What has made South Africa so successful (post-Apartheid) relative to other countries in the region?

Answered on Quora

In my opinion there have been a number of reasons. Unfortunately as time passes many of these seem to be falling by the wayside. Nevertheless here are some key factors

1. The country has a great deal of diverse mineral wealth - Gold, diamonds, chrome, platinum, uranium to name a few (as opposed to Zambia for example which relied heavily on copper);
2. Well developed first world infrastructures in the Key Cities - Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban, Pretoria, Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein etc
3. Country has largely favoured a free enterprise friendly system of economics (for now);
4. A structured nationwide railway system that has been operating for some time;
5. Strong educational institutions at the Post-Secondary Level - Wits University, University of Cape Town, Stellenbosch, Pretoria, Potchefstroom etc.
6. A highly educated elite class with Professional training (Science and medicine have historically featured highly in the South African mind set);
7. White exodus from the country has taken place but at a much lower rate than the rest of post-colonial Africa;
8. A strong Tourist industry - Game Parks, Sun City, Beach cities etc;
9. Policy of Conciliation followed by the Post-Apartheid government although this appears to be breaking down since the death of Nelson Mandela;
10. Country (at least until now) has held back somewhat on destructive wealth redistribution policies there that impoverish the country as a whole and decrease foreign investment;
11. Industrial base in South Africa was far larger than any other Sub-Saharan African country;
12. South Africa kept the trappings of Democracy longer than most Post-Colonial African countries (the constitution has largely been successfully implemented…this could change in the future);
13. South Africa’s post-colonial government (took power in 1994) was not rocketed by Cold War politics as was the case with many other African countries;
14. Nelson Mandela stepping aside and preventing the country from sliding into a Cult of Personality that favors the strong man liberator (almost always the story in the rest of Africa);
15. The Army is not as dominant a force in the country's politics.
16. South Africa has a very competent farming infrastructure that is capable of generating food surpluses.

Did Jesus dislike the Torah?

Answered on Quora

As far as I can tell….Jesus believed that his teachings were consistent with the Torah.

Taken from the Sermon on the Mount -

“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished” (Mt. 5:17-18)

He did not set out to form a new religion and very much respected the Torah. His main grievance was not with the Torah itself but with the religious elites who had been corrupted and who in many cases were defiling the Temple by their actions. He believed in reforming a hierarchical system that was not representing the essence of Judaism. I believe that on this ground alone he had a very strong argument.

Why have Politics and Religion caused such serious upheaval throughout history?

Answered on Quora

Politics is just the power ‘game’ we employ around scarce resources and the opportunity to access those resources. Religion is an ideological framework that we operate through to navigate our angst and find like support in this inherent competitiveness. We tend to think of the word ‘religion’ in light of the formal theisms but any devotion to a transcendent cause is for all intent of purpose a religion. It’s why the devotees of Marxist-Leninism or National Socialism are in a sense religious zealots.

The big problem is that human nature has not changed and is very much unlikely to do so in the future. The same struggles and fears that gripped the ancients are still with us today as they appear to dominate our collective conscious, This is one of the reasons why a study of the classics is so pertinent.

Was Barry Goldwater racist?

Barry Goldwater was an ideologue and like many ideologues before and after him he sacrificed pragmatism for principle. In researching Goldwater’s history he does not come across at all as a racist. In fact he was an early member of the Arizona NAACP.

He certainly held some controversial views with respect to national security and the Cold War but his stance in opposition against the Civil Rights Act was rooted in a distrust of Big Government overreach (something that appealed to one Hillary Rodham at the time)

Essentially he was a constitutional conservative not unlike Ron and Rand Paul but with different issues to face. In fact later on in his Senate career Goldwater often stood in opposition against Ronald Reagan especially with regards to the growing influence of social conservatism and indeed was an early champion of allowing Gays in the military.

