You May Be a Hypocrite

"We can't legislate morality" said Indian River County, Florida's Superintendent of Schools yesterday at a school board workshop.   The suggestion had arisen last month after some students at the Freshman Learning Center in Vero Beach printed a racist flier that included the Confederate flag.
The board found no interest in banning the symbol even though the district is under a federal desegregation order calling for a more equitable school system for minority students.

Legislating morality in the schools often appears prominent however when it comes to student behavior of all sorts, but this is Florida.  This is The South.  There are a million excuses and of course the idea that a symbol means different things to different people.  To me a battle flag of a group that flew it during an armed attack on the United States of America represents treason.  Your view may be different, but if your view is that it is a benign symbol of  Southern civilization, you may be a hypocrite.

Don't get me wrong, I will stand up for free speech without hesitation, but ask your school board whether they would look the other way at ISIS recruiting posters, at Marxist and Soviet symbols or nearly anything offensive to most forms of Christianity and you'll wait a long time to hear ."We can't legislate morality."  Show up at school with a "Jesus Sucks" T Shirt and watch them legislate morality.

One board member questioned the idea of the flag as a hate symbol at all and wondered how people are being taught it's hateful, another asked whether the display of that symbol was even detrimental to the learning environment as though learning was the goal and not learning the truth.  The truth is that it was the flag of  insurrection, of armed aggression against the US government and the battle  flag of a country built on slavery and human misery.

Is there a difference between a picture in a history book and a racist screed being passed out in school?  Is there a difference between a swastika in a movie about WW II and hanging one in your window or wearing an armband to school?  Is the solution, as one board member suggested, to "have a conversation?"  

Well go ahead, have a conversation, get your story and your excuses straight and present a unified front, but sooner or later people are going to refuse to shake your hand, to vote for you, to be seen with you in public.  You're on the wrong side of honesty and decency and education, for that matter -- and the name Vero may mean "True" but you still may be a hypocrite.

That Berning Sensation

I think Bernie Sanders has a lot to be embarrassed about, despite another primary won, but I'm not sure that revealing his apparent lack of  knowledge about just how he would retrieve all that pie from the stratosphere  worries me.  Just how a president makes state college tuition free I don't know nor does he, and when pressed by Bloomberg TV as to just who on "wall Street" should or would be punished for what crimes, he had no answer and  when interviewed by the New York Daily News about how, among other things, he would break up big banks, he sounded very much like a schoolboy explaining why he hadn't done his homework.  It's being called a disaster, but is it?

Donald Trump joked that he could shoot someone and not lose a supporter.  Whether or not it's strictly true, we Americans support candidates without much reliance on objective and dispassionate arguments.  We like slogans, platitudes and promises and the feeling that some buffoon loves and respects us uncritically and will attack our bogeymen and scapegoats in dramatic fashion. I don't think Sanders'  lack of  knowledge about economics, banking and finance hurts him one bit, sad to say, nor his equal unfamiliarity with foreign policy and current world events.  Perhaps his supporters don't want to be informed about those subjects lest they lose the confidence that innocence (and anger) bring.  If your concerns are mostly about tuition and loans why ask the man about a nuclear North Korea or Iran shipping weapons to Yemen and the rise of Neo-Fascism in Europe?  Why care if he answers "I don't know?"

When he rails about the "bailouts" the dogs prick up their ears, because it sounds like somebody got something for free, the scenario that enrages both camps, but  as I see it, the return on that "bailout" has netted a gain - a profit for the nation of nearly 70 billion dollars.  No, that's not a big piece of such a huge pie, but then, remember that an economic collapse as big as the Great Depression was avoided and countless jobs and industries were kept in the United States. A once endangered General Motors is selling cars in China as fast as they can make them.  What else do we sell there?  Mr. Sanders has no interest in telling us that Obama's policies may have saved the country and in that he mirrors the  disloyal opposition on the Right.  What does that say about him?  

I will of course vote for him - or nearly anyone if his opponent is one of the GOP circus clowns, but without thinking of Mrs. Clinton as being the best of all possible candidates, I worry about a 75 year old dog having to learn a whole world of new tricks in a world and a country being torn apart by wild and ignorant armies, day and night, here and abroad.

The Sashimi Solution

 We've all heard the joke about the statistician who drowned in a lake with an average depth of 4 inches and we've all heard the Mark Twain quote that he attributed to Benjamin Disraeli: there are three kinds of lies:  lies, damned lies and statistics.  Is there any way other than appeals to faith used more to bolster weak arguments than a graph, a chart, a string of numbers?  It's so common we don't notice and worse, we don't check facts.

