Is Political Correctness a false flag?

My answer on Quora.

No it is not. In fact it is the tip of a defining struggle that has dominated the body politic of the West for some time now – namely the Culture War. Big Issues are at stake here that include Immigration, Group versus Individual Rights, Freedom of Speech, the role of the Judiciary and at its very core the essence of values that define our Liberal Democracy.

Political Correctness is a neologism that represents the cumulative efforts to restrict the level of discourse to narrowly defined parameters predetermined by so-called acceptable ideology. The Will to Power plays a key role.

Both the right and the left have been guilty of this. The right held the floor in the US during the McCarthy era (late 40s early 50s) and defined the debate on Communism, damning alternatives to the strong oppositional viewpoint as Un-American. Today it is the left, a consequence of the Gramscian March Through the Institutions, that now sets the tone.

                                                                Antonio Gramsci

                                              Source: https://www.economist.com/prospero/2017/11/07/the-strange-afterlife-of-antonio-gramscis-prison-notebooks

Just like right wing extremism its actions here are wretched and liberals from both sides of the political spectrum ought to condemn it. Unfortunately many don’t. All too often they have been mislead into believing that political correctness is all about politeness. Such a take hits the three big ‘M’s....it is Meaningless, Misleading and ultimately Mind numbing.

There are big challenges facing our civilization, and the realities are often uncomfortable. What we would like to be true does not necessarily line up with the facts. There are many people on both sides of the aisle who genuinely want to see solutions that are pragmatic however in order to reach this point we have to risk hearing alternatives and debating alternatives that we ourselves may find offensive.

Political Correctness short circuits this intellectual approach by discounting various stakeholder positions thereby curtailing and limiting the necessary level of discussion essential for informed thought and action. Not only is such an approach anti-scientific it is affront to both the empirical and rationalist positions that have emerged, with great struggle, from both the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment.

One has to in the paraphrased words of Jordan Peterson ‘risk being offended’ especially if we are intent on meaningful discussion around vital topics. Politically Correct thinking is anathema to this. It defines that which is sacred and relegates the rest to a type of heresy not applicable in polite society. In this regard it parallels religious fanaticism. Ideologues make the agenda. The agenda defines the Culture War and the ideologues become its high priests.

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

Answered on Quora

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.

What were the Five Best American Foreign Policy Decisions?

Answered on Quora.

This is an excellent question. Its also very difficult to answer unless we constrain the subject matter to a specific time period. I will look at the Cold War (1945–1991). As a lover of history these would be my Top Picks (not necessarily in order).

1. The adoption of the Marshall Plan after World War Two by the Truman Administration. This played an important role in creating a more stable structural framework in Western Europe to counter the Soviet Menace. Included under the general rubric of said policy was the Formation of NATO (1949).
2. The decision by the Reagan administration to force the Soviet Union into an Arms Race that they couldn’t afford. The end result was economic pressure on the Soviet Union that hastened its collapse.
3. JFK’s tough stance in opposition to Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962). Although this raised the political stakes to a high level it ended in a strategic victory for the US.
4. Nixon’s visit to China (1972). This greatly eased tension between the US and China and helped to further drive a wedge between the two great Communist Powers (the Soviet Union and China).
5. The Camp David Accord (1978). It has proved to be beneficial for both Israel and Egypt. Although I am not a Jimmy Carter fan this is one aspect of his foreign policy that he actually got right.

Should the French Revolution be viewed as the origin of democracy or the origin of totalitarianism?

Answered on Quora.

It is not the origin of democracy. That line in the West goes back as far as the Athenians, through the Romans, the Magna Carta and the English Quiet Revolution. All of which precedes the French Revolution. Nor does it signify the origin of totalitarianism whose earliest versions go back to the Kingdoms of the Ancient World. What it does represent (if you only look at its negative side)  is the earliest version of the Totalitarian Ideological State whose modern incarnations in the 20th century were responsible for a great deal of horror in contemporary times.

Western History 106 : How and why did Spain decline?

The Spanish Empire reached its zenith in 1571 following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire at Lepanto. Spanish colonies were present in the Americas, the Philippines, Africa and the Pacific. The Hapsburg Monarchy in Spain also enjoyed domination in Italy (particularly Sicily and Naples) as well as the Low Countries. In 1580 Philip II (r.1556-1598), the Spanish king, became the sovereign for Portugal extending his domain into Spain’s Iberian neighbor via the apparatus of the Council of Portugal.