Goldwater would come to regret his stance on the Civil Rights Act however the myth that he did so to win the Southern vote is not correct. He knew very well that eighty percent of his party supported the Act and he was also aware that winning the South would guarantee nothing unless he could convince the North to vote for him. What killed Goldwater was the depiction by the Democratic Party that he was a man who would bring the country closer to nuclear war. The well crafted ‘Daisy tv ad campaigns’ by the Democratic opposition were brilliant in this respect in planting the seed of doubt and in a time frame not too far removed from the Cuban Missile crisis the ‘accusation’ stuck.

In addition one should not forget that Johnson had a tough battle to fight. He was up against an incumbent who could bank on the legacy of a charismatic past president. Oddly enough and this may be a topic for another debate America may have avoided much of the Vietnam shambles had Goldwater been elected.

Physics Question

Quora Question

How does a person become well-regarded (or not) in the field of theoretical physics if they can't be proven right or wrong?

My Answer

To begin with its important to realize that science doesn’t prove anything. It is an inductive not a deductive initiative. What science does offer are better and better models to explain specific phenomena. These models gain credence when they are supported by empirical evidence. Ultimately it is the evidence that is most important.

Theoretical Physics all too often runs ahead of the experimental capability available at the time so that the empirical evidence in support of a particular model may be lacking. However the discipline (like all other areas of science) is driven as well by informed, reasonable speculation that is grounded in mathematics. Models that make sense within a rational framework are developed and if they have sufficient mathematical rigor than the physicists involved in their development can become well regarded. This is the case with String Theory.

These mathematical constructs though have to be potentially falsifiable (else it is deemed largely unscientific) and if they fail later on the empirical level they will ultimately be thrown on the dust heap of science. Until then their champions may enjoy a certain degree of acclaim.

Top 5 Most Undeserving Nobel Peace Prize Winners

Here are my Top 5 for the most undeserving award.

Yasser Arafat (1994)- Terrorist-in -chief who never apologized for the Jewish civilian blood on his hands

Barack Obama (2009) - For giving a few speeches that confirmed the bias of the Committee.

The European Union (2012) - For pretending to care about Human rights while at the same time advancing an Elitist agenda.

United Nations (2001) - Same as the European Union only magnified globally.

Al Gore (2007) - For a really great slide show littered with factual errors that did a great deal to make him appear significant while simplifying and obfuscating a complex issue.

Did Churchill have faith in the RAF?

As answered on Quora

On the 20th of August 1940 Winston Churchill made his famous ‘Never was so much owed by so many to so few’ speech. This occurred at the time of the Battle of Britain when the RAF was fighting a vital air battle with the German Luftwaffe over British airspace ahead of a supposed German Invasion of the Island (what would have been Operation Sea Lion). The ‘Few’ that Churchill speaks of are the pilots of the RAF. In that speech alone it is clear as to how much he valued the RAF. Churchill’s faith in the RAF was vindicated by a RAF victory in this battle.

However going forward it is clear that Churchill saw the RAF as vital to the British war effort. Aircraft production was substantially increased and the RAF played an important role in

• Operation Millennium(Bombing of Cologne)
• Operation Chastise (Dambuster raid in the Ruhr valley)
• Operation Gomorrah (Bombing of Hamburg)
• The Battle of Berlin
• Operation Carthage (attack on Gestapo HQ in Copenhagen)
• The Bombing of Dresden
• The Bombing of Pfozheim
• The Bombing of Heilbronn

It was during this time that the RAF developed the notion of strategic bombing - a methodology of defeating the enemy by limiting its economic potential to produce thereby negatively impacting the public morale of the enemy.

Why do conservatives very often value George Orwell?

As answered on Quora

George Orwell was a tremendous thinker and a wonderful critic of Totalitarian regimes. Although he was a man of the left he never let his ideological inclination obscure his thinking. He could see the dangers of the excesses of his own side and resented it. This attribute, in the time of contemporary partisan politics, is unfortunately all too rare.

Orwell was the original contrarian. In many ways he was a true individualist. He also had a knack for calling out hypocrisy and the deeds of the self-righteous.

