Congress and the People, a strange relationship

      It is often asked why doesn't the Congress and the President do what's good for the American people.  Why don't they stop all the party bickering and party line contention and get together and do good things.
     Of course what they really mean is why don't they all agree to do what their particular political party, and some cases just a group within one of the parties, in the Congress wants.  
     The answer is quite simple really.  At least when you think about it.  The fault is in our type of government as detailed in the Constitution. 
      The members of Congress do not owe their allegiance to the American People nor to the country. They say they do, but in reality they don't.  The members of Congress and even the President owes their allegiances to their own constituencies. Each Congressman and Senator holds their office because of the backing of some set of groups that have an agenda. Some of these groups represent huge money and others significant voting blocks. Many different groups, districts and States have different circumstances, desires and motivations for what they want out of the federal government and intense lobbying groups with deep pockets that are willing to finance the extraordinarily expensive campaigns necessary to be elected to office. The labor unions, especially the very strong and powerful public employee unions have a fat purse and a big stake in who sits in congress. As does manufacturing and small business. The people who are the recipients of government programs of all types (there are almost too many count) represent a significant voting block for any aspiring or current member of Congress.  
     So each Congressman and Senator represents the group that got them into office.  And that folks, is the way the system is set up and works. You say, what's wrong with that? Well, in some cases nothing. It results in the Congress representing somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 of the citizens of this country. The ones who take the trouble to vote.  Although surveys have shown that over 50 percent of the voters don't really understand what or who they are voting for most of the time.  (The others should just take what's handed to them I guess, they really don't have a beef). 
      But, what if something needs to be done for the good of the country that isn't popular with the public employee unions, the people on Social Security, the people on welfare, all the people on the various entitlement programs funded by the government or even with the public at large. In that case the Congress is very loath to tackle the problem in any meaningful way and suffer the outrage of their constituencies. Adding to all of this is that the Congress, led by the Democrats, have added entitlement programs to the federal trough at an astounding rate, putting more voters out there that would resist reductions in those programs. 
      There has been several bi-partisan super committees established by the Congress over the last years tasked to study and make recommendations on many far reaching problems facing our nation. Congress just set a new one to study how to avoid the coming confrontation over the debt ceiling that's coming up in January.  They spend months holding meetings doing research and finally publishing a report detailing the recommendations for future actions to solve the problem they were tasks to study.  And then the report is ignored. The escalating federal debt, the soon to be insolvent Social Security Program, the huge pension liabilities for public employees, the dependence on foreign oil, the huge trade imbalance with other nations, and on and on have been studied by these super-committees. Why are they ignored you ask? Because the solutions always mean that some powerful  group or groups, at a minimum, will have to take less of bite out of the federal trough. Sometimes the best solution for the country is an even a more bitter pill to swallow. The problem is, and it's real, that for a Congressman or Senator to vote for the changes contained in the recommendations would likely by political suicide. At least that's a risk they're unwilling to take. Even though they know full well that the path outlined by the report is the best thing for America, they just don't have the death wish to go against a large block of voters that make up their own constituencies. 
      So why don't our elected officials do what's best for the country? The answer, is again, because that's not the way the system is set up and works. And, I see not change in the future.  
     Sorry folks it's what we've got and we're stuck with it. If you want to make a difference you have to be part of some powerful group that can have an effect on the election of some Congressman or Senator.    

The Constitution of the USA

Let's talk about our Constitution. What Constitution you ask.  The one written by our founding fathers on a few sheets of paper along with it's Amendments and easily understood by almost anybody, or the one that really exists as a result of a myriad of court decisions down through the years and only understood by lawyers who specialize in Constitutional Law and even disagree among themselves. This one would fill volumes and would take days to read thoroughly.  And, by the time you finished it would be changed again.  Not by constitutional amendment but by the courts.
     We have discovered "rights" in the constitution that would mystify Madison and the original signers. We have also discovered that the federal government has a lot more power than we could glean from reading the archaic piece of paper called the Constitution.
     The US Constitution is very specific in the powers given to the federal government.  Somehow the power to regulate interstate commerce clause in the constitution has been interpreted to encompass almost anything the congress wants to ram through. And, if not congress then the Supreme Courts have had their say in deciding that the written document doesn't really mean what it says. The Tenth Amendment might as well not exist at all. 
    The Supreme Court has become a political institution where the qualifications for appointment and confirmation is very much dependent on the appointees position on a few touchstone issues.  Chief amount them seems to be the position on abortion (at least at the moment).  A liberal wing of the Senate wants the candidate to be for it and the social conservative wing of the Senate wants the candidate to be against it, otherwise no confirmation.  The candidates history in the field of law and knowledge of the constitution seems to have no bearing as long as they have the right political beliefs.  
     It is easy to see the political biases of the justices on the court as so many rulings come down as five to four with each members vote along party lines.  If the conservative, read Republican, members are the majority then the ruling is likely to be more in line with the constitutional constraints.  But, not always.  We get fooled every now and then.  Witness the recent ruling on Obamacare,  where it was found the penalty for not buying health insurance was a tax and therefore constitutional. Strange stretch of logic there. And this from a staunch conservative, or so we thought. 
     If the original Constitution had been written by Harvard and Yale graduate lawyers it would likely take two large volumes, or more, and be so filled with legalisms that hardly anybody could understand, not even other lawyers. The people who wrote the actual Constitution wrote in pretty plain language and almost anybody can understand it. Except lawyers of course, but they're a different breed. 
      Down through the years the courts have made some rather strange decisions, not all of them overturned by later courts. The Dredd-Scott decision is one of them, which overturned a State court decision and strengthened the case for the slave States to regain control of former slaves that now lived in non-slave states. That really wasn't corrected until 13th and 14th Amendment. In the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson it was held that segregation in the schools, buses, and other facilities was perfectly OK. Separate but Equal.   Of course there was only separation, not equality in the schools. In 1890 and confirmed in 1922 the Supreme Court decided that Baseball, and by extension all professional sports, did not fall under the Sherman Antitrust laws and the Reserve Clause was valid.  This allowed baseball owners to, in a real sense, enslave the players. This was overturned in 1975 after a long legal battle and two dismissals by the Court of earlier suits brought by Curt Flood of  the Cardinals. This and some other rather strange decisions by the court have been overturned by later actions. 
     The court really does seem to reflect the times more often than not.  It isn't likely that the Johnson civil rights laws would have been enacted in an earlier time, but if enacted the the courts would have leaned on precedence from earlier decisions and would have upheld the state challenges. That didn't happen of course. The mood of the country had changed, mainly due to the TV coverage of what was happening in the south during the riots that were occurring at the time in defiance of the segregation laws. 
     Let's for just a moment review just what the archaic piece of paper, the Constitution, actually spells out. I know that this will be boring for those folks that already have read and understand the Constitution, but for the few that haven't,  I will try to give a Crip- Notes version as follows:

     First let's discuss the basic constitution without the amendments.
The basic document is written as 7 articles with sections under each article expanding on the articles intent.

Article I -Lays out the structure of the legislative branch of the new government

• Section 1- Specifies that all legislative powers shall be invested the Congress of the United States consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives.  
•  Section 2- Details the responsibilities and make up of the House of Representatives. Defines age requirements, terms of office and other details. Also details the original makeup of the House and how the occupants of each State shall be counted in determining the number of Representatives for that State. (Indians (not taxed) are excluded and slaves count as 3/5 of a person.   
• Section 3 does the same for the Senate    
• Sections 4 through 6 defines the rules compensation, elections and other procedural matters concerning the members of the legislature. 
• Section 7 defines who does what on revenue bills (the House is responsible for originating all revenue bills) and defines how they are passed and the extent of the Presidential veto.  