Spanish rule in the Americas though would prove fatal for the local population, with death tolls from imported diseases playing a huge role in the death of 70 million people in the New World (over eighty percent of the pre-contact population by some estimates). Source: (Naimark, Norman (2016). Genocide: A World History. p. 35).

However as the seventeenth century approached, Spain was less able to hang on to her territory in North America and the Caribbean as a result of fierce competition from the English, French and Dutch. In particular Spain struggled to meet the demands of the Indies for consumer goods with merchants from the rival European trading powers moving in to fill the shortfall.

Spain was forced to defend her Empire as English pirates plundered Spanish merchant ships. In 1588 the defeat of the Spanish Armada turned the naval balance equation in favour of Elizabeth’s England.

Philip III (r. 1598-1621) tried to stave off decline but the Castilian Plague of 1596-1602 greatly decimated the population of the heartland. In 1607 Spain moved toward bankruptcy as she struggled in a bitter war with the United Provinces (largely the modern day Netherlands).

The situation worsened to some extent under Philip IV (r. 1621-1655) although the capable Count-Duke of Olivares worked to reform the system and pacify the Dutch. In 1627 however the Castilian economy collapsed. The currency had been debased for some time and inflation continued to eat away at overall wealth. Parts of the country resorted to a barter economy.

In 1640 Portugal was lost to the Spanish, and in the 1650s Spain suffered several military defeats at the hands of the French culminating in the Treaty of the Pyrenees, a document that reaffirmed the new domination of France.

Meanwhile plague continued to weaken Spain. Between 1647-52, 25% of Seville would succumb to disease with some historians pegging total plague losses in Spain to 1.25 million or one-eighth of its base population.  Deaths

Later reforms built around  mercantilism policies failed to take hold. Elite mining companies dominated the critical silver mining markets with corruption at several levels including royalist interference in market pricing creating many inefficiencies. There were a few minor revivals but by the dawn of the eighteenth century as Spain transitioned to a Bourbon monarchy, Spain had fallen well behind both the English and the French in the continental hierarchy of power.

                                                              Spanish Empire 16th century 
                                              Source: https://gohighbrow.com/the-spanish-empire/

My signature Introduction on Quora.

I am best described as a Classical Liberal in that I champion democracy, human rights, private ownership of property, free enterprise, meritocracy, high levels of education, the rule of law and a complete openness to discussion and debate within society. Yes, I believe in that old fashioned value that Western Civilization has much to offer and certainly a great deal to conserve. I guess there is something Burkean about me as well.

I am an opponent of dogma although I am fully aware of the danger of my own views becoming a personal dogma.

On an individual level I am fortunate to be enthused by life. I have lived in two countries ( South Africa and Canada) , worked in two professions (Engineering and Science Teaching) and have seen first hand both the good and not so great of both the private and public sectors.

Here is a list of ten books that have greatly influenced my political development

1. Radical Son by David Horowitz.
2. Inside American Education by Thomas Sowell
3. The Conservative Tradition in America by Charles Dunn and J. David Woodard.
4. Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke
5. The Closing of the American Mind by Alan Bloom
6. Leftism by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
7. Conservatism by Pieter Viereck
8. Illiberal Education by Dinesh D'Souza
9. The New Anti-Liberals by Alain Borovoy
10. White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era by Shelby Steele

Apparently on Quora I have answered questions on sixty six different topics but my primary interests are World History (especially the World Wars) , International Politics, Physics (my primary teaching subject) and Education.

I have written two books - A History of the Future: Gavin Kanowitz: 9781595940438: Books and Take the History Challenge: Gavin H. Kanowitz: 9781401051488: Amazon.com: Books. Both of these were written in the less hectic days pre-kids. My blog resides on Nexus of Thought.

Why do students struggle with Projectile Motion?

Having taught this concept more often than I can remember I am not convinced that it is if explained properly, highlighted with experiment (my students build marble launchers), and reinforced with simulations and problem solving.

However there are some big ideas that a teacher needs to be conscious of all the time and ought to reinforce frequently. These are

a.The independence of horizontal and vertical velocity;

b. The consistent use of direction (up is positive and down is negative for example);

c. Understanding that the time in the air depends on the initial vertical velocity.

One of the problems that students encounter is the constant nature of horizontal velocity in the absence of air resistance. This is easily answered with a recourse to Newton I unfortunately in most high school physics courses Dynamics is usually taught after 2-D Kinematics.

What was the Bloodiest War in History?

In terms of sheer numbers of death it is World War Two. The lowest estimate on the number of deaths sit at 56.1 million, the highest at 85 million. 69 million corresponds to the Geometric mean here.