I have read a great deal of Orwell (books plus his collection of essays) and see his writing as having much that resonates with classical liberalism (which today falls under the category of conservatism in the US) - He championed free speech, supported Individual rights, believed in necessary societal structures that work, detested the mindset of rigid collectivism and loathed both the Fascist and Marxist-Leninist superstructures that sit in opposition to Conservatism.

Walking Dead TV Show vs Graphic Novel

My opinion as answered on Quora

In My opinion…..They both WERE great but have made a serious and unfortunate detour southward over the last two years. The Show peaked at the midpoint of season four after the destruction of the prison. Then it lost momentum as the characters went their own way, picked up a bit with the Terminus initiative, lost it again with all the group splintering and then badly mishandled the whole Negan story arc. Actually the writing here was abysmal. The death of key characters will be regretted.

The Graphic Novel wasn’t as strong over the Governor story line compared to the TV show however Kirkman’s writing throughout the later Negan episodes was first rate. Since the time skip it has been in a slump. The Whisperers were a downer after All Out War and the story needs to either move to the next level or end the saga.

I am hoping that Kirkman will address the big issues around the origin of the plague and its possible termination however I am not convinced that this is in his agenda. In short what is Needed is an injection of originality on both fronts. A strong break between the TV and novel is another possibility (decrease the predictability factor).

Did South Africa support the Allies during World War Two?

Answered this on Quora.

Both my grandfather and my great uncle fought for the South African Forces against Axis opposition in World War Two. The South Africans were actively involved in the war effort in North Africa (against the forces of Erwin Rommel’s Afrika Korps ), Abyssinia, the European Theatre and even Japan. South African pilots (such as the Air Ace Sailor Malan) were key figures in the Royal Air Force.

Worth noting is that South African Prime Minister Jan Smuts was Churchill’s most important non-British general and was appointed to the position of Field Marshal in 1941.

While the South African forces were often starved for manpower and weaponry they put up a very brave fight. What follows is a list of their accomplishments.

1, Helped in the defeat of Benito Mussolini’s forces In Abyssinia (1940–1941) - (this was the area my grandfather fought in).

2. Worked with British forces in the liberation of Madagascar from the Vichy French.

3. Fought alongside British troops in the Battle of El-Alamein and Tobruk,

4. Involved in Italian campaign (1944–45).

5. Took part in Air Force raids in support of Warsaw and bombing of Romanian oilfields.

It is estimated that 334,000 South African troops of all racial backgrounds fought in the war. 11,023 were known to have died.

For more check out: Commonwealth War Graves Commission

Why should Conservatives support 'free education'?

Answered this on Quora.

I am a Classical Liberal which apparently places me under the Conservative banner in contemporary North American politics. I am also a high school teacher and have worked in both the private and public school systems for 15 + years (following a career as an Engineer). To begin with there is no such thing as Free Education - Education is not free to society - teachers need to get paid and if you aren’t paying them directly through your own pocket rest assured your tax dollars are at work here. So lets drop this notion of Free Education. It is inaccurate and misrepresents the issue. Instead of Free use the word Public.

Having said that (and this is probably where I break from many conservatives -not all of course) I do support Public Education. My reason is that I believe that Equality of Opportunity is a Conservative value.

Public education at least here in Canada, where education is funded by the province does go far in meeting this requirement, and we continue to see excellent results by students moving through the public system with the necessary support. Granted there are still many problems - weak teachers, politically inspired pedagogy, grade inflation - but I have seen these factors at play in both the private and public spheres.

Also school systems have diversified pedagogically and have moved away from the one size ossified approach toward strategies that speak more to the individual. Since individualism is a key conservative value (at least for the more Libertarian types) there are definite positive attributes here.

Finally Conservatives need to involve themselves in Public Education as they cannot afford to cede this domain to those on the political left. The Education of our children is vital and although many conservatives take great issue with those who run the system a pull back would have more of a negative repercussion.

A better strategy would be to support the system and then work to improve it from the inside.

What if Britain didn't respond to the Argentine invasion of the Falklands?

