Hamilton's LRT Circus

Vincent J. Curtis

20 May 2015

My hometown newspaper has been a true believer in an LRT, a Light Rail Transit line.  This line is planned to run from Eastgate Square to McMaster University, along one of the city’s prime east-west traffic corridors for automobile traffic.

One of the unspoken objects of running the LRT line along King Street was for the line to create congestion, sufficient, perhaps, for some people to give up driving cars and take the LRT line instead.  In any case, congestion would make driving cars more obnoxious, a penalty deserving on those who fail to choose the green way of transporting themselves around the city.  The LRT is a ‘green’ project, and therein lies its special merit.

In a noteworthy admission, the paper has dropped the pretense that the LRT was intended to solve a current or prospective transportation problem.  The driving idea behind the LRT now is reduced to economic stimulation.  For the moment, the fact that it is ‘green’ stimulus has been dropped.

A billion dollars’ worth of construction is supposed to lift the city out of its economic doldrums, caused in part by the closure of the United States Steel plant (formerly Stelco).  It has also been admitted by its advocates that the LRT itself is not expected to be profitable.  The financial losses of the LRT are supposed to be recouped by the additional tax revenue raised by the businesses that are supposed to spring up like weeds along the rail line.

Ten years ago, a case could be made that Hamilton was an economic basket case, and that desperate measures were required to revive the city.  So desperate, in fact, that it was worth gambling the rent money on this throw of the dice.

Thus the plan was for the city to acquire a white elephant and put it out as a circus act.  The circus act was unlikely to make money, but a profit would be make on the side shows of the circus act.

Now, Hamilton is enjoying an economic revival without the stimulus of an LRT.  Nevertheless, the newspaper and its other supporters insist that the city should still acquire an LRT – on the grounds that the money being gambled on it is no longer the rent money!

The purpose, now, of acquiring the LRT is to keep the white elephant - as a useless pet!  (It is useless because it doesn’t solve a transportation problem, but may create one.)

Oh, the LRT supporters still argue the case for “extending” the economic revival of Hamilton, meaning the circus side shows are still supposed to spring up.  And the beauty is, that, even if the whole circus doesn’t appear, the city won’t get killed.  (Forget for the moment the unpaved roads and neglected infrastructure of the city that could be improved with the money spent supporting the LRT.)

What these economic geniuses don’t seem to understand is the concept of inflation.  They want to stimulate an already buoyant economy.  If some is good, more should be better, they think.  Yeah, right.

Too many dollars chasing too few goods leads to inflation.  The city is already experiencing a rise in property values.  When, thanks to market value assessment, that rising in value results in higher property taxes, those folks on fixed income are going to get squeezed.  Drive up property values even higher, and the squeeze gets tighter.  People could be forced out of their homes and into lower standard housing that costs just as much as their former, and better, place.  Those who can afford the higher price for the old house are going to become house poorer, because the higher capital cost of the house demands a heavier mortgage, and less money is available to be spent on other things.

Hence, if the LRT supporters are right, and the LRT is stimulatory, the consequences are not necessarily good.  And if they are wrong, the city is hobbled again by having to carry another unnecessary burden.  Roads don’t get paved, and other infrastructure is neglected because the money that could be spent on them is being used to feed the useless pet white elephant.

The object of an LRT should be to solve a transportation problem.  Building one because it is ‘green’ is plain stupid.  Hoping that economic stimulus will result as a result of one is to misunderstand what economics – the rational allocation of money – means.

If the province wants to spend a billion dollars to stimulate the economy and create jobs, there are other ways could it do so.  The city and the province don’t have to place their bets all on one thing: a pet white elephant.

-30-

Why Mocking Islam with Mohammed Cartoons Is Stupid

Why waste time on the trivial?

Vincent J. Curtis

8 May 2015

The poking of fun at Muslims, and simultaneously at restrictions on free speech concerning Islam, may be said to have begun with the drawing of cartoons that mocked Mohammed in the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten.  There followed a similar campaign of poking fun at Muslims, and simultaneously at restrictions on free speech, by means of mocking cartoons in the French newspaper, Charlie Hebdo.  Most recently, in Garland, Texas, an exhibit of Mohammed cartoons was organized by Pamela Geller.  Devout Muslims regard the depictions of Mohammed as a kind of blaspheming of Islam.