Section 8 Clearly defines the powers given to the federal government by the Constitution. This where the wicket gets sticky.  It states that Congress shall have the following powers,and only those powers which are so defined.

1. Lay and collect taxes
2. Borrow money on credit of the US
3. Regulate commerce -with foreign nations, among the States and Indian Tribes. 
4. Coin money and fix standards for weight and measures. (The interesting thing here is that Congress has abdicated their responsibility to create money to a private organization run by the bankers, The Federal Reserve. Look at your money sometime.)
5. Provide punishment for counterfeiting.
6. Establish a Post Office and Post Roads.
7. Establish protection for science and useful arts (Patent Office)
8. Constitute lower courts
9. Declare war
10. Raise and support Armies (funding limited to two years; The Congress was fearful of a standing Army and did not wish to establish one.)
11. Provide and maintain a Navy
12. Make rules for the government and regulation of the armed forces.
13. Provide organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia.
14. Exercise legislation for what is essentially all federal government property.
15. Make laws for carrying out the above delineated powers.  

• Section 9 defines the limits on Congress.

1.  Provides that persons imported to the states prior to 1808 shall not be prohibited, after that a tax can be imposed. (This was clearly a sop to the slave states)
2.  Prevents the suspension of habeus corpus, except in times of rebellion or invasion. 
3. No ex post facto laws shall be passed.
4. No tax or duty shall be levied for exports from any State. 
5. No preference for any State in matters of commerce nor can States levy duties for commerce between states.
6. Withdraw money from the treasury, except as required by  law. Receipts and Expenditures must be published
7. Confer no title of nobility.

• Section 10 defines limits on states powers

1. Essentially says---No state can enact laws that are in conflict with the limitations on the federal legislators, nor may they enact actions that are the proper domain of Congress. I.e see powers and limits on Congress. The State may coin Gold or Silver coinage for payment of debts and other obligations. (Don't know any State that has ever done that). 
2. No state shall lay a duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace or enter into compact with another state or foreign power to engage in war.

Article 2  --Lays out the structure of the executive branch. 

• Section 1- defines how the President is elected, compensated and succeeded in the event of inability to continue in office. (Some of this was modified later by the 12th, 20th and 25th Amendment.)
• Section 2 -Establishes the Civilian power over the military. Names the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
•  Section 3 - Establishes the requirement for a periodic "State Of The Union"  assessment by the President. Convening of Congress to be addressed is optional. (In fact few of the earlier Presidents exercised that option. They just sent a letter to Congress).
• Section 4 -Establishes the ability and reasons to impeach.

Article 3. ---Defines the scope of the Judicial Branch

• Section 1 -Gives judicial powers of the USA to one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the Congress shall establish. They serve for life and shall be compensated.
• Section 2 - Trial by Jury. Specifies that all crimes except for impeachment shall be accorded the right of Trial by Jury. Specifies that judicial power shall extend to all cases rising concerning almost everybody such as Ambassadors, between states, the citizens of different states, etc.( Modified by the 11th Amendment.)
• Section 3 -Treason.  Defines the meaning and specifies the requirement for trial.

Article 4. --The States

• Section 1 -The citizens of each State shall be entitled to the Privileges and Immunities in the several States.
• Section 2 -States Citizens, Extraditions - Specifies that full credit shall be given the to the public records, Acts, Articles and Judicial proceedings of every other state. Extradition for crimes committed in another State shall enforced. Also says that escaped slaves in another State are the property of the original owner and will be returned. (This clause was superseded by the 13th Amendment.) 
• Section 3- Defines how new states shall be admitted.
• Section 4- Specifies that every state shall have a Republican form of government.

Article 5 --Specifies that this Constitution can be amended and how that is to be accomplished.

Article 6 - Debt, Supremacy, Oaths. 

• Specifies that all debts contracted under the Articles of Confederation shall be binding. Specifies that all Treaties made shall be the law of the land. All offices of the United States and it's States shall be bound by an oath of affirmation to support this constitution. No religious test shall be required as a qualification for office or public trust.

Article 7--Ratification

• Specifies how this Constitution shall be ratified. 

 That's it for the original Constitution.   

Now the Amendments.  The first 10 are generally called the Bill of Rights, and their obvious purpose is to protect the people from the power of government. Our founding fathers really feared big government and what it was capable of doing. 

Amendment 1-- Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression

• This amendment specifies the basic Four Freedoms that we talk about a lot.  It says that Congress shall establish no religion, abridge the freedom of speech or the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for redress of grievances. 

Amendment 2 --Right to bear arms.

• Specifies that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (This one has a lead in statement that has caused a lot of controversy through the years. i.e. the statement that this is required because a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state. The Supreme Court up to this point has ruled that this statement does not impinge on the basic right. That might change in the future with newer Courts, who knows.) 

Amendment 3--Quartering of Soldiers

• Specifies that no soldier shall be quartered in any house in time of peace and in war except in a manner defined by law.

Amendment 4--Search and Seizure

• Specifies that searches and seizing of property or persons shall only be done with a proper warrant.

Amendment 5 -- Trial and Punishment

• Specifies that all civilian crimes must be presented for indictment to a Grand Jury. Implements the concept of  immunity under double jeopardy. Declares no person shall have to testify against themselves, and that life, liberty or property shall not be taken without due process of law. 

Amendment 6 - Right to a speedy trial and Confrontation of Witnesses

Amendment 7- Specifies that in suits of common law over 20 dollars, that citizens have the right of trial by jury.

Amendment 8- Specifies that there shall be no Cruel and Unusual punishment for crimes and the there shall be no excessive bail.

Amendment 9- States that the rights granted by this Constitution shall be not construed to deny other rights retained by the people. (This is a strange one. It implies that there are certain inalienable rights not contained in the Constitution that shall not be infringed. One can think of a lot of discovered "Rights" that the founding fathers never thought of that would fall under this banner, and that Congress shall not pass laws prohibiting those 
"Rights". This where the courts get involved, big time. But, it doesn't give Congress the leeway to "discover" these rights and enact them into law.)

Amendment 10- States that all powers not delegated to the United States by this Constitution shall be reserved to the States, or to the people. (This may very well be the most ignored Amendment to the Constitution, as the Federal Government imposes its will on the States and the Citizens in an ever increasing amounts).  

Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits.  Limits the judicial reach of the federal courts. Does not extend to any suit of law or equity brought by a citizen of one state by the citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

Amendment 12 - Specifies how the President and Vice President are chosen.

Amendment 13 -Abolished Slavery

Amendment 14 - Citizen Rights

• Essentially gave former slaves full citizenship. 
• Essentially specified that former slaves will be counted as one person in determining the election of representatives and other public office. 
• Forbade any person who formally held a public office and had sworn allegiance to the United States by oath and had participated in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding public office.  They gave a way around that requirement however.
• Specified that the public debt to put down rebellion shall not be questioned and the United States nor any State shall assume any debt or obligation incurred in aid to an insurrection or loss of property or emancipation of slaves.  

Amendment 15- Gave the right to vote  to all citizens of the United States without account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Amendment 16 - Legalized the Income Tax

Amendment 17- Specified that Senators shall be elected by popular vote. 

Amendment 18 - Established Prohibition

Amendment 19 - Gave Women the right to vote and forbade denial of any right accorded to any citizen of the United States. 