The closest wars in terms of death to WWII seems to be the Qing conquest of the Ming dynasty (25 million + killed), the Taping Rebellion (24.5 million deaths), the Second Sino-Japanese War (22.4 million killed) and then World War I (13.4 million).

Sources:

Darkest Hours

Twentieth Century Atlas - Historical Body Count

Autumn in the Heavenly Kingdom

Why was the Battle of Lewes fought?

The Battle of Lewes (1264) was one of the key battle of the Second Baron’s War (the other being Evesham). It ended in a victory for the Baronial forces led by Simon de Monfort over the king, Henry III and his son the future monarch Edward I (he of Longshanks fame). The War itself arose out of the dissatisfaction of the Barons with Henry’s unpopular and autocratic rule. Henry was accused by the Barons of favouritism. They demanded Constitutional Reform in line with the Provisions of Oxford. Provisions of Oxford | English history

Henry sought to avoid these restrictions and allied himself with Louis IX of France. The two agreed on an annulment of the Provisions.

This set in motion the events of the Second Baron’s War that was punctuated initially by Baron success but ended in a Royalist victory, setting the stage for the strong military reputation of Edward I. On a very dark side the war itself was noted for the mass slaughter of Jews by Montfort’s supporters.

                                                                        Edward I

How was Brian Mulroney as Prime Minister of Canada?

Mulroney’s term in office (1984–93) is identified by a mix bag of success and failure. Looking back I would give him an overall rating of C+.

Successes

1. Introduced the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA;
2. Stood by the US during the First Gulf War;
3. Secured Acid Rain Agreement with the US (had a great working relationship with Ronald Reagan);
4. Passed the Canadian Environmental Protection;
5. An argument for Fiscal responsibility can be made around his introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) that has been kept in place by all Canadian Pm’s since;
6. Formerly apologized and granted a compensation to Japanese Canadians in light of their internment and civil rights abuse suffered during World War Two.

Failures

1. The country was stricken by one constructional crisis after another and what it seemed to many Canadians as the heavy handed desire of the Federal Government to push through an unpopular agreement on the country (Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accord - the latter was rejected in a referendum). Identity politics proliferated during the Mulroney era;
2. He literally divided the Progressive Conservative party leading to the genesis of the Reform Party in the West and the Bloc Quebecois in Quebec. The voice for Quebec Separatism peaked during his tenure. Others saw Mulroney as somewhat of a pro-Quebec lackey;
3. Although he changed tune later with the GST his government continued with the fiscal irresponsibility of Pierre Trudeau. Government deficits soared contradicting the deficit hawk promise that he had campaigned under. The Canadian dollar suffered as a function of this;
4. Failed to deliver on promises to the Military…Noted Canadian Historian J.L. Granatstein points out that ‘(he) raised the military's hopes repeatedly, but failed to deliver. Budgets were cut and troop sizes reduced placing Canada’s Cold War and post Cold War initiatives in jeopardy;
5. The Airbus Affair Scandal. Chronology of the Airbus scandal.

Like many former PMs he has enjoyed somewhat of a renaissance in the public opinion front. His legacy still awaits further investigation by historians.

Why doesn't BC have a Conservative Party?

My Answer on Quora.

BC politics has been traditionally dominated by three parties - Social Credit, the NDP and the Liberals. Social Credit represented the right wing side of the electorate, governing for all but three of the years between 1952 and 1991. It was anchored by an alliance between fiscal conservatives federal liberals and some christian conservatives.

However it collapsed following the Bill Vander Zalm Fantasy Gardens Scandal in the early 1990s. After the rearrangement of the political landscape the bulk of conservative voters opted to support the provincial Liberal Party who in all actuality, occupy the center right position that a Conservative Party in any other Canadian province (other than Quebec) would normally position themselves.

What is the best way for a high IQ individual to function in today's society?

My answer on Quora.

As a teacher of gifted students this is my advice.

a. Listen to the wisdom of others

b. Be assertive when you have to be but not arrogant. Rudeness never cuts it.

c. Demonstrate modesty.

d. Make an attempt to see a situation from the other person’s point of view. Work on your empathy.

e. Remember that you can over rationalize a situation. Don’t live in your head. Life experience is vital. Broaden your horizons.

f. Don’t brag about your IQ…it represents supposed potential…nothing more.

g. Admit when you are wrong and at fault.

h. Don’t forget that People Skills are paramount.

i. Avoid humiliating others.

j. Volunteer and give of your time.

k. Don’t forget to put in the big effort …High IQ people are plentiful. To succeed you need to distinguish yourself and turn that potential into an actuality.