I read an article the other day which began with the observation that Japan has a higher life expectancy than the United States.  That's probably true, but the article went straight from there to a rhapsody about the Japanese diet and that theme, that Meme so adored by Americans: our food is poisonous and full of  "artificial" ingredients which are killing us.

Being a skeptic by nature and particularly as concerns any article about health and nutrition or food chemistry I took the trouble to look at the WHO statistics by country and yes, it's true about Japan, but when you note that number 2 is Spain, followed by Andorra, Singapore, and Switzerland -- Australia, Italy, San Marino and Monaco all with essentially identical numbers, I had to ask myself just what similarity in diet there is between these and the 39 countries between Japan and the United States.  Not much, I fear, so perhaps the unmentioned assumption: that the primary factor in national longevity expectations is diet, must be questioned.  Something the article does not do but rather taps into our national hypochondria. Is it wrong to observe that all those countries have far greater access to health care?  Are suicide rates taken into account? Accidents, homicides, numbers of people incarcerated, infant mortality, quality of health care and emergency services, elder care?  How many people ask?

People who use statistics to sell things often leave large gaps in their arguments which are filled with unsupported assumptions, as does this one.  Is a fish based diet good for you?  Quite possibly if you don't have allergies to sea food, but you can't get to that conclusion with this argument, which in fact starts with that  assumption. Do genetics play a part in longevity?  From what I read they do and the US is far, for more genetically diverse than Japan or Andorra and in fact so is the American diet.  So should I seek salvation in Sushi or is there more to it than that?


Everybody does it, and particularly those bodies that have elected themselves to speak for causes, from product safety to immigration to gun control.  Facts are easy to fudge, to select from, to edit and redact.  It's easy to confuse "linked to' and "caused by."  Is the fact that there is a link between marijuana and crime the result of marijuana being illegal in teh first place?   The argument for it being a "gateway drug" depends on not looking at the "link' between alcohol, cigarettes and in fact almost anything we all do and drug usage.

Complex causes and simple or single causes. Who likes to confuse them fallaciously more than activists who aren't often quite as rational or honest as you might expect. As I said, there are more ways to increase life span than to eat Sashimi and sea weed.  Want to cut the US gun related "murder" rate?  Stop lumping suicides in with murder.  According to the New York Times 60% of what we call murders are suicides.  Would the corrected number still be too great? sure, but making things seem worse than they are is the practice of every political organization on Earth. Is Trump lying about swarms of Mexicans crossing the Southern border?  Sure, there are more going the other direction?  Is there an Autism epidemic?  Real statistics seem to refute it, anti-vaccine people counter with anecdotes and anger.  It's endless, it's pervasive, even ubiquitous. It's lies, Damned lies and statistics.

Packing for Peace

We all know that the best way to keep the peace in a place full of angry men is to allow them to openly display weapons. There doesn't seem to be any doubt of that axiom discernable in the communications of the Party and so I have to wonder why, when candidates like Drumpf pretend to be worried about violence at his speeches, he doesn't propose the obvious to his followers and his retinue. Pack heat and keep the peace.

A petition posted to Change.org is asking for open carry of guns to be permitted at the Republican National Convention in July. I'm all for it and not just because it's time the Wild West Republicans put their safety where their mouths are.  It's because I see science as the ultimate arbiter of truth. It's time for a test.

RECOGNIZE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OPEN CARRY FIREARMS AT THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION AT THE QUICKEN LOANS ARENA IN JULY 2016

The fact that the choice of venue, the Quicken Loans Arena,  does not allow guns or any other weapons concealed or otherwise, makes me suspect that as usual for Republican rationalizations: It's different when we do it. It's OK to carry guns in Kindergarten, but not where any Republicans might be at risk.  Ohio, of course is an open carry state - something that may shock the more passionate gun control advocates, but Ohio is hardly alone.  It's just that few people openly carry guns unless they're on a hunting trip, and we don't have enough examples of how all those good guys with guns make things smoother and more mellow.   And so it falls to the NRA and its ally, the GOP to show us what a great idea it would be if everyone were decked out like Gene Autry or Hopalong Cassady because the total lack of violence would prove that they've been right all along and the wimpy gun grabbers were, well, just wimpy.