Amendment 20 - Really updated and modified the terms of the President and Congress, how they are elected and various contingencies if the President Elect dies before taking office.

Amendment 21 -Repealed the 18 Amendment

Amendment 22 -Limited the President to two terms of office. 

Amendment 23 - Specifies that the District of Columbia shall have Electors for the election of the President and Vice President of the United States proportioned to the population of DC, but not to exceed the smallest State.

Amendment 24 Bars the Poll Tax

Amendment 25 - Spells out the new rules for Presidential Disability and succession.

Amendment 26 - Sets the voting age at 18.

Amendment 27- Limiting Congressional Pay Increases. Simply says the Congress cannot give itself a raise in mid session.  

     That's it---Our whole written Constitution with all it's amendments. 
     The interesting and perhaps disturbing thing is that nowhere in that written document can one find a provision that gives the Federal Government the right to enforce a lot of programs that we take for granted. And some we don't.  The Constitution clearly gives the Feds the right and obligation to provide for and maintain the interstate transportation systems, whether by land, water or air. Also, to raise an Army and Maintain a Navy along with the obligation to fund the development of equipment for the Armed Services to employ in their missions. It requires that the Federal Government develop and maintain a Postal System, whether that's a good thing or not.   
      But, exactly where does one fit Obama Care into the picture. Or for that matter, a great number of social programs that the Feds now fund with ever increasing parts of the national budget. Even borrowing money to do so. The disturbing thing is not that some, if not most, of the social programs are needed and worthwhile, but rather that they're being funded at the expense of the clear mandate of the Constitution to provide the infrastructure to promote interstate commerce and to provide for the defense of the country. And doing so without the power, as delineated in the Constitution, for them to mandate and support these programs.  
     Court decisions down through the years, especially since the FDR New Deal regime have found words in the Constitution that would escape normal people and determined that the Congress has the right to pass these "Entitlements" and charge the American taxpayer for the privilege. So the real Constitution is not just the words on a few sheets of paper signed by the founding fathers and modified with legally adopted Amendments over the years, but rather a whole host of expansions, interpretations and modifications that have been advanced over the years.  So many that a whole field of study is devoted to Constitutional Law.     

Have fun everybody.      . 

     
          
         

Rules for Raising Kids

     I am going to stick my head into a noose and state that there are rules one should follow in a family when raising kids. I don't expect anyone to follow them all, all the time, but they make a good yardstick.  What makes me an authority?  Nothing really, except some real life experience and observation of other families.  Both their successes and their failures. I will state them in no particular order.  But, I do think they are all important.  If a family is following most of them all the time, and the rest at least some of the time, I think the family has a good chance to succeed. What I'm going to advocate flies in the face of a lot of so called child experts, who write books by the thousands for gullible parents to read, but having never actually raised a child themselves, they teach a permissive style of parenting based on their studies at liberal universities.  As a result we have a spoiled "me first" mentality among the current crop of young people, who think they are entitled to everything from society.  

* Recognize that the parents primary responsibility is to raise children to be responsible, independent adults.  Someday the child will grow up and be on their own.  If you have not prepared the child for that, then they are in deep trouble when that time comes; and it will, whether we like it or not. Letting the child be overly dependent on the parents is not doing them any favors.  The parent is just enabling the dependent behavior. They are going to become adults; that should guide the parent relationship to the child throughout their formative years.  One of the things to remember is that you are their parents, not their friend or buddy.  They will have lots of friends, but only one set of parents. 

*Never make a threat you don't  carry out. Be careful with your threats for bad behavior.  Too many threats not carried out makes them absolutely useless.  The child just learns to ignore them, knowing full well that they will never be implemented. If you threaten to ground a child of a period of time for bad behavior, then do it if the behavior isn't corrected. Never, ever make a threat you can't or wont follow up on. So be careful what you threaten. 

* Have fun together as a family. Go to the beach. Have a picnic. Go to a theme park. Whatever. But, the whole family should participate in an activity that everyone enjoys. Often.  And, leave the IPads, Gameboys, cell phones, etc. at home. This must be a family activity. And having someone in the family sitting playing on an electronic device, or Dad checking his messages constantly isn't going to cut it.

*Meals are family affairs. Not every meal can be a sit down for the entire family because of conflicting schedules, but one meal of the day, preferably the dinner at night should be treated as a requirement except in extraordinary circumstances.  That means when dinner is served everyone sits at the table and eats.  And, nobody leaves until the meal is over. This is the time to catch up on the families day.  Conversation is a must.  No IPhones, etc. allowed.  Dinner is not the place to criticize; it should be an enjoyable time of day for everyone. It doesn't matter if it's a home cooked meal, microwaved TV dinner, or take out, it should be treated as a family activity. 

* Never order a child to do something you don't intend to enforce.  When the child is doing something that is not permissible, for whatever reason, then they should be taught that the failure to obey the order  to stop carries punishment. "No" should always mean "No".  There should be no confusion in the child's mind that you don't really mean it. Again, don't be over controlling.  But, the child tearing up the house, running into the street, making a nuisance of themselves in public, or similar dangerous or destructive behavior should not be tolerated. 
*Never let a child play one parent against another. That is a tactic that will be tried.  It always has been and always will be.  Kids aren't dumb, they're quite smart.  If they find they can get their way by that artifice, then they will. Don't let them get away with it.  Critical decisions should be jointly made by both parents.  Failing that, I suppose one of the parents has to step up and make all decisions; not a good approach.  But, you can't let the child play their game to get their way.
*Show an interest in your child's education. In this modern world advanced training and education is a necessity.  Always encourage your child to do well in school.  Be interested.  What are they studying? How are their grades?  What do they seem most interested in, and video games don't count?  Not every child is destined for an academic future requiring a college education.  We need skilled craftsman almost as bad as we need engineers. I believe there is something out there for everybody.  You should help the child to find theirs. The parent should try their best to nurture a love of learning in the child.  You wont always succeed, but you have to try. 
*A child requires age appropriate limits.  There should be limits placed on the amount of freedom a child is awarded during their pre-adult years. Times to be in at night.  Times to go to bed. Limits on the areas that are allowable for the child to go and so forth.  Be reasonable in setting these limits.  Get too restrictive and you might have a rebellion on your hands. They should be rational, and age appropriate.  At the same time, you must let the child untie the apron strings little by little. Again, the limits should be age appropriate. The child will use every tactic at their disposal to try to expand these limits. Listen, weigh the arguments and then make a decision based on your own, I hope, mature judgement.  But, remember this, breaking the rules brings on punishment; always.
   *It's not your job to entertain your kids. One of the lessons the child must learn is to be independent.  That includes learning to develop activities on their own.  "Mommy I'm bored" is not a signal for the parent to drop what they're doing and launch into a game with the child.
* It is generally not a good idea to kill your kid. I know that you sometimes feel that way, especially if you have teenagers and more especially teenage girls, but society doesn't look on that as being a viable option. Think it over first and try to come up with something more appropriate. 
  * Let the child know that he or she is loved. They should feel secure in their place in the family no matter what.  When punishment is being handed out the child should realize that it's for an act of misbehavior not for the child personally.