Are Leftists against Capitalism?

My answer on  Quora

In my opinion questions about the Left and Right are not easy to answer unless you are clear about how you are defining these terms. 

Liberalism is a political and economic movement that has its origins in the Age of Reason and draws heavily on Individual sovereignty (John Locke), Necessary Skepticism (David Hume) and an emphasis on empiricism, as opposed to superficial rationalizations, in making sense of the world.

It advocates for the notion of Freedom - as in Freedom of Thought, Worship, action and speech. It was this framework that greatly influenced the framers of the US Constitution.

The philosophy draws as well from the Scottish Enlightenment thinker Adam Smith and his understanding of the action of the Market.

At its core though Liberalism sees the state serving the people (as opposed to the reverse). It favours the individual not the collective.

This was the philosophy of the Left and indeed it influenced both the American and French Revolutions (through the Baron de Montesquieu, Marquis de Lafayette and the Comte Mirabeau). It essentially ran in opposition against the authoritarian monarchical order.

In the contemporary US, this is now seen as a Philosophy of the Right.

How then did this change?

Well the French Revolution also ushered in a dangerous pathology that drew heavily from the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and its stress on the People’s Will. This inverted the primacy of the individual and replaced it by a collectivist dynamic that espoused a rationalized utopia. In the French Revolution such thinking manifested itself in the words and actions of the Jacobin and Cordeliers Political Clubs that dominated France in the later parts of the Revolution and was largely responsible for the infamous Reign of Terror. Robespierre, Marat, Hebert and Danton were all to different extents involved in this turmoil.

In forcing through their Utopia these radicals outflanked the liberals on the anti-monarchical left, paradoxically re-instituting their own form of Authoritarianism that was very much illiberal. In doing so they would consume themselves eventually giving rise to a new authoritarian regime centered on the Bonaparte Empire. However the framework of thinking would not die out.

In fact in one form or another through the writings of Henri de Saint-Simeon, Louis Blanc, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (the Father of Far Left Anarchism - who declared in a complete rebuke to Liberal ideas that ‘Property is Theft’) - it survived and indeed influenced other writers such as Georges Sorel and Karl Marx.

A strong anti-capitalist anti-Free Enterprise bias was very much evident here. In all cases the ethos of the People’s Will was paramount. The Extreme Left emerges from this. It is at at its core collectivist.

Which brings up the question…how did this influence the so-called American Left?

In the late 19th century the German Statesman Otto van Bismarck drew heavily from the Social Democrat’s Gotha Program (that in a sense stole the show from Karl Marx) in order to undercut the socialists, provide a uniform platform for administering the nascent German State and weaken the resolve of Germany’s Liberal establishment. His model would serve to inspire Fabianists in the UK and Progressives in the US. It would impact both major American political parties.

There is no doubt that Progressivism often stood in opposition to Laissez-Faire Capitalism however its mainstream was not entirely opposed to Free Enterprise (at least within a strong anti-trust regulatory framework).

Nevertheless like any broad scale movement it had its extreme fringe who bought into a Hegelian view of Linear Progress, that saw capitalism, in all all of its forms, being eclipsed by a so-called March of History (a talking point often bought up by those on the Left who often remark about being on the correct side of history).

Its this version expanded on by Cultural Marxists that continues to survive and indeed thrive in what today is known as the Extreme Left.

One can see their actions in groups such as the Occupy Movement and other fellow traveler platforms that have become common place in academia, parts of the Entertainment Industry and Identitarian culture.

Indeed, How this all impacts the Democratic Party in the established two party arena may be one of the bigger questions to be answered in the foreseeable future.

Was Bill Clinton more of a Conservative than a Progressive?

My answer on Quora.

Bill Clinton was part of a political movement known as the Third Way. He was not a progressive in the FDR sense of the word nor was he a liberal in the JFK mold. Many of Clinton’s policies were legitimately conservative. However he combined the necessary progressive elements when it suited him.

He continued the Free Trade policies of Messrs. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He raised taxes on higher income earners and cut defense spending. The debt to GDP ratio dropped during his term in office but he was also driven to take a hard line against spending by Newt Gingrich’s fiscally conservative House.

Clinton was an Internationalist. He lowered tariffs and was involved in the final round of negotiations that saw GATT been replaced by the WTO (World Trade Organization). The latter was given more clout in enforcing trade agreements.

