Ahh, such a presumption of omniscience. And precognition. Actually, the future hasn't happened yet, so predictions of states of employment years from now are about as reliable as predicting the weather.

For one thing, we may not have a future. If global warming, aka climate change, kicks into high gear, economic activity as we know it will cease. Woops. I just made a prediction. Suffice it to say that economic activity as we know it will likely cease.

I listened to "Fresh Air" on public radio today, and a scientist who researches on the oceans talked about how large international fishing entities are depleting the seas of more and more species, moving down the food chain, and changing the ecology of the oceans worldwide. Nice work, industrial revolution.

A better way of looking towards the future is of a confluence of trends. World population, now close to 7 billion people, is expected to continue to grow exponentially forever. I say forever because no one in a position of major influence ever mentions the unsustainability of infinite population growth.

In truth, unless we find a way to voluntarily reduce or population, there will likely be a massive dieoff.

As far as future jobs being focused on high-tech and person-to-person occupations, that also is hard to predict. Given other trends, it is likely that vast numbers of people will be involved as first responders of one kind or another: fire, police, sandbagging, erosion control, grave digging (emergency gravediggers), EMTs, manual electrical generation (running in big hamster-like wheels), and, of course, the military.

Also, given the confluence of trends, our reliance on gadgets and trivial electronic products is likely to transform towards more life-affirming and practical products like shovels, hammers, wrenches and screwdrivers.

Another thing the author ignores is the likelihood of social sustainability of a system that intrinsically has vast numbers of extra people. If we develop an increasing class of permanently unemployed people, the coherence of the social structure will collapse.

And one final trend surpasses all the others. That is the trend to deal with problems by creating other problems to deal with instead. The "Iraq" war is a perfect example, but the health care debate is equally proxified. Rather than actually creating a new and needed health care system, or political elites are doing what serves them: a fake reform that preserves the flow of campaign donations and corporate profits. Because of this inertia, the system will (likely) collapse of its own weight long before any of the author's predictions have a chance to take effect.

It may not be the best place to start, but I would like to see a campaign to replace the Secretary of State. For sure, the policies are directed from the White House, but Hillary Clinton is out of her element. She is about herself, and when lives are at stake worldwide, someone of a more humble and mutual temperament is callled for. He may seem an odd choice, but I believe Jim Webb would be an ideal candidate, should he be willing to accept the job.

Mark Benjamin has done some great writing in Salon, but "What's motive behind Fort Hood shooting?" is a pretty lame headline. I guess it's in lieu of something like "(Eleven or)Twelve dead in Ft. Hood shooting! Killer was base psychiatrist."

But since you asked, I can provide some insight, though not a perfect answer. The quick answer would seem to be anger. That would be a pretty obvious motivation for shooting eleven people.

A better answer is to look at the overall context. The motivation to wreak havoc on "Iraq" and "Afghanistan" was officially to capture and/or kill Osama bin Laden and his cohorts, to stop Saddam Hussein from attacking "America," and to bring "democracy" to the "Middle East" and other places as "we" see fit.

It was all bullshit. The gods of war were unleashed by a cheap gang of criminals, and after eight years what was unleashed is coming back with a vengeance, literally.

I can tell you from experience that the military is an unfriendly, crude institution even in "peaceful" times. When a war is started, it ups the ante for violence throughout the military. The mayhem is mostly in bar fights, but as can be seen in the latest issue of Rolling Stone, returning soldiers can commit unspeakable crimes.

It doesn't require being "in theater," or what during the "Vietnam" debacle was called "in country." War generates a madness that, over time, seeps into the unconscious of the entire armed forces. If the war or wars are bogus, then the madness is amplified.

The civilian society is not insulated from this breakdown. Most veterans complete their committments, and "ETS" - get out. Many never readjust to normal life, and some get involved in crime, substance abuse, and crackpot causes. Remember Timothy McVeigh?

This brief analysis may not answer the question that substitutes for a news headline, but it might help broaden the dialogue.