Let's Talk Politics

     In the last blog posts I have had some fun playing a fortune teller, even though I doubt the a great deal of my prognostications will come to be. As is usual, future discoveries and events will occur in ways hardly anyone could have imagined. Perhaps someone will find a way around some of the apparently intractable problems.
     A subject I have always been interested in is politics.  The art of governing, the way we select our leaders (or have them thrust upon us willing or not) and why people think the way they do is fascinating, and often disheartening.  Many studies have been made in this field and is a full time profession for a fair number of people, usually in the self interest of their own political party. Everybody has on opinion about politics, so why not me?  
     Why am I a Republican?  Good question.  I don't back all the positions that appear in party platform, but I believe that the Republican Party's basic positions on the most important issues that confront our country is much sounder than the Democrats, and not just by a small amount. I believe that so many of the social issues such a gay marriage and abortion that seem to dominate politics,and a lot of passion of both political parties, are really religious in nature and really shouldn't be part of a basic part of either parties platform.  They really have no significant impact on the well being of the nation, nor the individuals living here, which should be the primary focus. The nation is not going to fall if gays get legally married or if women want to have the option of ending a pregnancy at any time.  The thought may be repugnant to a lot of people, even most, but it really isn't going to impact the average family or the future of the nation at all.  It certainly doesn't have any impact on my ability to buy groceries, the nation to defend itself against potential aggressors, or the ability of a young person to start up a new company. How these issues became central to the election process is beyond me, even though I have a good idea. I think it was short shortsightedness on the party leadership to allow that to happen. The argument can be made that these issues go to to the very moral fiber of the nation, even though they can't be quantified.  More on that later. What is most important to the health and well being of the nation, and to it's citizens in the long run, are probably a few simple things. 
     First and likely most important is the financial health of the nation. Every thing else follows from that. A country can supply little in the way of assistance to the poor, medical care for the elderly and non-insured, or any of the other tasks we have come to expect from government if they are broke. An individual, family, city, state or nation that is living beyond it's means and is having to borrow money just to meet day to day expenditures is heading for deep trouble. The national public debt stands at around 11 trillion dollars at this time. If you include the interdepartmental debt it grows to 16 trillion dollars. About 6% of the budget was allocated in 2011 just to pay interest on the money that had been previously borrowed and we had to borrow more just to meet that obligation. That's a ticket on a fast ride to bankruptcy. In 2011 the federal expenditures were 3.6 trillion dollars, 1.3 trillion of that was borrowed. That's about 1/3 the total budget. That increases the national debt and results in bigger portion of the 2012 budget dedicated to paying the interest on that debt. This is like a snowball rolling down hill. Unless it's stopped it will become unmanageable. Folks, we're living on borrowed money with no plan to get this monster under control. Through a whole host of entitlements, largely led by the Democratic party, the congress and successive presidents have let us into this quagmire. We only have to look at Europe to see the results of over indulgence in government spending on a lavish scale to see the results. Two countries have already needed to be propped up to avoid default on it's debts and more are in jeopardy. It's alright for a state or the federal government to borrow money, but they should not be in a position where they have to borrow more money just to pay the interest on that debt. 
     I don't know about other states, but California (a poster child for the Democrats) has spent itself into a hole from which it's going to be very painful to recover. This has been building for years with a Democratic legislature getting by with a budget that was really all smoke and mirrors, in spite of  the requirement to have a balanced budget by the state constitution. The combination of the Public Employees and Teachers retirement packages are currently 165 Billion dollars underfunded. California spends 1.5 Billion dollars per year on medical benefits alone on retired public employees.  Both of the above must be covered by the taxpayer. There has been some efforts by some to reign  this in, but with little success.  The unions are just too strong.   But, the game finally caught up with this state and it's now time to pay the piper. 
      Governor Brown is pushing real hard to get tax increases to try to save most of the states entitlements and educational system or deep and painful cuts will have to be made. Lately he's tried to negotiate some pension reforms, but even he has run into a stone wall.  The heavily Democratic legislature isn't going against the public employee unions.  He ran for office promising no new taxes unless approved by the voters; an empty promise as all new taxes have to be approved by the voters anyway.  It's the law. Of course the typical California voter heard the no new taxes part and didn't hear or understand the qualifier.      
     The party that is trying to steer us toward fiscal responsibility with an aim to reaching a balanced budget is the Republicans. The Democrats have shown repeatedly that they are not willing or able to even try.  They have shown that they are perfectly willing to spend the taxpayers money to fund programs and organizations that will expand their political base and assure their support on election day, regardless whether we can afford them or not. They portray themselves as being the party that cares and is willing to help the downtrodden, the weak and the helpless.  Well la de da.  It's easy to be very compassionate and hand out money like candy when it's someone else's money. There really is no such thing as government money; it's money taken from the taxpayer.  I'm not sure the public at large realizes that fact.
     The Nation must have a high rate of employment at jobs that provide adequate income. That means most of the population must make enough money to afford a home, meet the daily demands of living and provide the children with a college education. You don't do that by strangling industry with regulations and taxes.  You do that by unleashing the private sector to do what it does best. 
    The private sector must be strong and viable.  It is the private sector that produces the products and ideas that can be sold on the open market and thus produce revenue to fuel the economic engine. And, it is private industry that needs the workers to produce these products. If we can create an environment where there is a lot of services and products to meet this criteria then a large number of workers will be required.  Government workers do not produce anything that has value in a global economy. They live off the money collected from the private sector.  That is not to say they are not essential to the process, but they have very little impact on the overall financial health of the nation.  In fact they are a drain. Their primary function is to provide the services that support the private sector.  They also enforce regulations, provide safety and other services necessary to support a free economy. The problem comes when regulations put such a strangle hold on the expansion of industry that the growth is hampered. 