So go for it Patriots!  Time to show us all and pack the halls with guns aplenty.  Make it look like Pancho Villa was holding a rally -- wait, that's a bad image - too many Mexicans. Make it look like Pickett's Charge.  I dare ya!

It's Only Natural

I don't feel safe in this world no more,
I don't want to die in a nuclear war.
I want to sail away to a distant shore and make like an apeman.

-The Kinks-

The allure of nature, the yearning to get back to some other time and place when things were natural.
It's part of our American revulsion for technology and science and the way they interfere with our animal emotionalism and recreational anger.

 In man's evolution he's created the city 
And the motor traffic rumble. 
But give me half a chance and I'd be taking off my clothes 
And living in the jungle. 
Cause the only time that I feel at ease 
Is swinging up and down in the coconut trees.

in some other time and place when things were natural.  It's a thing of our time and yet it seems almost a feature of the way we are built and the way we think. We want to go back and we always have.

I'm no more immune to nostalgia than you are, but having been a nostalgic person since childhood I've learned much about how life was without the romanticized view that  commerce and politics use to make us spend and vote and sing about. Yes, indeed we have lost a great deal of both beautiful and ugly things over time, but we have gained far more than we're aware of.  Your favorite Tiki Hut restaurant on the beach becomes a soulless chain restaurant serving fish from New Zealand, that peaceful country road triples in width, sprouts ten thousand traffic lights and strip malls. The little seaside fishing community sprouts "shoppes" for people from New Jersey.  I hate it more than you do and yes it does feel like all those artisanal and natural, organic and authentic things are something devoutly to be wished for, but Capitalism has the ability to mass produce romantic ideas and sell them to us as the real thing We can't tell the difference any more.  Even Starbucks seems real to some of us.

How many TV "reality" shows are there about surviving without technology, living "off the grid" and how many "lifestyles" do we buy into that include the pretense of living like a "caveman" and eating a "paleo" diet as though all our ancestors lived in caves or ate the same things.  I fear that most of it is only theater and most of the science adhering to it isn't much different than Dr. Bonkers' elixir.  But we can't get away from it.  The modern world is scary, complex and lacking in some ineffable quality we think we want.

We want things that are "Natural" and we are afraid of anything that smacks of  the lab coat whether the distinction is real or not.  We'll spend more for something "artisanal" a word that's hard to define and you never used to see and we love the word so much you'll spend more for the product of a 'bread artisan' than of a baker although there's no difference.  We just know that preservatives are poison even when they're not.  We just know that  Ammonium Nitrate is "artificial" unless you extract it from manure and that "organic" food is healthier and tastes better even though all evidence is to the contrary. We're afraid and looking for the soothing lap of  mother nature to comfort us and commerce is happy to dress up in a mommy costume and charge us a fee.

I once had a heated argument about milk with some quite intelligent friend who assured me it was bad because only humans drank milk as an adult which shows it's not natural.  Now of course that definition of natural as something which our species is not involved in is contrived.  We are, as all things are, part of nature, but as we're the only species that brushes our teeth, removes the offal from our prey, boils water and millions of other things, it doesn't follow that all such things are harmful. Yet the urge is to deny all the science that proves milk does not make you phlegmatic, because science isn't natural and fear is.

But it's an old argument, used frequently by religious bigots.  Homosexuality isn't "natural"  there are crimes against nature that must be punished.  Ben Franklin was vilified because lightning rods are an unnatural interference with nature, just as Dr. Frankenstein was punished (in the movie version) for learning and doing things man was never meant to know or do.  Yes, it's an old story and older than the Bible which tells us that knowledge is sinful to acquire.

Man made is bad, technology is bad and frightening, and so science is not trustworthy or wholesome.


In man's evolution he's created the city
And the motor traffic rumble. 
But give me half a chance and I'd be taking off my clothes
And living in the jungle. Cause the only time that I feel at ease
Is swinging up and down in the coconut trees.

But the naive and the fearful and the nostalgic are the prey of bad people and bad science and the sellers of "lifestyles."  Billions are made by telling you to fear radios and anything not found lying on the ground because it's not natural. An anti-oxidant is bad if it's used as a preservative. Nothing artificial is good even if identical to the "natural" version.  Pesticides are bad unless you get them from a plant or mineral even though they may be quite deadly.  We're convinced because we hear this on the Internet or from some TV pitch man or read some charlatan's book.  We have to worry about hormones from chicken and phlegm from milk and about the antibiotics in the pig food getting into our bloodstreams, even if we can't assimilate DNA and all those "toxins' are destroyed by cooking if they exist at all.. We have to worry about grain brain and wheat belly and the equally non-existent danger of gluten or bananas or any of the "seven foods you should never eat." We don't care how much evidence refutes it.