In Foreign politics he continued with the Interventionist agenda that saw the US become more deeply involved in the Balkan conflicts. His policies in the Middle East did not substantially differ from either Reagan or Bush, with Clinton actually signing into law the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which called for regime change policies geared against Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. His greatest success on the Foreign policy front was his role in promoting Northern Ireland’s Good Friday Accord.

Clinton’s SCOTUS appointments - Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer - however fall under the progressive side of the equation.

Socially he took a hard line against crime with the Omnibus Crime Bill. However he was not averse to support gun control initiatives with his ten year long Assault Rifle ban.

Clinton took a strong stance against Illegal immigration with the Illegal Immigration and Reform Act (IIRIRA) and even recommended reducing legal immigration.

In terms of marriage he came out against gay marriage signing into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996.

In short…he seems more practical than ideological, which is often the hallmark of a Conservative and on virtually every front is more to the right of what the Democratic Party is today.

                                                           Reagan and Clinton - 40 and 42

Source: https://ricochet.com/239860/archives/president-obama-keeps-forgetting-about-the-reagan-clinton-boom/

Sources:

Presidential Library and Museum

Bill Clinton | Biography, Presidency, Accomplishments, & Facts

Bill Clinton

Speed of Light

Answered this on Quora.

Why is the speed of light constant?

The speed of light is not constant. It varies across different media. In a vacuum the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. In air with a refractive index of 1.003 the speed of light would be 299,700 km/s (roughly 90 km/s slower than it is in a vacuum).

Light’s speed in a vacuum is designated with the symbol c and is taken to be a universal constant. Its value is the same regardless of the frame of reference of the observer. One cannot add or subtract onto this value as one would do in ordinary low speed Galilean relativity problems.

Light is a type of Electromagnetic radiation. The Scottish Mathematical Physicist James Clerk Maxwell described the behaviour of electromagnetic waves in his famous Maxwell Equations that provided the framework linking our understanding of both the electric and magnetic field concepts.

in doing so Maxwell determined that this value c is in all actuality a function of two other constants - electric constant ε and the magnetic constant μ0. The two are linked by the relationship

c= 1/((ε μ0)^-0.5)

George Herbert Walker Bush (1924-2018)

If ever a man’s life story encapsulates the events of the bulk of the 20^th century it is that of President H.W. Bush. Love him or hate him, what cannot be understated is that the man was a faithful servant of the Republic.George Herbert Walker Bush was born in 1924. He was the 41^st President of the US and its 43^rd Vice President. His eventful life started early when he put on hold his university studies to enlist with the US Navy on his 18^th birthday becoming the youngest aviator in history. He served in the Pacific, survived being shot down (including a four hour period hanging on for his life in shark infested waters) and would be awarded a Distinguished Flying Cross, three Air Medals and a Presidential Unit citation for his service.

Bush’s pre-presidential career is arguably one of the most distinguished of all-time – he became a millionaire oil man in Texas, was elected to represent Texas in the House’s 7^th District (1966), was Chief Liaison Officer to China (appointed by Ford), Ambassador to the UN (1971-1973), Chairman of the Republican Party (1973-1974), Chief Liaison Officer to China (appointed by Ford – 1974-1975) and Director of the CIA (1976-1977).  He also headed the Council of Foreign Relations between 1977 and 1979.

Bush lost the 1980 Republican Presidential Primary to Ronald Reagan but was chosen by the former California governor to be his running mate for Reagan’s successful 1980 Presidential campaign.

As Vice President, Bush was known for his low profile with the public but behind the scene he was very active. He held the fort during the turbulent period following the attempted assassination of Reagan, worked to build bridges with South Korea and Singapore and represented US interests in Africa during the Namibia-Angola  standoff, taking a hard line against Soviet backed Cuban troops in the region.

He was also involved in Arms reduction talks, pressured the El Salvadorian government to put an end to its death squads and was active in the campaign against International drug smuggling. As VP he cast the tie breaking vote that saved the MX missile system.

Bush for the most part avoided the fallout from the Iran-Contra scandal although he did take a strong stance against Daniel Ortega’s Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

In 1988, Bush stood for President and overcame a competitive Republican field that included Bob Dole, Jack Kemp and Pat Robertson. He chose Indiana Senator Dan Quayle as his running mate, delivered the well articulated Thousand Points of Light Speech at the GOP convention (albeit with the Read my lips caveat) and stood firmly in support of the Pledge of Allegiance, the life of the unborn, gun rights and capital punishment.