The point of the exercise in all these cases was to draw attention to the fact that some Muslims can be stupid and violent, and, further, that some people were not intimidated by threats for making speech concerning Islam.  These exhibitions proved beyond their wildest dreams how right they were.

At Charlie Hebdo a dozen staffers were brutally murdered in broad daylight.  At the Geller exhibit in Garland, Texas, two Muslims were killed by a policeman before they could perpetrate a Charlie Hebdo -like massacre.  The cartoonists who drew for Jyllands-Posten are in hiding, and those who work there continue to live in fear.  Molly Norris, who drew an unpublished cartoon of Mohammed, remains in hiding, five years after a fatwa was issued against her.

These provocative exhibitions have lost their efficacy.  It is now common knowledge that some Muslims are going to get violent when certain things are said or done.  The point of Jyllands-Posten has been established.  And the threat of violence over speech that mocks Muslims shows indirectly who the moral cowards are among us.

Free speech is restricted when violence is threatened for the saying and doing of things that Muslims find offensive.  But if one is going to demonstrate free speech by laying a blow on Islam, why not land a telling blow?  If one is going to risk life and limb to make a point, then why not make the risk worthwhile?

Drawing cartoons and having a few Muslim lads gun one down has become old hat, and no longer proves anything to anyone, except that it is dangerous to cross Islam.  Far more effective than showing provocative pictures would be to attack Islam on its merits rather than on the foibles of its followers.  Never mind the trivial, insubstantive stuff: go right after the central tenets of Islam.  The central tenets of Islam can be attacked with speech upon the findings of Natural Theology.

Natural Theology is the rational science which treats of God and His attributes, as far as they can be known by the light of reason.  It differs from Sacred Theology, in that this latter studies God and His attributes by the light of divine revelation.  Natural Theology is divided into three principal parts: the first treats of the existence and unity of God; the second treats of the attributes of God in Himself; the third treats of the attributes of God in relation to the world or to creatures.

The findings of Natural Theology demonstrate that the Being that created the universe is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-wise.  He has all possible perfections, and without limit.  God has a perfect will; He loves Himself necessarily, all else He loves freely.  He loves all other beings insofar as they are good, and because they come from Him.  He needs nothing external to himself.

The Islamic conception of Allah fails to live up to this standard.  Allah, as conceived by Muslims, cannot be the Being that created the universe.  Allah, according to the sacred texts of Islam, cannot be all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise, possessing all possible perfections, and needing nothing outside of Himself.  A few examples are enough to demonstrate the shortfalls of Allah, as that Being is understood by Muslims.

The belief by Muslims that cartoons that depict Mohammed and ridicule Islam call for the chastisement of the perpetrators is founded upon the Koran and the Hadiths.  Muslims believe they are commanded by Allah in these sacred texts to chastise and kill.  If Allah were all-powerful, he would not need Muslims to do his killing for him.

Those beings marked for killing are also loved by the Creator of the universe because they also come from Him.  If Allah were all-wise and possessed a perfect will, he would not have allowed the creation of those who would mock him and Islam in the first place, if such mockery be a problem for Allah.  And the fact that Allah seems to be so touchy about the mockery of Him and of Islam indicates, not just an ego, but a delicate ego; and to have a delicate ego means that Allah needs something external to himself, namely regard by human beings, things he created.  Allah, by the beliefs of Muslims, cannot be all-powerful, all-wise, having all possible perfections, and needing nothing external to himself.  Therefore, Allah cannot be God, the Being that created the universe.

The belief in the seventy-two virgins is also highly problematic for Islam.  Both common sense and Natural Theology find that between death and resurrection that part of the human being that survives, i.e. the soul, has no physical body.  Virginity and sexual pleasure are meaningless and impossible when one`s being is entirely spiritual.  Between death and resurrection, the deserving enjoy the beatific vision of God, which is far more fulfilling and desirable than an orgasm, particularly for a spirit.  Where the seventy-two virgins are going to actually come from is also highly problematic rationally and theologically for Islam.

Natural Theology is a fruitful source for attacks on Islam that are based on reason, not ridicule.  The problem for western civilization in using rational arguments from Natural Theology is that Natural Theology also contains the proofs of the existence of God, and lapsed Christians don’t want to confront the fact of God’s existence and the facts of their own failings in respect of God.

