Blog Entry

How did we get here? What's next?

Posted on: January 7, 2012 1:15 pm
Edited on: January 11, 2012 12:06 pm
The plutocrats have by now sucked the air out of the Amerikan economy.

Will the dying(†) embers reignite, and what colours the flame?

 (†) The author wishes to acknowledge the suggestion contributed by the ashwhole screen-named SchteemeyCaca

Since: Sep 23, 2008
Posted on: January 8, 2012 12:34 pm

How did we get here?

Liberalism is in jeopardy as the middle class declines. Both follow the same trajectory, because liberalism historically serves the secular concerns of the middle class (those individuals who are neither exageratedly rich or poor, have graduated high school, own property and/or durable goods, or own a business).

Liberalism arose from the birth of the commercial/industrial middle class during the 1600s. Prior to that, societies were primarily based upon religious ideas.

Pared down to the bones, liberalism maintains that the government's authority is to protect the rights of its citizens, and its power is limited by laws. Citizens' rights include the right to private property. The government cannot levy taxes without the consent of the citizens. Since the time of the 1688 revolution in England (the "Glorious Revolution": [  ]), liberal democracy has essentially become the default form of government due to the fact that it is congruent with the socioeconomic interests of the middle class.

It is interesting that, historically, Liberalism is not directly linked to democracy (see the Whig parliament and property ownership as a requirement for voting: The Whig World, 1760-1837, L.G. Mitchell, and Andrew Jackson's election to the presidency in 1828).

Communism has had a run where individuals were excluded from the politics of government and an industrial working class bloomed. Its banner is Marx' and Engels' The Communist Manifesto:   . The working class' Communism has been strongly resisted wherever it threatened the power of the rich conservatives and the middle class liberals. To deal with these threats, communists abandoned democratic means, and sought to directly assume power.

Since: Jan 8, 2008
Posted on: January 8, 2012 12:30 pm

How did we get here? What's next?

Here is what is next....ooppss ... now!
the bottom bolded is what is really disturbing.

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

<!-- /firstHeading --><!-- bodyContent --><!-- tagline -->From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<!-- /tagline --><!-- subtitle --> <!-- /subtitle --><!-- jumpto -->Jump to: navigation, <!-- /jumpto --><!-- bodycontent -->

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference"></sup> was signed into law on December 31, 2011 by .<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference"></sup><sup id="cite_ref-aclu1_2-0" class="reference"></sup>

The Act authorizes $662 billion<sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference"></sup> in funding, among other things "for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad." In a signing statement, President Obama described the Act as addressing national security programs, Department of Defense health care costs, counter-terrorism within the U.S. and abroad, and military modernization.<sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference"></sup><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"></sup> The Act also imposes new economic sanctions against (section 1045), commissions reviews of the military capabilities of countries such as , , and ,<sup id="cite_ref-6" class="reference"></sup> and refocuses the strategic goals of NATO towards energy security.<sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference"></sup> The Congressional Research Service provides a summary of the many provisions of the Act, available on the web.<sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference"></sup>

The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention are contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, have generated controversy as to their legal meaning and their potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority. Although the White House<sup id="cite_ref-whitehouse1_9-0" class="reference"></sup> and Senate sponsors<sup id="cite_ref-csmonitor1_10-0" class="reference"></sup> maintain that the already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.<sup id="cite_ref-11" class="reference"></sup><sup id="cite_ref-12" class="reference"></sup> The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the (ACLU) and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces.<sup id="cite_ref-13" class="reference"></sup>

Since: Sep 23, 2008
Posted on: January 7, 2012 1:52 pm

How did we get here? What's next?

The wool of financial deregulation having been pulled over the myopic eyes of the ignorant, yet ever greedy Amerikans, a substantial moiety of the middle class has been shifted into the structural working class. It took about a generation's time, but here we are. The progressive liberals, having temporarily ascended, are now seemingly becalmed. 

Demagoguery is catching up to this new demography. 

Interesting scenario...perhaps even a pivot.

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or