      The Democrats have demonstrated over and over again that they are not friends of the private sector. Their constituency is the labor unions and they are constantly pushing for labor laws that will enhance the power of the unions and thus increase the Democrats support group for campaign contributions. A recent example was the thwarted attempt by the National Labor Relations Board to let unions organize without a secret ballot. This would allow union organizers to stand over a worker as he/she fills out a request for the establishment of a union, which would be all that would be required to establish one. No voting required. They fight tooth and nail to stop any move to institute any type of open shop in a state. See Wisconsin. They enforce legislation that forces employers to collect union dues directly from the employees paychecks and turn them over to the unions.  This makes sure that the members pay the money to the unions, whether they agree or not on how the money is spent on political campaigns. 
     They cite the working conditions of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to justify the backing of the poor unions. But, we now have so many labor laws on the books protecting workers from the kind of excesses that existed then that those conditions are not likely to arise again.  And, I will admit that most of those labor laws were championed by the Democrats.  See, they are not all bad. 
      They led the successful efforts to allow the public employees to unionize, something that most states must now deal with.  Something that even FDR said was a formula for disaster. The thing is that public employees were never really part of that downtrodden group that spawned the labor movement in the 19th and early 20th century.
       Now we have the most powerful unions in the states deciding on who their bosses will be, and who will decide on their pay and other benefits, while they pour massive amounts of money into the coffers of the Democratic Party. This situation has led to the states and the taxpayers of that state being on the hook for outrageous pensions and medical coverage for retired public workers. The huge pension obligations to the teachers and other retired public workers are a major factor in the real budget problems faced by the state. Any attempts to modify those benefits are fought by the public employee unions and the Democrats.  They successfully paint the Republicans who are trying to bring sanity to the process as being hard hearted and cruel and go right own catering to their big financial supporters. 
      Democrats love to tax businesses to raise capital for their programs. That sounds good to the uninitiated because it punishes those bad rich guys and they don't have to pony up the money. But.  It is a fact that you don't really tax businesses.  Taxes along with a myriad of other things are just a cost item to a business, and like all cost items they will be passed on to the consumer. If a business is not able to pass this or any and all cost items along due to market conditions, then they will cease to exist. So like all cost items the consumer is the payer of any business tax, whether corporate or whatever.  Today we are in a global market place and we are competing with products and services from numerous other countries. So the cost of doing business, reflected in the price of products or services, determines how well you will do in that market. Do well and you expand and hire people.  Not compete due to high costs and you close down and fire people. 
    Regulations imposed on businesses are much the same story. They almost always cost money to implement. That cost has to be passed on by price increases on the products or services that sell. Democrats have shown a complete lack of awareness of the cost impacts of regulations they enact.  As the regulations mount the cost of doing business in a state or the nation balloons.  California is now the most unfriendly state in the union for business.  That costs California millions in tax money and contributes to the fiscal problems in the state because, quite frankly, manufacturing doesn't relish moving into the state.  The country is no different.
     It's essential to maintain a strong military.  If history hasn't taught us anything it should have made that lesson clear.  The party that backs and supports the military since WWII has been the Republicans. The Democrats have continually tried to strip the military budget to fund their favorite social programs.  The free world actually depends on the United States to maintain stability, and we are under attack from a radical element largely stationed in the middle east.  The world trade center may not be last of the attacks; other attempts apparently have been initiated but stopped by intelligence agencies.  That puts a tremendous strain on our military, so we have situations where individual service men have to spend frequent deployments with little rest in between because of fewer troops able to the deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Who knows where the next place will be. 
     And let us not forget, we are not the only large and potentially powerful military force in the world. I can think of two quickly that pose a potential threat to the United States due their adherence to an ideology so foreign to us, and because they have interests that conflict with us in certain parts of the world. We no longer have the luxury of time if attacked that we had in 1941.  The broad oceans that gave us time before are just puddles in today's world. 
     Our infrastructure is falling apart. For the nation to thrive, for commerce to advance and produce goods and services for an increasing population, a sound policy must be made to bring our highways, our bridges, electrical distribution systems, power generation, and other systems which are essential must be brought up to snuff and maintained.  The Democrats have continually stripped the highway funds to pay for other pet programs to aid their constituency. They are the party that you can usually count on to fight any expansion of infrastructure to transport water, oil or natural gas making it cheaper for the consumer. The so called stimulus package, recently enacted, was supposed to provide help in that direction, but much of the money was squandered on programs that aided the Democrats constituency. We are just now beginning to see the results of some of that money.  And, let us not forget, that most of the ideas for the recovery program actually were germinated by the Bush administration, except Bush envisioned a massive building program to build and maintain infrastructure. 
       Social Security, once a financially viable program, is not sustainable without changes. The mythical Social Security Trust Fund in reality doesn't exist. Up till recently more money was collected from the taxpayers for Social Security than was paid out. That surplus money went into the general fund and was spent on other government programs, such a Medicare.  That is how Bill Clinton, supposedly balanced the budget. Without the surplus Social Security funds the budget would have been way of of whack. There is mistaken idea running around that Social Security was some kind of savings account and the recipients were only getting back what they had paid into the account.  Not so.  SS is a pay as you go program.  The politician  that called it a ponze scheme was right on the money. It is only viable when you have a growing bunch of contributors at the bottom of the pyramid.  That isn't happening anymore as the baby boomers are retiring and the pyramid is being turned upside down. The Democrats have made it a real effort to thwart any efforts to make the necessary modifications in the program by blocking efforts in congress and by spending millions in campaign ads scaring the hell out of the current recipients of Social Security and Medicare, even though no one has ever proposed any changes that would effect that group or the one approaching that age. The AARP, another Democrat mouthpiece, is in the forefront of this disinformation spreading their ideology to their large membership. The sad thing is that the media just passes these allegations along with no effort the discover or divulge the facts. The Republicans, especially Paul Ryan now, are pictured as just throwing grandma off the train, or a cliff, aided by cartoons and liberal comedians such as Jay Leno. 
     All of the above and perhaps a few more is why I'm a Republican. I'm afraid my party is not always on the side of the righteous, but the basic core of the party is trying to bring about changes in government to get the system upright and running smoothly again. Without that the social programs, so dear to the hearts of the Democrats, can not be afforded.  
   