Hence, the most effective means of attacking Islam – on its merits- most westerners would be uncomfortable with, because of how it would redound against them and against many people they are friends with.  Those who wish to demonstrate a fearless free speech are deterred from striking the most effective blows against Islam, not by fear of death, but fear of confronting their own failings.  So, instead, they limit themselves to the feckless and insubstantive means of speaking: the drawing of cartoons.

Striking the most telling blows against Islam and its foibles of Muslims would, practically, call for a revival of the Christian spirit and a regaining of moral self-confidence in the West.  In the current temper of the times, that is unlikely to happen.

-30-

Police and Racism in my Hometown

Vincent J. Curtis

11 April 2015

RE:  Police urged to track race during stops

My hometown newspaper ran a story about some young people who were absolutely convinced that the local constabulary were racists.  They believed this primarily because they were ideologues without experience, and had read about such things occurring in the United States.  They hoped to accumulate evidence to support their beliefs by campaigning for the city police to track race when they stopped to speak to people on the street.  The photograph accompanying the story showed one of the young ideologues carrying a sign which read, "Hands up, don't shoot," the expression allegedly used by ex-Ferguson native Michael Brown before he was shot and killed by the only non-racist police officer on the Ferguson PD.  That Brown made that statement has been thoroughly debunked, but that fact that that canard is still being paraded around demonstrates something in itself.

These young ideologues demanded to meet with the Police Services Board to press their case.


Long experience has shown that racism is not a problem with the Hamilton Police force. 

Consequently, statements like, “Hamilton Police service does not have various initiatives to curb racism, which means by nature it perpetuates the white male perspective” is itself a statement of prejudice.  It is a prejudice that arises from ideology, and from inexperience in life.

Lest there be any doubt about the prejudice in those throwing charges of racism around, one need look no further than the sign pictured on page A9, which read, “Hands up don’t shoot.”  This is a reference to events which took place in Ferguson, Missouri, a few months ago and is alleged what Michael Brown said just before he was killed by police.  This statement is a canard, and has been conclusively demonstrated not to have occurred, by the U.S. Department of Justice, headed by Eric Holder no less, in the Administration of Barack Obama.

That these youth persist in perpetuating a demonstrated falsehood shows that, for them, facts and truth don’t matter.  To say that racial prejudice is not a problem with the Hamilton Police is something they cannot accept on ideological grounds, and facts don’t matter.

If the Police services board does agree to meet with these prejudiced young people for whom facts don’t matter, after listening patiently, the Board would do well to pat them on the head, and tell them to stay away from trouble and they won’t be bothered by the Hamilton Police.
-30-

Science and Anti-Science

Vincent J. Curtis

28 Apr 15

My hometown newspaper recently ran an article about a small, new store in the city.  It was a puff-piece intended to promote the store and tell the story of the people behind it.  Being a big lead story in one of the inside sections, the Spectator gave the story serious weight.

The new store sells privately made chemical preparations for skin care and for other health purposes.  The justification for patronizing this store as opposed to a regular pharmacy was the safety and purity of the preparations as compared to the toxic materials found in the items sold in regular pharmacies.  A variation of the comfortable, left-wing attack on plutocracy was the theme of the story.  According to the story, the female protagonist knew better than Big Pharma, who were knowingly selling toxic materials to an unsuspecting public.  Your safety and the superior effectiveness of the products made by this unqualified woman were the reasons her store should be patronized over a chain pharmacy.

It never occurred to the writer or to the editor that a scientific dispute was being raised by the story.  How was it possible for an essentially untrained person to know better than all the MD's and Ph.D's who work in the same field, on the same problem, and have a far greater array of chemicals, instrumentation, money, etc. than she does?

The Spectator fell into the trap of taking an anti-science view just so that it could combine an example of comfortable, left-wing prejudice, and be nice to a nice lady.

The Spectator has editorially attacked Prime Minster Stephen Harper for being “anti-science.” The label of “anti-science” was attached to Mr. Harper particularly for his handling of the overly intrusive questioning in the 2011 Census, the abuse of the government’s powers of punishment in order to coerce answers to those overly intrusive questions, and his personal intervention to curtail the abuse of those powers.

One may therefore assume that, editorially at least, the Spectator stands on the ramparts of science.  In adopting such a position, it is implicit that The Spectator stands for knowledge over ignorance, method over mysticism, and reason over emotion.