Answered this on Quora

The United Kingdom is one of the Five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council. It is an official Nuclear country and boasted (and still does) one of the ten largest economies on the planet. If Britain had not responded to the Argentina’s blatant and unprovoked seizure of the Falkland Islands this would have represented a monumental loss of prestige and standing as a world power, not seen since the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956.

While the war certainly bolstered the government of Margaret Thatcher it allowed for Britain to reassert its standing as a vital player in NATO and a key nation in the Cold War .

Failure to act in 1982 would have doomed Britain to second rate status as a geopolitical entity. It also would have likely placed other British dependencies around the globe at the risk of foreign invasion.

What was the most demoralizing experience suffered by the Allied Powers during World War One?

Answered this on Quora.

The First World War had many of these but in my opinion the Top Ten would have to be

1. The Treaty of Brest Litovsk that ended Russian participation in World War One.
2. The great loss of manpower at the Somme (Allied loss over 600,000….57,470 British casualties on the first day alone)
3. The tremendous loss of life at Passchendaele (for hardly any territorial gain)
4. The German tactical victory of the Spring Offensive (although it would turn out to be an Allied strategic victory)
5. The Failed Gallipoli campaign (directed against the Ottomans)
6. German victory over the Russians at Tannenberg (1914)
7. The largely failed or limited success of the Italian forces during the many Battles of the Isonzo
8. The vast amount of Allied shipping lost to German U Boat attacks in the Atlantic
9. Battle of Loos (1915)
10. The Nivelle Offensive and the French Armed mutiny.

When do people deny science?

I answered this question on Quora. People deny science when they....

1. Politicize the science
2. Insist that the science in one area or another is settled (science is never settled)
3. Argue that there is only one form of the scientific method
4. Draw conclusions that extend beyond the specific area of investigation
5. Prejudice Rationalism over Empiricism
6. Insist that public opinion determines the result
7. Deny whole bodies of research as the outcomes may be inconvenient to the status quo
8. Fail to challenge the bias of authority (people in power)
9. Fail to report on the limitations of a specific scientific model
10. Use terms that have no meaning in a scientific sense
11. Promote pseudo-scientific junk that has an emotional utility
12. Selectively use statistics to distort the result
13. Fail to insist that experiments ought to be replicated
14. Fail to understand the limitations of science and employ its methodology in areas which extend beyond the material
15. Insist that science ‘proves’ something when in reality it provides more evidence in support (or against) a certain model - science is inductive not deductive.

Western History 97: What was the Heliocentric Revolution?

The Heliocentric Revolution is arguably one of the greatest developments in the history of science. It involved the systematic overthrow of the older Geocentric model (that placed Earth at the center of the Universe) with a newer model that gave universal primacy to our sun ie. Heliocentric Model. From a philosophical basis this would also change the way thinkers in the West would have to reframe our importance in the universe. Politically it would weaken the power of established religion (who largely backed the Geocentric model) by calling into question their supposed infallibility in the Sciences

Key dates in the History of this Revolution are outlined below

4^th century BC – Plato, Eudoxus and later Aristotle develop progressively more sophisticated geocentric models on the notion of spheres carrying the planets and the sun around the Earth.

3^rd Century BC – Aristarchus of Samos proposes an early Heliocentric model.

2^nd Century AD – The Alexandrian Greek Astronomer draws heavily from both Hellenic and Babylonian work to produce his work the Almagest. According to Ptolemy each planet moves on two spheres – a deferent and an epicycle. The deferent has its center at the location of the Earth. The epicycle is a separate sphere that allows for motion independent of the deferent.  He includes the stars in his model and makes space for the Prime Mover. Retrograde motion (apparent backward motion of planets like Mars) are explained using epicycles. Ptolemaic Model remains dogma in both the West and the Middle East for well over a millennium.

1543 – Nicolas Copernicus publishes (on his death bed) his famed De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, "On the revolutions of the heavenly bodies. Copernicus, a Polish Monk was trying to correct the seasonal inaccuracies associated with the Ptolemaic model. He places the Sun at the center of the Universes and argues that all the planets including the Earth orbit the sun in circular patterns. Book would be denounced by both Martin Luther and ignored by the Catholic Church until 1616.