In a mudslinging campaign that included the infamous Willie Horton ads (where the Democratic challenger Michael Dukakis was depicted as being soft on crime) Bush flipped a huge popularity deficit winning the White House with 426 of the 538 electoral college votes available.

Bush’s presidency coincided with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Berlin Wall came down on November 9^th, 1989 and by the 26^th, December of 1991 the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Bush had to deal with the fallout dealing with an immediate change in the geo-political paradigm. He met with Mikhail Gorbachev on 1990, signed the START I treaty in 1991 and initiated a ‘strategic partnership’ with Boris Yeltsin in the same year.

In office he continued (for better or for worse) the policy of the War on Drugs that had been the mainstay of US presidents since the Nixon era. This would see the US involved in an invasion of Panama in 1989, the overthrow of the regime of Manuel Noriega and the later conviction of the Panamanian leader on charges of racketeering and drug trafficking in a US court in May of 1992.

However it was the First Gulf War that defined the Bush presidency. On August 2^nd 1990 Iraq emboldened by its success in its war against Iran invaded its neighbour Kuwait under the pretext of an oil dispute. Working with Congress and the United Nations Bush began authorizing a troop build up in Saudi Arabia to counteract the Iraqi threat and the belligerency of its leader Saddam Hussein. Following several months of heated diplomacy a US lead coalition of nations invaded Kuwait, drove out the Iraqis and returned to power the Kuwaiti royal family. Bush’s popularity soared as he declared that the US had kicked the malaise of Vietnam, in what was for all intent of purpose the high point of his presidency.

Nevertheless his critics would grow louder. Many felt that he had not gone far enough in the Gulf War and should have worked to force the removal of Saddam Hussein when the US held the military advantage. Others accused him of letting down the Kurds in the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm. Libertarians were incensed by his growing of big government and others pointed to deteriorating race relations that reached a head during the LA Riots of 1992. On the environment his record was mixed, with Bush’s opposition to the 1992 Rio Summit blighting the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment that he had advocated earlier with the advice of EPA administrator William Reilly.

However he was also the President who signed into law the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) that expanded the rights and protection for millions of Americans. On gun control he placed a temporary ban on semiautomatic weapons, losing his endorsement from the NRA. With respect to SCOTUS he would disappoint conservatives by nominating David Souter but absolve himself in the same eyes with his later pick of Clarence Thomas (arguably the leading Originalist sitting on the highest court).

On the domestic front the pressure would build. The US economy was realizing the effect of a post Cold War slump. Conservatives were angered by his backtrack on the ‘Read-my-lips’ no new taxes pledge and the unfortunately the benefits of the NAFTA deal, which his administration had so championed, were still not realized.

He was challenged by Patrick Buchanan from the right and then following the Republican Primaries had to fend off the populist campaign of billionaire Ross Perot (the strongest Third Party voice in modern presidential election history) and the charismatic New Democrat candidate, Bill Clinton, who had made the economy his number one focus. Bush would lose to Clinton in 1992, in an election where no candidate would garner the majority of the popular vote.

It was the end of an era for a man who had literally been at the table of many of the strategic events impacting the US over the last two decades. He would leave with grace, offering commentary on foreign policy and involving himself in humanitarian initiatives with some of his old adversaries (including Bill Clinton).

He lived a life in service to his nation and for this he is owed much respect. May he rest in peace.

Sources:

Source for Picture:  https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/george-hw-bush-dead-dies-1203071148/

1.       https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/george-bush

2.       https://www.bush41.org/

3.       https://www.georgewbushlibrary.smu.edu/

4.       https://www.biography.com/people/george-hw-bush-38066

5.       https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/biographies-list/bios-b/bush-george-h-w.html

6.       https://millercenter.org/president/bush/domestic-affairs

Ten Reasons That I like Theoretical Physics

For myself as a  teacher my appreciation for Theoretical Physics is driven by a number of factors.

1. It fosters great classroom discussion;
2. Addresses the fundamental nature of time and space;
3. Forces us to dig deeper in our thinking about entities that we take for granted;
4. Stretches the limits of human creativity with in a scientific framework;
5. Provides great application for what otherwise would be impractical mathematics constructs;
6. Links science to its original philosophical roots both existential and material;
7. Stretches the mind on a conceptual basis;
8. Ultimately impact virtually all other areas of science (look at the Quantum Mechanics Revolution);
9. Brings into the picture some of the Quirkiest scientific personalities;
10. Gives us a glimpse of what the future of science may have in s