           
      
     
       
     
    

Lets Look Into The Future Part 4

        Let's look at technology: Advances in technology will continue to be the driving force behind changes into the 21st century just as it has in the past. It will impact on everything that touches our lives from medicine, war, transportation, manufacturing, farming, entertainment, law enforcement, and a whole host of other activities and products. It is impossible to accurately predict where it will take us.  The best minds never really contemplated the amazing advances that have already taking place in  just a few years.  Think about it: a little over 300 years ago our mode of power was muscles.  Horses, oxen, or human with a few water powered mills thrown in were the way we traveled, tilled the soil, ground grain, dug ditches, built buildings and anything else we wanted to do. Since then we have seen the steam engine, the telephone, radio, the airplane and a whole host of new innovations come to be. Messages took days, weeks or even months to travel between destinations. What a difference a few centuries make.  One thing is clear, the rate of technological advancement is growing exponentially. More has been accomplished in the last century than over the 130,000 years (give of take) of homo sapians existence on this earth. There is no reason to believe that the rate of development will slow down.  In fact it will likely speed up. 
          The earth and it's population will face many challenges in the future. Technological development will be there to meet a lot of those challenges, but certainly not all. Technology can only do so much. On the other hand advances in technology is like a two edged sword, it will cause major disruptions in the lives of a huge percentage of the population. I have already addressed some advancements in earlier blogs as they pertained to specific  subjects I was discussing at the time. There are some other subjects I thought might be interesting.  At least they are to me. They certainly are not all encompassing; just a short list of things that occurred to me. 
         We talk a lot about unmanned aircraft.  Think of the big advantages that such a weapon would have.  The designers would no longer be constrained in aircraft design by the frailties of the human body.  A lot of the cost and complexity in a modern armored vehicle or fighter aircraft design is there specifically to support the human pilot and/or crew. One of the biggest restrictions on the design of fighter aircraft would no longer apply, the amount of G forces that the human can withstand.  Without that restriction aircraft could be designed to turn and accelerate with almost unlimited G forces. Space and environmental controls would not be required in tanks and other armored vehicles. The only limitation would be hardware design. The designers would no longer have to worry about air, heat, cosmic radiation or other environment issues in crafts designed to fly within the atmosphere or near space. Design measures to save the human pilot in an emergency would not longer be needed. There would be a psychological shift also, as the life of a pilot or crew in a combat situation would no longer be a factor. 
          There a two limitations that need to be addressed and overcome before really effective unmanned warplanes or ground attack vehicles can be deployed as the main line of warfare in the future. 
          First, and probably easiest to overcome is the problem of field of vision.  All unmanned vehicles to date have a very narrow window for the operator, usually defined by a video screen for viewing whichever way the camera is pointing.  Not good enough for extensive aerial or ground based combat. Humans have a broad field of view, with the ability to quickly swivel the head to pick up objects over a 360 degree arc around them and keep everything in perspectivie. An effective armored vehicle or plane will have to give the remote "pilot" the same ability at a minimum. Perhaps the drone operator will don a helmet or sit in a virtual cockpit which gives a complete view of the area around the drone. Likely a better view than the human pilot or vehicle  operator would have.  Much better in fact. And he can look in all directions just be turning his head. This helmet would have all the advantages of a heads up display with the "look and shoot" capability now employed on attack helicopters and the latest fighters. The tank, or whatever, would not have to rotate a turret to fire a round at the enemy.  The gunner would only have to "see" the enemy and trigger the weapon to fire. No more enemy. Of course, "seeing" could be by infrared, night vision, telephoto, or any number of new ways . It is also likely that combat in the future will be carried out over distances far out of the range of human eyesight. 
          The biggest problem, as I see it, is the avoidance of the enemy jamming, or otherwise disrupting, the signal connecting the drone to the control station, which may be another country. My background is not in communications so maybe these problems are easier to overcome that I think. We certainly have to consider interference today in the design of battlefield communications gear. But, consider; to communicate with a drone over long distances would likely require the use of a satellite to relay the commands and feedback between the control station and the drone. Not likely to be there in a high tech war.  An alternative would be for signal relay aircraft flying at high latitude, maybe several if the signal must be relayed over long distances. Not very survivable with the advances in SAM's that is likely to take place in the coming years. 
        That means the control station would need to be "Line of Sight" near to to the drone for active real time control of the vehicle. Not an attractive alternative.
        The answer to the puzzle might be to design machines that can carry out missions without continuous control from a real time operator. The drone will not be able to depend on GPS for guidance, that system would have been eliminated in the beginning of the conflict. Control will have to be by Inertial Navigation supplemented by terrain mapping, and other non-jammable methods. Close in combat will have to depend on infrared, radar and visual signals feeding a very sophisticated computer for combat control. Such a sophisticated vehicle is almost a reality now.  Just look at some of the air combat video games and it is clear that a computer can provide almost human responses in a combat situation.  It isn't a stretch of the imagination to presume that this type of software will be further developed to the extent that it will be superior to humans in the fast paced combat of the future. 
     Of course the war planes and such is not the only application of unmanned vehicles.  There are many dangerous jobs that will be performed by remotely controlled vehicles where communication interruption is not an issue. 
     The way we receive TV will change.  Now you look at a schedule to determine the times of programs you would like to watch. You can watch them as they are broadcast, or you can use the DVR and record them for later viewing. I think that will change in the future.  All programming will be received in your home on demand. Your TV guide will not have times associated with programs, but rather just a list of new programs that you can stream at your leisure. You will be able to stream any of the past programs as you wish, so if you missed a show on the day it became available you can watch it a week or month later. I'm not at all sure how the programming will be paid for.  Advertisers will not care for this new format at all, unless you don't have the capability to fast forward through the commercials. But, I don't think that commercial TV will disappear. Although I do think that online streaming services ala Netflix will become more prevalent. Studies have shown that even when people record a show, the vast majority still sit through the commercials. Advertisers will still get their message across. Even though sporting events can be accessed after the fact, it is likely that most people will want watch their favorite game or event real time, with all the commercial breaks. 
      The dominate type of program will have an option to be interactive with the viewer. One can either watch the show as a spectator or enter the action as a participant. 
      All movies you see at the local cinema will be streamed, that is if the local cinema still exists and it likely will.  That's already happening in a limited way and will become the only method in the future. 
     I think that traditional movies and TV shows will survive, although it isn't clear that live actors playing in those movies will. By traditional movies, I mean plays presented to a largely passive audience.  The viewer is not a participant in the action, but is an observer.  What is clear is that the use of live actors to play the roles in the movies will no longer be required.  Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) is already reached a very high realism factor and will only get better. Whether the public will demand living actors in their movies and TV plays will be the determining factor. 
     I have addressed in earlier blogs how I think these programs, both at the cinema and at home will be viewed. 
     Automation will become the principle method of manufacturing everything.  We already are rather deep into the manufacture of products using robots instead of manpower. But, there is still a large number of goods that are labor intensive and employ huge numbers of people to produce them.  This results in the transfer of manufacturing to countries with low labor costs and lax work rules.  China, India and a host of third world countries have prospered over the last few years because of this. But, I think the pendulum will swing back in the not to distant future.  As automation gets more sophisticated more and more of the tasks that are now performed by humans will be transferred to robotic machines. This move will cause a significant disruption in unskilled labor throughout the world. The demand of STEM skills will increase, but the need for low and unskilled labor will be severely impacted.  