We don't care that Autism isn't expanding and that vaccination doesn't cause it.  We don't care that all our food sources are things that don't exist in the wild and that we are the only animal on earth that cannot survive without technology and that our dominance is entirely due to technology -- like cooking your food or brushing your teeth or wearing clothes or reading a book or making music -- like human inability to tell reason from emotion -- it's not natural.

Talking to Ourselves

26 dead in Brussels, reads the sign. 26 dead in Newtown.  It isn't something meant to inform us. Close the borders says the rubric. Get used to it says the counterpoint. Forget for the moment that this is a conversation between two straw men, their lines scripted by someone with a purpose -- and forget that the death toll in Belgium has escalated beyond that number and is only a small part of a much larger number, this isn't about accuracy anyway.  It's about energizing the base, giving them something to contemplate with masturbatory self-satisfaction while mocking an opposition created of straw  for the purpose. But wait, there's more.

Focus on the false equivalence.  Is the international threat of a fanatical, well-armed and well-funded army of tens of thousands that's already killed many thousands of innocent civilians really in any way equivalent to the threat of a disturbed teen taking a gun to school?  Of course not. Yet some will read this, will nod together in warm solidarity and feel good about themselves. Many will feel superior to those other people, whether they exist or not.


Welcome to politics in the 21st century.  From the grotesquely infantile Ann Coulter quote: "Liberals go Wah.  They go Wah, Wah, Wah."  to the  straw words to the effect that "white people think there's no more racism."  one could make a case that there are more straw men then real men in our country and that anything worth stating is worth expanding or reducing to an absurdly smug and factually inaccurate generalization.

It's done not to convince an opponent, to inform or to answer any questions but to unite a group and to unite it under the aegis of some entity, consolidating it's power and authority to speak for all those concerned with, for instance, armed violence, police brutality, civil rights and many other valid concerns. It's there to make it all seem simple and to stifle other approaches to such problems. Quibble about any detail of  the canon and you're the enemy.

Straw man arguments, false equivalences, they're part of a larger constellation of  sophistical arguments. Oversimplification, the idea that one factor is the only factor, the sole cause of a complex problem. "Speed is a factor in all traffic accidents"  so all efforts to make driving safer must be based on speed limits, never mind the tautology and never mind all other factors.  "Air bags save lives" but never mind how very few or how many are killed by them.

 Is that just how it is in America?  Should I just get used to it?  If it weren't for the possibility that  progressive ideas make themselves poisonous to the public using obviously misleading and manipulative techniques: name calling, weak and fallacious arguments and obstinate repetitions of well known falsehoods and more.  We don't argue to persuade, we argue to show people how morally outraged and angry we are and how afraid they should be.  We encourage people to support demagogues and their lies  We encourage Republicans to vote against us.

Every time we call a well-intentioned person a racist.  Every time we call a sportsman a gun nut, every time we elevate a problem every time we shout down a valid question we energize a Republican. We distract from their excesses and their deceit and instead of creating unity we fragment ourselves.  We so rarely put up a united front. We go Wah.  We go Wah, Wah, Wah.-

Continuity With Change

Fans of the Emmy winning HBO series VEEP may recall the slogan used on Julia Louis-Dreyfus' campaign bus "Continuity with Change." In our brave new world such things tend to creep off the screen and into that other world of entertainment: politics. Was Australia's Prime Minister quoting consciously or unconsciously when he said " Continuity and Change" in an interview yesterday?
Perhpas to him it gave the feeling that he would be changing things but not too much. Who knows, but of course the phrase was selected by the show's writers for being as meaningless a statement as they could find in order to typify the state of American political rhetoric. The "most meaningless election slogan we could think of".said writer Simon Blackwell.

So far we haven't heard it from any of the clowns in America's two ring circus, but then it conveys a sort of vapid optimism rather than the furious and outraged invective more common to our politics.

Politics mirrors the art that satirizes politics. As circular as a circus ring if not as vicious.