It ought to find the campaign against GMO foods to be silly, if not outrageous.  It should reject the anti-vaccination campaign for not being founded upon science.  The various campaigns against the chemical de jure should all be rejected as fear campaigns masquerading as science.  The question of the addition of fluoride to drinking water is not one of science, but of irrational fear-mongering.

If one relies on science.

All that said, the puff-piece in Wednesday’s paper headlined, “Natural Selection” is inexplicable.  It makes The Spectator’s position on the question of science incoherent.  It is a story of about how a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

The article maintains that Modern apothecaries are the ones that are stocked with privately made witch’s brews, and that these witch’s brews take the ‘toxicity’ out of skin care.  Presumably, all those apothecaries that are staffed by credentialed pharmacists and that sell modern medicines developed by the world’s great pharmaceutical companies with the most modern science, and under careful scrutiny of government agencies, are old-fashioned, and are selling toxic substances to an unsuspecting public.  Such a position is, implicitly, a straight-up ad hominem attack on the motives of real scientists.  This ad hominem attack was scripted to justify reading the article further.

The list of chemicals in the sidebar to the main piece I am familiar with from my long career in chemistry.  The repeated statements declaring, “could cause cancer,” “could cause genetic mutations,” could cause hormone dysfunction,” and “could cause infertility,” are extreme statements written by lawyers that are intended to protect the manufacturer in frivolous lawsuits; these warnings bear no relation to the actual facts when these products and chemicals are used in the manner intended.  To warn against the use of Vaseline because it might contain polyaromatic hydrocarbons leading to cancer and skin irritation and allergies is an especially egregious misuse of warnings.  Petrolatum is used precisely to reduce skin irritation, and has been used for that purpose for over 130 years!

The very commonality of the chemicals warned against shows how badly the warning information was misused.  The fact that the data was supplied by that most unscientific organization, the David Suzuki Foundation, ought to have served as a caution against too great a reliance upon it.  The Foundation has an agenda, and it is not the advancement of science.

The article relates the story of how the heroine of the piece, upon discovering that her baby had eczema and psoriasis, and not “feeling comfortable” with the recommendation of a credentialed specialist, namely, a doctor, decided to develop her own medicine.  A doctor will tell you that eczema and psoriasis are auto-immune disorders for which there are no known cures.  These disorders “have minds of their own, and come and go as they please.”  The only treatment, at present, is to alleviate the symptoms.  Not accepting the doctor’s prescription for corticosteroids, the heroine treated her baby with something else, and the eczema disappeared.  She did not cure the baby; all she did was treat symptoms.  The auto-immune disorder is still there; it has just gone dormant.  The disorder might very well have disappeared on its own without treatment.  But since the heroine’s work was not scientific, her success has no real scientific basis.  Her treatment is not a case of cause and effect, but of mere co-incidence.  In logic, this fallacy is called “affirming the consequent.”

If there was real science to her treatment, Big Pharma would know it by now.  Oh, but Big Pharma is not in the business of selling good medicine, it is in the business of selling toxicity; I forgot.

Let’s not forget that the chemicals that the heroine does use to make her brews are only salable because the same government body that regulates and controls the ones she uses also regulate and control the sale of chemicals and drugs in Canada that are said to be carcinogenic and toxic.

Upon her success with her baby, the heroine went to the bother of getting accreditations of her own, in aromatherapy, iridology, and Reiki (whatever that is).  These so-called accreditations are farcical, and do not amount to a Bachelor of Pharmaceutical Science or to a doctor’s MD.  Yet they are offered in the story as adding value of some kind to the truth of her discoveries.  Forget the B.Pharm; get credentialed in Reiki if you want to know the real truth!

I’m glad the protagonists in the story have been able to make a successful business out of selling specious preparations, and a few of limited value.  I’m glad they are able to impart to their customers a sense of well-being that they may not get out of shopping at a Rexall’s.

However, science is not found in aromatherapy, iridology, Reiki, or in witch’s brews concocted ad hoc.  If you truly believe in science, you must stick with real doctors and real pharmacists, the ones subjected to ad hominem attacks and discredited as not knowing their business.
-30-

See also:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418176/stupid-strategy-sweepstakes-home-depot-vs-lowes-jeff-stier-henry-i-miller