     The nations that embrace automation in the production of more and more products will prosper, while others will be left behind. To accomplish this evolution will require a highly trained and educated work force. And, I'm afraid this where we, the USA, are being overshadowed by other advancing countries. China, Japan, Germany and some other countries are educating engineers at a rate much higher than America and they will likely embrace automation with a fervor, that is if labor unions and other such organizations don't get in the way.  But, what will she do with all those masses of people that now produce the clothing, and other labor intensive products when the factories turn more and more to complete automation. 
     That is the great social question that will have to be addressed in the future. Technology, including advances in medicine, will produce two conflicting outcomes.  Medicine will give us much longer life, resulting in an greater explosion in world population, but automation and other technologies will make the requirement for low skilled labor less and less. 
      I'm afraid that we are going to parallel the Roman Empire. With slaves doing almost all the labor required for the empire, the state was left with the problem of placating the vast population.  The well documented Roman games to entertain the masses resulted. The state had to give the masses entertainment in order to keep them placated. The rich spiraled into decadence and debauchery, while the great unwashed masses lived off what was essentially welfare. Instead of slaves doing the work in future times, it will be machines.  But, I fear that the result might well be the same. We already have ever expanding welfare rolls, a growing government employing more and more of the work force, with a political party offering even more handouts. And, if the government isn't directly providing the perks, then they are passing laws forcing private industry to supply them. 
     The socialist governments handing out perks like they are candy is already evident in most of the European countries,especially Greece, Italy and Spain.  The trend is well entrenched in the good ole USA as well.  More and more, the people want their government to provide them with a high standard of living, with long vacations, short work weeks, free medical care and a lucrative retirement at an early age. Of course, paid for by somebody else.  "The Rich", are the favorite targets, but it doesn't matter as long as it isn't me.  Automation on a grand scale is just going to make the matter worse. 
      Will retail stay essentially the same?  Not likely. The purchase of goods will be done more and more over the internet or whatever supersedes it. The big retail stores will likely not survive, at least in their present form.  The business model may be one where manufacturers, such as HP or Apple, provide a site where people can touch, feel and sample a product, but the product will be purchased on the internet. These sites may turn out to be virtual. With advances in technology a virtual reality (VR) site will be made to seem very real.  Because it's so easy to price shop on the internet, retail will have to meet the price challenge to stay in business. This could become the business model for almost all retail where it isn't essential to the customer to sample the actual product, such as produce in the market, before they buy.
    The way you shop at the market will likely change also. You will select what you want from a menu, it will be conveyed to you directly, priced, and bagged. You will be able to select the actual produce, meat and other products before you decide to purchase.  You will likely not wander the isles as you do now in the large shopping center. For those that can afford a VR site this operation can be done a home.  For others the store will provide kiosks. You will have the option of picking up the purchases or having them delivered, likely at an additional fee of course. This will likely also cause the resurrection of the specialty meat markets and produce markets because a number of shoppers will  want to physically sample the items before buying.  
     Clothes shopping will be different. The customer will have an image of themselves taken.  This will be at home for those that can afford the VR equipment or at a stores kiosk for others. The customer can then select different apparel to "try" on.  What the customer will see is what that particular dress, suit, or whatever looks like on them.  It will be perfectly sized to the consumer. The image will move at the customers direction and show the apparel from all angles. When the customer looks in the "Mirror" they will see themselves with the apparel they're considering being worn. To fit a particular customers preference modifications to the apparel can be made.  The sleeves lengthened, etc. to fit an individual sense of style. In a sense all clothing will be custom made. The choice of apparel using this method will be much larger and easier to find than the mess that one finds in the department stores now. 
     Genetically modified foods will become the norm.  The growing population and the need to feed those people will require greater yield from the available farmland than is possible with unmodified foods. The need will be intense to grow food in places and in soil not currently friendly to crops.  The modifications will make the plants highly resistant to insects and disease.  Fruits and vegetables will be adapted to those growing conditions by genetic manipulation. The organic farm will likely still exist, but only for the elite who have a hangup over genetically modified food and can afford the price that will be demanded. 
     Law enforcement will make huge strides forward in the use of forensic evidence.  Think of CSI on steroids. The real stars of the future in the field of law enforcement will be the forensic people who examine a crime scene with equipment we haven't even thought of yet, except SciFi writers of course. Let your imagination run wild and it's likely to happen in the future.  Perhaps an imaging system that lets law enforcement view the crime as it happened due to some lingering essence that we aren't even aware of today (there goes the SciFi guys again). In any event, forensics will be able to find and analyse the tiniest scraps of evidence at a crime scene. Software will allow searches of vast data bases to match and coordinate data from all over the world in a very fast and efficient manner. DNA matches, face recognition, and other forensic tools will be improved by leaps and bounds, both in speed (almost instantaneous) and in accuracy. To be a police officer in the future might require an engineering degree specializing in forensic science. 
     What will soldiers of the future wear?  The answer is simple, but will be difficult to achieve.  The answer is, light weight armor for most infantry and full powered body armor for an elite group. I think that science will take a page right out of science fiction and equip the warriors of the future with full body armored suits. It is likely that there will two types of armor; light armor for what will be termed (perhaps) light infantry, and heavy, for heavy infantry. Light infantry will be highly mobile and will wear a light weight body armor that can deflect most small arms fire, shrapnel and such.  It will not be powered as will the heavy infantry.  It will provide a moderate degree of environmental protection from heat, cold nuclear radiation and other bad things that might be encountered on the battlefield of the future. 
     The heavily armored infantry will don suits that will give them the ultimate protection from all types of things trying to kill them.  They will be like a walking tank. The suits will provide augmentation to the limbs giving the wearer superhuman strength and speed. They will be able to carry and fire heavy weapons that would be impossible without the power assistance. The suits will protect the soldier from extreme heat or cold as well as other hostile environments. 
     Either suit will provide heads up displays in an environmental helmet that alloys the soldier to see the battlefield with friend or foe definition clearly shown. The helmet will be equipped with many advanced features to aid the soldier in performance of their duties. 
     The rifle, if you want to call it that, will host smart bullets that will find any foe that is designated by the shooter. The rifle itself will likely not be chemically fired but rather something like a rail gun. The projectiles themselves will be very small needle like and fired at incredible speeds, far faster than anything today. The kinetic energy will be sufficient to penetrate and destroy today's heavy tanks, but not the armored vehicle of tomorrow. The heavy infantry will have more destructive weapons at their disposal, a supercharged RPG perhaps, bigger and much more powerful than any thing in today's arsenal. 
     Can technology produce immortality? Perhaps.  The capacity and speed of computers is growing rapidly. Image a time in the future where we can rival the human brain in terms of storage capacity, speed and size. Next imagine that we can tap into the brain and transfer every particle of information stored there into this computer. That information is what you are.  It's all your memories, dreams and personality quirks that make you. So now a complete copy of you is now stored in that computer. Next, let's build a cyborg to house that computer and build sensors to provide sight, sound, touch, etc. stimulus from the cyborg to the computer. Presto, that cyborg has become you. And as the cyborg wears out or is damaged, you can transfer yourself to another cyborg and keep on going.  You can live forever. This scenario is not that far fetched actually.  It is well within the various possibilities of technological advancement in the future.  
         