HOW BOILED FROGS HIJACKED THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE

By Jeffrey Berger

When writing about climate change, the boiled frog analogy serves a useful purpose, and it goes like this: If you place a frog in boiling water, it will immediately jump out. However, if you place the same frog in slowly heated water, it will adjust to gradually rising temperatures and stay put until it boils to death. No frogs were harmed in the writing of this post. Nevertheless, the boiled frog analogy explains a quirk of human nature: How some people ignore a looming threat that unfolds gradually over time.

Climate change cannot be watched on cable TV with the immediate impact of a tsunami. Climate change may not be felt this year, next year, or for several years. Yet, climate scientists predict a grim future of melting ice caps, rising sea levels, coastal flooding, drought, crop failures, disruptions in global food supplies, famine, refugee crises, and wars. In short, climate change represents an existential threat to future generations. Despite these warnings, there are skeptics, doubters, and boiled frogs.

We understand why the concept of climate change provokes anger among people. The economic, political, and moral implications are troubling; and there are deeply rooted historical and cultural impediments to overcome. Yet, we can no longer afford to dither. The climate bomb is ticking, and time is running out.

Climate change scientists study greenhouse gas emissions, heat retention models, and the complex relationship between variables on a global scale. Decades of careful observations lead to an irrefutable conclusion: Human impacts - especially greenhouse gas emissions - are the leading cause of rising global temperatures.

As we burn energy in our cars, homes, and factories, we release greenhouses gases into the atmosphere. “So what,” croaks the frog. “Everything in nature is flatulent.” Yet, when we examine sources of atmospheric greenhouse gases from natural to manmade, fossil fuels are literally the smoking gun. How do we know? Manmade pollutants have a unique molecular signature, unlike natural emissions.

Imagine two world maps, one superimposed over another. One map shows distributions of human population; another map shows sources of greenhouse gas emissions. These maps overlap with uncanny precision. Satellite data confirm the relationship between human activity and greenhouse gas emissions. How extensive, we ask? An increase of 78% since 1970, and 96% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Hence, the term ‘anthropogenic,’ meaning ‘caused by human beings.’

Boiled frogs often cite geological history to disprove the anthropogenic cause of climate change. “So what,” croaks the frog. “Everyone knows Mother Earth has mood swings.” Yet, the boiled frog version of earth history omits one all important detail: How the biosphere influences climate.

Before the Carboniferous period, 400 million years ago, earth was uniformly hot and humid due to high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Plants consume carbon dioxide, and herbivores consume plants. Fossil fuels are the carbon remnants of ancient plants and animals that lived and died millions years ago and became buried underground.

Eons later, an upstart biped learned how to unearth and burn these fossil fuels. Within 12 generations, human beings released thousands of giga-tonnes of long buried carbon into the atmosphere — reversing a four-hundred million year old process in less than 250 years.

Despite decades of record high global temperatures, cold spells bring out the boiled frogs among us. Here is a statistical concept to keep in mind. All data sets — no matter how conclusive — contain some degree of random noise known as ‘statistical outliers.’ Climate change deniers build deceptions and errors of omission on foundations of random noise. In other words, statistical outliers turn boiled frogs into consummate liars.

The definitive scam came to light last year when InsideClimate News interviewed former scientists of Exxon Corporation and released hundreds of pages of internal documents. Decades ago, Exxon’s own research confirmed the consensus of climate scientists. In 1978, Exxon Senior Scientist James Black wrote: "Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions … become critical.”

In the 1980s, Exxon suspended publication of its findings and embarked upon a campaign to mislead the public. Exxon Mobil is currently under investigation in California and New York for fraud and alleged violations of environmental, public health, and shareholder protection laws. Rivaling the fraudulent practices of asbestos and tobacco producers, Exxon Mobil used deceptive tactics to protect its horde of filthy lucre.

Admittedly, the boiling frog story employs a fanciful metaphor. The definitive experiment was performed in 1869 by Friedrich Goltz, a German physiologist who searched for the location of the soul. His experiment confirmed a fundamental truth: Frogs whose brains have been removed will remain in slowly heated water until they boil to death. Thus, I end my commentary on this note. Unlike their intact amphibian counterparts, the hardboiled frogs of climate change denial and depraved indifference have neither brains nor souls.

(c) 2016

HEY STUPID!

Hey Stupid!  Yes, I'm talking to you, you gibbering idiot, posting fake ABC News reports about how Obama signed an executive order limiting gun owners to three guns.  Can't you read?  Look carefully and you'll find the URL you're forwarding to everyone  is abcnews.com.co or USANEWSFLASH.com. They're both fake news sites but you're so choked up with racism and sicko politics you'll believe anything that feeds your holy communion with Hell because hate feels so good, doesn't it, you parasitic nematode..