1587 – Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe collects a great deal of data about the Motion of Mars. He also develops a third model that has all the planets orbiting the sun but then the sun orbiting around the Earth.

1609- 1619 – Johannes Kepler using Brahe’s data develops this Three Planetary Laws. Kepler provides a mathematical platform for the elliptical orbits of all planets around the sun, describes the relationship between their speeds and the areas they sweep out and relates the period of orbit to the distance. These laws still hold today.

1610 – With the development of the telescope – Galileo Galilei shows that it is possible for bodies to orbit other planets (he observed the moons of Jupiter). He also studied the phases of Venus that could only be explained by heliocentric motion. However his strong advocacy on behalf of the Heliocentric model (as evidenced in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems) resulted in him falling foul of the Church Inquisition and his subsequent house arrest for heresy.

1687 – Sir Isaac Newton publishes the Principia where he shows how Galileo’s concept of inertia plus his Law of Universal Gravitation are the only ingredients needed to explain how the planets (including Earth) orbit the sun (Newtonian Synthesis). Final victory for the Heliocentric Model.

Is Jordan Peterson Alt Right?

My answer on Quora.

Dr. Peterson is not alt right at all. He is a classical liberal in the true sense of the word who values open minded discussion, deep analysis, skepticism, empiricism and speaks from a rigorous academic tradition that ought to be the bedrock of western thought. Peterson sees himself as an opponent of totalitarian ideology on both the left and the right (especially compelled speech) and has continually stated that he hopes that his words will act to dissuade young people from falling into the trap of the Alt Right. In fact his criticism of the Alt Right has produced somewhat of a backlash against him by such White Nationalist personalities as Millennial Woes.

Much of the criticism against Peterson (such as what I have seen in several of the answers here) comes from a decontextualized interpretation of his words, the blatant use of strawmen and a recourse to hearsay. A great deal of this is insincere.

There is a reason for this. Peterson is taking on an entrenched power structure that has been gaining ground since the 60s and his opponents are feeling the heat. He is one of the few figures in academia today who is willing to call out the toxicity of cultural marxist and post modernist thinking that all too often dominate discourse in many social science and humanities departments today on campus.

He stands for evidence based academic work over social activism and champions equality of opportunity over outcome. In short he is a vital voice for individualism and in a world where we are increasingly being forced to view issues along collectivist identity based paradigms Peterson is a refreshing and much needed ‘antidote to this chaos’.

Kennedy and Civil Rights

JFK's record on Civil Rights was in reality very mixed. In 1960 Kennedy won the Presidency with 68% of the African-American vote. It was this vote that gave him the edge in such key states as Illinois, Michigan and South Carolina in what was the closest election for some time. He also carried the South which pours yet more cold water on the notion that one cannot win the South and the Black Vote at the same time. However JFK’s record on civil rights was not without controversy.

For one he was considered a slow mover on key deliverables and in the words of civil rights leader Julian Bond

"He was a good figure, but not a great figure in my view, and was disappointing in many ways."

He took flak for his tepid response to the plight of the Congress of Racial Equality (Freedom Riders) in their fight to integrate bus services between Washington DC and New Orleans and only intervened after angry white mobs fire-bombed buses in Alabama in May of 1961. In fact Barbara Perry a noted Kennedy biographer had this to say

“The Kennedys saw the Freedom Rides as really a no-win situation for them politically.”

Nevertheless he would eventually side with the better judgement when his brother Robert Kennedy asked the Interstate Commerce Commission to remove bans on bus segregation.

Kennedy’s presidency was dogged by the James Meredith case where a 29 year old Black man and air force veteran attempted to enrol at the all-white University of Mississippi (Ole Miss). The pushback from the school was virulent. Kennedy has been accused of dragging his feet in negotiations with the Southern Democrat segregationist governor Ross Barnett in resolving this issue and eventually would be forced by necessity more than anything else to call in the federal troops after two people were killed following campus wide riots.

