided bullets.

"He wants to secure the Mexican border and decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil."

Well actually you can't secure the Mexican border (or the Canadian). Immigration is a problem best solved with economic policy not unworkable gestures like fences. But besides that, no politician is actually against securing the border, so you are hardly standing out by saying that. And most people on the planet want America to decrease its dependence on foreign oil. It is a position so obvious that it wins Romney no points with me.

"He’s against gay marriage and civil unions..."

Sorry, a politician holding that view has to be very special in every other department before they get my vote.

"...and says that he'll hold the line on taxes."

That strikes me as code for leaving in place the tax breaks for big business and the super-rich. Not something I agree with. Some of those businesses are oil companies--whose interests are not the same as those of the American people. It is we the people who will win the energy war, not politicians or oil companies.

Religious Groups Granted Millions for Pet Projects

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Sun, 13 May 2007 14:17:00 +0000

An interesting story about how churches are employing lobbyists in DC to obtain "ear-marked" appropriations appeared in the New York Times but alas won't be freely readable for long due to the new archive policy.

Blair to Leave in June: Too late for some

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Fri, 11 May 2007 19:26:00 +0000

According to the BBC Blair will stand down on 27 June. Here's what Socialism's greatest traitor had to say:

"I came into office with high hopes for Britain's future, and, you know, I leave it with even higher hopes for Britain's future."

Yeah, right. Off to a cushy overpaid consulting job, no doubt. Leaving Gordon Brown to deal with the aftermath of the worst foreign policy blunder in modern British history: Defying the will of the British people and dragging the country into Iraq, thereby pissing off a. 80 percent of the country, b. a large and growing Muslim population.

Coverage of the Virginia Tech Coverage

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Tue, 01 May 2007 14:15:00 +0000

The best political journalism on TV today? The Daily Show. No doubt about it. Doubt it? See Jon Stewart's handling of the coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings. I have discussed this elsewhere and I tip my hat to Mr. Stewart for saying what needed to be said.

John Stewart and the 24x7 Multi-channel Mediasphere

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 03:53:00 +0000

Complain all you like about the shortcomings of today's 24x7 multi-channel mediasphere, nobody can deny there are times when it provides political insights that might have been missed in a less media-centric world.

A good example of this are the Jon Stewart [Daily Show] montages of news clips. He has several standard play books for these. One is the "spin detector" which shows a group of allied politicians and administration officials all using the same word or phrase to affirm or deny something, in other words, reading the party line from a spin doctor's script.

Another effective Stewart tactic is "compile and contrast." Here is a brilliant skewering of a politician with his own words.

You'd have to do some heavy dial spinning of your own to catch all of these clips, but the 24x7 multi-channel mediasphere makes it possible (BTW, it would be interesting to know how many people who watch TV today actually used a dial to change channels on a TV).

When Law and Politics Don't Mix: Weasel words from Gonzales

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:10:00 +0000

Did anyone else see Attorney General Gonzales saying to CNN, in an attempt to brush aside questions about abuse of FBI security letters, that the letters had been around "long before I became AG" ? Then shortly thereafter I see in the Denver Post that use of national security letters has grown exponentially since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "In 2005 alone, the audit found, the FBI issued more than 19,000 such letters, amounting to 47,000 separate requests for information." Here's more about what these letters are:

The letters enable an FBI field office to compel the release of private information without the authority of a grand jury or judge.

The USA Patriot Act, enacted after the 2001 attacks, eliminated the requirement that the FBI show "specific and articulable" reasons to believe that the records it demands belong to a foreign intelligence agent or terrorist.

That law, and Bush administration guidelines for its use, transformed national security letters by permitting clandestine scrutiny of U.S. residents and visitors who are not alleged to be terrorists or spies.

Now the bureau needs only to certify that the records are "sought for" or "relevant to" an investigation "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."

Amid some pretty credible claims that these letters are being abused under Gonzales he has the nerve to say they were around long before his watch. A classic case of weasel words.

Oh So Wrong: Palettes of money shipped to Iraq

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:49:00 +0000

Yes folks, those are bricks of US cash stacked on palettes headed to Iraq.

How did Paul Bremer manage to lose $12 billion in cash in Iraq? Well it is doubtful anyone could keep track of cargo planes full of cash. Can you say checkbook, wire transfer, paper trail? No sane or honest government goes to the Federal Reserve Bank and requests 281 million individual bills, mainly $100 bills, packed into bricks worth $400,000 each.

Most Americans make sure they have no more than $50 on cash on their person when they are headed to a rough part of town. There can't be a citizen alive who thinks it makes sense to take 363 tons of cash into a war zone (yes, 792,000 pounds in weight).

And this didn't happen yesterday, this happened years ago. Somehow the Republican congress of 2005-2006 managed to let this slip by without so much as raising an eyebrow. I dread to think what else we will learn in trhe coming months. We already know that hundreds of computers were torched by US contractors because they were "the wrong kind." That practically new semi-trucks were destroyed by contractors just because they lacked oil filters or spare tires. That scores of SUVs were leased at $7,000 per month for contractors, many of whom never drove them. That, that...aaargh! Enough! Why is there not an uprising of fiscal conservatives barricading the Fed and calling for heads to roll!

On National Health Insurance: Political history has much to teach

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Cobb) — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:42:00 +0000

As we recover from the shock of President Bush actually finding something worth talking about in his 2007 State of the Union address--health insurance--we would do well to keep some historical perspective. There is a long but very worthwhile article in the New Yorker that I found very helpful. For example, consider this:

In 1945, when President Truman first proposed national health insurance, they [union leaders] cheered. In 1947, when Ford offered its workers a pension, the union voted it down. The labor movement believed that the safest and most efficient way to provide insurance against ill health or old age was to spread the costs and risks of benefits over the biggest and most diverse group possible. Walter Reuther [the national president of the U.A.W at the time]...believed that risk ought to be broadly collectivized. Charlie Wilson [president of G.M.], on the other hand, felt the way the business leaders of Toledo did: that collectivization was a threat to the free market and to the autonomy of business owners. In his view, companies themselves ought to assume the risks of providing insurance.

In a nutshell, that is why America does not have universal health insurance today. And as today's G.M. crumbles under the crushing weight of the burden Wilson took on, losing ground every year to car companies based in countries whose governments provide universal health care, it is instructive to ponder how--albeit with the benefit of hindsight--how wrong Wilson's call was.

Image from coloribus.com.