Facebook is crawling with "shares" of  fake articles from this seditious hatemonger.  They look real and that's enough for the enemies of all that is good and decent and true. They share it, forward it and shout about it. For all I know they dance naked around campfires at midnight chanting it.


Obama Signs Executive Order: Appoints Rashad Hussain As New Supreme Court Justice 

 President Obama Signs Executive Order Limiting US Gun Owners to Three Guns 

 Jade Helm Protocals [SIC] to Take Effect 

 BREAKING: Obama signs EXECUTIVE ORDER To Take Over America

There's no end to it, there's no law against it and there's no defense against these insurgents using our freedom of speech against us.  There's no shortage of  people to believe it, act on it, vote in favor of it and of course your own petty politics will keep you from doing anything about it, right?

OUR DEEP, DARK DESCENT INTO PLUTOCRACY HELL

Since the Reagan era, the mantra of supply-side economics boils down to this: Cut taxes, cut regulations, and cut social spending so people will be more motivated to work and less dependent on the government; then let the boom times roll.  Been there, done that.  The result has been a disaster.

The tenets of supply side unleashed a boom for plutocrats at the top of the economic pyramid.  For the working class, it has meant losses of manufacturing jobs to overseas markets, rustbelt cities, wage deflation, and massive inequality.  Among pandering politicians during an election cycle, the blame game — and the bullshit — has begun.

Donald Trump blames bad negotiators for making bad trade deals.   Kasich and Rubio proscribe more supply side.  And Ted Cruz wants to “awaken the body of Christ.”  Caveat emptor!

“Tax the rich to level the playing field, raise the minimum wage, and invest in infrastructure,” claim the Democrats.  Economic stimulus programs, although helpful, are mere bandaids unless we fix fundamental STRUCTURAL problems that have distorted our economy since the Reagan era.  Rules of corporate governance are one example.  Here is a look under the hood:

COMPENSATION.  Before 1980, CEO pay was comprised of 95% in salary and bonuses and less than 5% in stock incentives.  Today this ratio is reversed: 90-95% in stock incentives, the rest is chump change.  Changes in CEO compensation have fundamentally altered the business culture.

STOCK BUYBACKS.  Before 1980, less than 2% of corporate profits were invested in stock buybacks (a form of market manipulation now allowed after deregulation).  Today, more than 75% of corporate profits are invested in buybacks.  Why?  CEOs use buybacks to inflate the value of their compensation portfolios.  Before 1980, the ratio of CEO to workforce compensation was 45:1.  Today, the ratio is a staggering 844:1 and rising.

PRODUCTIVITY.  Since WWII, output per worker hour has grown dramatically, and workforce wages rose commensurately.  Today, wages no longer reflect the value of rising productivity.  Worker income has remained flat, and real buying power after inflation has declined.  Thus, the equitable distribution of wealth from top to bottom has disappeared.

HEDGING BETS WITH DEBT.  These days, corporate raiders and hedge fund traders record debt on the books of businesses they acquire.  Simply explained: you borrow money to buy a car; the named borrower on record is the car; you strip the car of tires and hub caps and sell off those assets; then expect the car to pay off the loan.  Until the 1980s, corporate America carried virtually no debt.  Today, corporate debt has reached the $12 trillion mark, while $21 trillion in untaxed profits lay idle in offshore accounts. 

HAVOC IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR.  When corporate debt and offshore accounts go up, public tax receipts go down.  Today, hedge fund billionaires pay less taxes than teachers.  There are Fortune 500 companies earning billions in revenue but paying next to nothing in taxes (such as American Airlines, GE, GM, Hewlett-Packard, Loews, Xerox, and News Corporation to name examples).  Corporate welfare in the form of subsidies, tax loopholes and other privileges have created a rigged economy.  Meanwhile, the cost burdens of civilization have fallen on the middle classes, whose votes no longer count and whose voices are no longer heard.

We lament the passing of an era when capitalism meant small family-owned businesses on Main Street.  In the post WWII era, small business was the province of the middle classes and the wellspring of upward mobility.  Decades of acquisitions and mergers have created mega-cartels with concentrated market power that have enriched the few but destroyed the American Dream for the many.  Economic stimulus programs will have little long-term effect unless we fundamentally change the rules of the game and democratize capitalism once again.

For a fanciful tale about the horrors of supply-side, please go to the preceding post below.