In fairness to Kennedy he did act decisively in April 1963 following the Birmingham riots and by July of 1963 had sent through a Civil Rights Bill to Congress. However the bill did not survive and the fact that it left out aspects about integrating public facilities shows that he would only go so far in pushing through a Civil Rights agenda.

Worth noting here is that Democratic Party’s slow approach towards civil rights and the fact that he seemed to be stalling on key initiatives seems to be the factor that drive Malcolm X’s ‘chump’ speech delivered on April 3rd, 1964 where he admonished the Black electorate for openly giving the Democrats their support for virtually nothing in return.

16 Times we were very close to World War III

1. The Building of the Berlin Wall (1961)
2. The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962 closest)
3. Invasion of South Korea by North Korea (several incidents in this theater since then)
4. Suez Canal Crisis (1956)
5. Norad Computer Glitch (1979)
6. B-52 Crash near Thule (1968)
7. 1995 Norwegian Rearch Rocket Incident.
8. Soviet Early Warning Error (1983) - Petrov saves the day
9. Able Archer Incident (1983)
10. Middle East False Alarm (1973)
11. Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan (1979)
12. Faulty Computer Chip (1980)…zeroes displayed as 2s
13. Duluth False Alarm (1962?)
14. Moorestown False Alarm (1962)
15. U2 Spy Plane incident after Cuban Missile Crisis (Plane went off course)…situation was resolved.
16. B59 Incident (also in 1962)…Soviets almost launched.

The Bernie Sanders Appeal

Answering the Question - I am no fan of Sanders but I believe that his appeal is a function of several factors. these are:

1. He is honest about his position and is generally consistent with respect to his socialist stance;
2. Sanders stands outside the party mainstream which on the Left side of the political spectrum seems weak in light of GOP success;
3. He represents genuine progressive talking points untainted by Third Way politics;
4. His ideas have that “New Deal’ feel to them;
5. He did very well against Hillary Clinton despite having to fight against a system that seemed rigged against him from the get go;
6. Like Trump he has a voice that can potentially resonate with Blue Collar Voters;
7. He appeals to millennials who as a consequence of what is now mainstream US education don’t see his ideas as extreme (many are far removed from the Cold War);
8. In a more global world his ideas are not that extreme - for better or for worse (in my opinion for worse) he largely mimics most of the left of center political positions in Europe;
9. People see him as a politician with a difference who offers a low level of perceived corruption - has that drain the swamp take but in a much nicer way than Trump;
10. He talks in platitudes and universals about entitlements and Economic rights - this has its obvious appeal (who doesn’t love free stuff for example).

Myth: The 1960′s were the key turning point in the African-American Vote from the Republican to the Democratic Party.

Reality: African-Americans, who could only join the Democratic Party from 1924 onward, started leaving the Republican Party as early as 1936 not 1960 as is often believed. In fact in the election that year 71% of the Black vote went to FDR. This appears to be largely a consequence of the New Deal although the tireless campaigning of Eleanor Roosevelt may have played a smaller role.

The voting trend held firm over the next three elections with African-Americans voting by a margin of of 3 to 1 in favour of Harry Truman over Thomas Dewey in the 1948 election. Truman of course was a key figure in ending racial discrimination in federal hiring often running afoul of key segments of his own party on this issue.

Even Eisenhower who would integrate the army (a process started by Truman but rejected by FDR) and fought to open up the schools to Black students was regularly outvoted at the polls by a margin of 76% to 24% in 1952 and 61% to 39% in 1956, with respect to the black voting demographic. However his appeal among African-American voters was a lot better than the last four Republican Party candidates (Alf Landon, Wendell Wilkie and Thomas Dewey- twice)

In short the shift had been ongoing for at least two decades before the Civil Rights debates of the late 1950′s and 1960′s. Economic rather than racial issues, a reflection to a larger degree of the difficulties of urban migration, appeared to be the key driver as the entrenchment of a racist core within the Democratic Party was still very much a truism.