         
      






             
         

Let's look into the future Part 3

Is another world war coming? No one can be sure, but history tells us that the chances are good that it will. The question then is how will it start, how extensive will it be and how much damage will result.  
            In the foreseeable future the main wars will be along the lines that is happening  now; relativity small wars by global standards, limited to a small region and not threatening the large nations. They will be essentially gorilla type wars, with no defined front lines and difficulty identifying friend from foe. So far the larger nations have not confronted each other in an overt way in the middle of these wars, even if they have supplied the arms to fight them.  As long as it stays that way a global conflagration will be avoided. But, history says that is not likely to last.
           What is likely to happen sometime in the future is the large and militarily powerful nations will be drawn into conflict the same way that it has happened so often in the past. We will end up fighting a global war that nobody really wanted, over issues that aren't really defined, because of circumstances that no one saw coming and due to misunderstanding of the intentions of others. 
           The recent experience of WWI is a good example of a single incident escalating, whereby a single assassination set off a chain of events that engulfed the world in a disastrous war, that solved nothing, only setting the conditions for another world war.  It embroiled Britain and America in a war they really had no stake in, with no obligation from treaty commitments to enter, resulting in thousands of lives lost and a huge amounts of money spent from the treasuries. In the end it changed the face of Europe and resulted in America becoming a major power in the world. It caused the downfall of the Romanov dynasty and the growth of communism and the USSR. The Austrian-Hungarian Empire ceased to exist, setting up regional conflicts that are still being played out. Of course they weren't much of an empire by the time of WWI anyway, but they were the nation that sparked the great war. It left Germany in such poor conditions that it made the rise of National Socialism, with Hitler as it's head, much easier to accomplish, perhaps even inevitable. 
        World War II is an example of the conditions that closely align to today's climate.  Nations misreading the intentions and resolve of other nations regarding their reactions to events was really the catalyst that fueled the actions leading to the global war. Hitler invaded the Rhineland with no opposition.  He could have been stopped right there, the German Army had orders to withdraw if opposed. But, France, with the largest land army on the continent, didn't act. After taking in Austria, Hitler then threatened Czechoslovakia, and England's Chamberlain ceded the most vital part of  Czech territory in order to achieve "Peace in Our Time". Of course in very little time the rest of Czechoslovakia fell to the Germans. Hitler then made a bad assumption.  The German Army invaded Poland thinking that the French and English did not have the will to intervene.  But, this time they acted and the war in Europe erupted.  France fell pretty fast, leaving England to face the Germans alone. Subsequently Hitler made another major miscalculation and invaded the USSR while England was still at his back, living and breathing.  At that point I think his doom was sealed. He had totally underestimated the will, and perhaps more importantly, the huge armies and the manufacturing capabilities of the Soviets. He now had a two front war on his hands,which is almost always a disaster.  Then, to add to the range of stupid blunders, he declared war on the United States. A move that FDR was eagerly wishing for. 
         The United States entered the war due to a total miscalculation on Japans part. She assumed that the US did not have the will or the guts to fight a prolonged war, and by destroying the American fleet at Pearl Harbor and early victories in the Pacific she could get an advantageous treaty. One that would give them free rein in the Pacific. She thought of the American people as soft and corrupt. But, as Adm. Yamamoto feared, all they did was awaken a sleeping tiger. 
        One can easily picture several scenarios that exists at this time that might possibly be the spark that ignites a global conflict. The situation among the middle eastern Muslim nations and Israel is a tender box that shouldn't be ignored. Iran, and soon it's close ally Iraq, are open about their determination to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth. An escalating threat to Israel is looming more ominous with the obvious development of a nuclear weapon by Iran, with a way to deliver it.  Israel may very well deliver a preemptive strike at the nuclear facilities in Iran.  They've done it before. However, they might act too late, because Iran may have nuclear  tipped missiles already operational. Under the nuclear umbrella Iran and Iraq, and perhaps the newly formed Arab League, may send massive armies against Israel in retaliation (as if they needed an excuse).  The USA is committed to the support of Israel and with the help of American support the attack could be turned back.  Iran and the Arab League faced with losing the war could launch it's nuclear arsenal against Israel and against the American Carrier battle group operating in the Persian Gulf, which they perceive as being Israel allies.   Now, whether the attack on the battle group will succeed depends on whether the defensive features contained within the battle groups are as good as they have been touted. But, in any event the cat is out of the bag.  The carrier battle groups that survive the nuclear attack will launch strikes against Iran, Iraq and other members of the Arab League that entered the war. The FA18's (or F35's or whatever the Navy's primary strike fighter is at the time) will roll and the missile cruisers will start raining destruction. I don't think that the initial strikes will be nuclear, but with modern technology they will be very effective. The Air Force with finally have something to do; the B2's will be airborne. Because Israel has been so crippled by the nuclear strikes from Iran and because the US was directly attacked by the Arab League, the US sends in the marines to defeat the the current regimes.  What could happen next is anybodies guess.  It could develop as Russia, fearing the presence of the American military on their very borders, counters with land troops of it's own.  And thus, it begins. China, perhaps concerned with the cut off of it's oil supply from the middle east enters the war on the side of Russia, although I would like to think that China would not be drawn in.  Europe and Britain soon follow the US into the mess. I believe the great powers will try to refrain from the use of nuclear weapons, at least in the beginning.  The consequences are just too awful to contemplate. It should be remembered that all the WWII combatants refrained from the use of poison gas during that war, a tactic that was used liberally in the WW I and outlawed in the Geneva Convention. So there is hope.  However, if the war proceeds on for a period of time and one side is in dire straights, then they may try the nuclear option out of desperation.   
        A greater tinder box is sitting in North Korea.  It isn't hard to imagine that the north will launch another invasion of the south, perhaps this time with nuclear weapons. They have threatened to do so many times in the recent past. North Korea has a huge well equipped army and will sweep into the south quickly and successfully.  Thousands of Americans will be killed in the initial assault.  The Americans will retaliate and we will have another Korean War, only this time with far more fearsome weapons.  Determined to never let this happen again, the Americans decide that the North Korean government must be eliminated and the territory reunited with the south. I fear that this course of action will drag China into the war in a big way just as it did before and the escalation starts. Once the US and China are engaged the rest of the major world powers may well be dragged in. 
         Another, and perhaps scarier problem exists in the Chinese claim to Taiwan. It is clear that the Chinese intend to take Taiwan back into mainland China.  But, the current Taiwanese government has no plans to allow that to happen.  The United States has consistently supported Taiwan.  We have sent warships down the straight between China and Taiwan several times to enforce our support. But, if the Chinese decide to force the issue by force of arms, the threat of a major war between the US and China is a real possibility, depending on our response. I don't believe that the US will allow Taiwan to be overrun. We should hope that the Chinese do not misread our resolve about that issue.  This is a problem that can be resolved by diplomatic means, at least I hope so.
         It may not play out that way, of course, but the seeds of a global conflict are present in many places.  Nations not trusting each other or with entirely different goals and political positions. The tinder boxes, at the present time, are the middle east, Taiwan and North Korea. That may change in the future, and likely will.  Consider the ever increasing hostility of  Russia toward the United States under the leadership of Putin, apparently the President for Life for all practical purposes and increasingly looking more like Stalin. A lot of South America is not our friend.  Socialist governments seem to be on the rise there, generally hostile to America. 
        The one thing that may restrain China from hostilities with the US is the fact that we owe them so much money. If that debt were cancelled by war, it might throw the Chinese economy into a tailspin. That's in addition to the fact that we're such a large consumer of Chinese products, and it mustn't be forgotten that the Chinese own a lot of America.  Another factor is that we depend on China to supply a vast number of consumer products that we no longer make ourselves, and no longer have the capability to make, because we have long ago shipped it overseas. And, the US has a lot of investment in China. It would not be in America's or China's best interest to get into a war from purely economic reasons.  We can only hope that China feels no real need to react to a war in North Korea as being possibly hostile to them or that they push the Taiwanese issue into a shooting war. 
          How will this war be fought?  Not like the last great war, that's for sure. Although the Generals will likely think that way in the beginning. I don't think you will see large land armies pitted against each other as in WWII and Korea. Such a tactic will be suicidal considering the weaponry that is currently available, and are likely to be developed in the future, to the Armies and Navies of the advanced nations. I don't think that we will see large aircraft raids dropping bombs on cities as was done by Germany and the Allies in WWII. Modern weapons are achieving greater and greater accuracy, which will result in concentration on militarily important sites with a far greater probability of damage or destruction of the target.  We can destroy the same critical target now with one bomb or missile that took squadrons of planes to destroy in WWII.  Drones are now in play and will continue to advance in capability so that we will see greater and greater use of aircraft controlled remotely. Ground based weapons will also join the robotics game, with tanks that don't require crews and other remotely controlled weapons available to the ground forces. 
          The surface Navies will likely be one of  the first primary targets at the outbreak of hostilities.  The power that can be launched from the seas is too much to ignore.  Depending on the type of weapons used and the defensive capability of the fleet, the outcome could be in doubt.  If the war has already escalated into a nuclear confrontation, it is likely the surface fleet will not exist very long. That will leave the Navy with only the undersea boats with their nuclear arsenal.  It is possible that the Navy will develop other types of ships than the conventional submarine by the time of a new global conflict, so that they will have a vast choice of weapons and delivery methods available that can survive the first few months of a future war. The Navy will then be the only one of the three services that has long range striking capability.  
          Land based airfields, command centers, fuel storage sites, strategic manufacturing and missile launch sites will not survive the initial phases of a global war. They would have long since been identified and targeted for destruction.  It is unlikely that we will ever be able to build defensive capability to stop an all out attack on these facilities. For anything like conventional air power to survive, the ground based facilities will have to be dug into mountains and hardened against weapons specifically designed to destroy such installations. 
          Just as control of the sky above the battle field was important, almost essential, in the recent past, the shift will be upward to space. The first thing that will attacked at outbreak of hostilities will be the satellites in synchronous and nonsynchronous orbit that provide detailed observations and the GPS system that provides guidance. It will be essential to deny the enemy the capability that the intelligence delivered from these sources, and the guidance capability they provide missiles and other weapons, be eliminated.          
        That will spawn a space war as each side strives to  gain command of the space above the battle field. A whole new class of weapon systems will emerge specifically designed to provide space superiority. At the same time each side will attempt to develop methods to provide the "spy in the sky" capability. It will look a lot like WWI aviation, relatively primitive in the beginning, but reaching higher levels of sophistication in a fairly short time.
          We have just seen the beginning of the development of "smart bombs", guided missiles, and unmanned  aircraft.   As the advances in intelligent weapons continues to grow, their effectiveness will become more and more lethal. Such weapons could easily destroy large land armies, and any above ground land based facilities. Of course both combatants will be striving to develop counter measures against these new and deadly weapons. And, the weapons race will accelerate.
          In short, a new world war would be a cataclysmic event. It would be fought by a whole new set of weapons at sea, in the air, in space and on the ground. On the plus side, if there is one, I don't think cities will be ravished just for the sake of destroying them.  Many studies following WWII has shown that the mass bombing of cities really did not achieve the objectives that the leaders of Strategic air-power hoped for. On the other hand the destruction of strategic targets was effective.  
          Let's just hope that the leaders of nations in the future will be able to avoid another global war.  That's a lot to hope for, but as they say hope reigns supreme.