Today's topic for discussion is:

The Navy has tested their prototype railgun. It's actually going to happen, once the technology is scaled down enough. I imagine this being run from a multi-reactor nuclear warship, if for no other reason, redundancy.

posted at: 03:34 | permanent link to this entry

Democratic Primaries: Two Schools of Socialism

[This is another work-in-progress.] For all the talk about how similar the two candidates are, I see a fundamental difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama: the two candidates represent different schools of Socialism. Having conversed with members of each school (and a third, which I'll mention elsewhere), I've been aware of the difference for a while; it was only recently that I've been able to distinguish the two as a different school. Clinton represents what I call the "American" school, where Socialism is a great experiment, scorned for 100 years, a red skeleton in the closet to be defended from view. Rather than talk about Socialism, this school will do anything else, especially change the subject and attack the critic. American School versions of Socialist arguments on the various issues are framed in the reference of a (usually oppressed) minority struggling for relevance within a hostile host nation. Obama represents what I call the "Pan-Asian" school, where Socialism (as adapted to local cultures) has been a reality for decades. [Sometimes I'll describe this variant as "International", but that's too broad a description.] For this school, Socialism isn't voodoo, it's either controlling or influencing a significant stake of the world's governments and economies. Their arguments deal with neither Socialism nor its perspectives, but of Socialism's effects (for its beneficiaries, of course), as they relate toward the issue at hand. These arguments are based from an unstated assumption that such benefits are already proven. To a degree, both schools have their strong points. In this year's electoral setting, the International school beats the American school, hands down. Because members of the International school speak from established positions of success elsewhere, they don't require their target to be viewed in a negative light. The American school is based on a polarized mentality that, like an attack dog, will recognize only its masters as friendly. With millions of lemming voters in this cycle, the International school has the additional advantage of presenting itself as "Change", a departure from the normal politics of the last 100 years.

posted at: 03:33 | permanent link to this entry