Civilizational collapse

Vincent J. Curtis

30 Oct 21

RE: Johnson gives G20 stark warning.  By Jill Lawless of the AP.  Published in the Hamilton Spectator 30 Oct 21.

Will there always be an England?  Boris Johnson doesn’t think so.

The last time England enjoyed the climate of southern France was during the Medieval Warm Period, and vineyards grew grapes in Norfolk.  English civilization was then absorbing the influence of the Normal conquest.  Later, in the Little Ice Age, when the Thames routinely froze over in winter, English civilization spread itself to the New World and to India.  The loss of America and the gaining of India did not result in civilizational collapse.

This time, however, will be different.  Assuming that climate change, or global warming, does occur as forecasted, and England again assumes the climate of southern France, civilization will collapse, according to British Prime Minster Boris Johnson.

The regime presently in charge of the 7,000 year old Chinese civilization doesn’t agree.  China has seen empires come and go, and the present regime is so unconcerned about civilizational collapse that they aren’t even attending the COP26 conference.  Since China is by far the largest contributor to world CO2 emissions, its absence guarantees that nothing will be accomplished at COP26 beyond releases of climate change panic-porn and self-congratulatory gum-beating.

Western civilization could collapse like the Roman Empire, as Mr. Johnson fears, in consequence of the same cause: unlimited immigration - from failed states, in Africa and the Middle East.  Controlling and suppressing migration from failed states requires courage on the part of politicians like Boris Johnson.  But handwringing about climate change eighty years in the future is politically so much easier than taking the tough and practical measures that protect one’s civilization today.

-30-

Technically correct

Vincent J. Curtis

29 Oct 21

RE: Tories stuck in their vaccine mandate trap. Torstar editorial published in the Hamilton Spectator 29 Oct 21.

So far, Torstar has admitted that an alleged “Board of Internal Economy” has no authority to issue unconstitutional edicts which bar duly elected MPs from attending the House.  It admits that the full House – which requires a sitting – should be the body making those rules, that nevertheless infringe upon the privileges of Members.  In short, it admits that my analysis entitled “MPs can’t be barred from the House – by anyone” is correct.  (And that anyone includes Erin O’Toole!)

But Torstar dismisses the Tory’s objection (which generally follows my line) to breeching Members’ privileges as being merely “technically correct.”  As usual, an unprincipled argument by progressives in support of their causes.  Much can be dismissed as being merely “technically correct,” such as freedom of the press.  The idea that the toes of the alleged Board ought to be stomped on to demonstrate that arbitrary edicts and power grabs won’t be tolerated escapes Torstar.

Oh, and a Member’s privileges are intimately tied up with their responsibility to represent their constituents in the business of the House.  So, don’t dismiss privileges as snooty and nor really respectable.

Progressives are fond of dismissing those they disagree with as racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, Islamophobes, etc.  We see in this editorial the deployment of the new tactic, that their opponents are unethical and should be providing a “good example”, of compliance with the progressive cause de jure, vaccination.  And then shut up.

Torstar admits that it’s technically wrong on the rules, but never mind.  It’s technically wrong on the science also, but never mind that either.

-30-

Marxists murdered 100 million in the 20th century.

Vincent J. Curtis

28 Oct 21

RE: Austerity and its link to ‘social murder.’ By Dennis Raphael, Stella Medvedyuk, and Piara Govender.  Raphael is a professor of health policy and management at York University.  The others are Ph.D. candidates at the health policy and equity program at York University.  Hamilton Spectator op-ed published 28 Oct 21.

You know you’re dealing with Marxist fools when the first sentence of the article is to quote approvingly from Fredrick Engels, which quote introduced the concept of ‘social murder.’  The authors of the piece are credentialed academics from the discipline of health policy (and equity!).  I’ve never heard of it before either, but Roger Scruton warned us about these new fake disciplines that produce no scholarship and are merely vehicles for the enforcement of some progressive orthodoxy.  They conjure a fake authority on the basis of humbug philosophy.  The “-studies” courses are quintessential examples of the type.

The dead give-away that this cases is not academically respectable writing is the employment of the word murder used not in a technical or legal sense, but to enflame emotion.  The victims of which they write are ‘murdered’ in some clever way.

The article seems to be a promotion of the “Social Determinants of Health” concept (passim), which is so scientifically dubious that can, and was, refuted in a newspaper article.

Who is responsible today for ‘social murder’?  Why Conservative Premier Doug Ford, not surprisingly.  “…Premier Doug Ford’s cancellation of the Fair Employment Act and increase in the minimum wage and social assistance rates would result in social murder.”

The article goes round and round referencing like-minded people using the ‘social murder’ concept, as if usage among aficionados established its academic respectability.  It is standard tactics among progressives to label those they oppose as racists, sexists, and more recently, unethical.  Calling them murders is a vile, new departure in the same direction.

What is most ironical of their concern for ‘social murder’ is that Marxists murdered over 100 million [people in the 20^th century in their drive to fix Marxism on their societies.

-30-

Pregnant “people?”

Vincent J. Curtis

28 Oct 21

RE: We will see young people getting really sick

RE: Ford urged to require hospital staff vaccination Hamilton Spectator 28 Oct 21.

Progressivism is a form of brain wasting disease, like mad-cow except in humans.  Examples of it abound, but two in particular caught my attention in today’s Spectator, a newspaper unabashed brain-wasting, er, progressive.

The first occurs in Katrina Clarke’s piece which constantly refers to pregnant ‘people.’  The other occurs in Joanna Frketich’s piece in which ‘hospitals’ demand that Ford mandate vaccination on hospital staff despite a 98 percent compliance rate.

If we didn’t learn from common observation, we certainly learned in biology class that women, and only women, become pregnant.  The reason Clarke uses people instead of women is because progressive Karens want to maintain the possibility that men can become pregnant too, on the off chance that a trans gets offended at not being considered fully a woman because he can’t get pregnant lacking the relevant internal parts (I know, the reasoning here is bizarre).

It simply isn’t worth the bother to fight the transphilic progressives on this point, so the more general word people is used instead of women.  (I though trans women were the only true women out there nowadays, but even that’s contentious.)

The other example of mad-cow in humans is the declaration that “The single most important action the government can take is the adoption of a province-wide approach for the mandatory vaccination for all healthcare workers…”  Maybe I’m crazy, but I would have thought that paying OHIP invoices were the most important, but getting paid must not be that high on the hospital’s priority list.  Apparently, 98 percent compliance isn’t good enough, and the screws need to be tightened down harder.  Mandating province-wide makes sure that the unvaccinated don’t move to hospitals with more relaxed standards.  Unvaxxed doctors and nurses are going to get jabbed if it kills the hospitals, as it might.  Apparently, the unvaxxed finding employment elsewhere isn’t satisfactory to the hospitals, who say they want to protect patients from infected healthcare workers but in fact are vaccination Nazis who want the power of the state to back them up.

Mad-cow.  It’s contagious too.

-30-

Rosa Parks II

Vincent J. Curtis

27 Oct 21

RE: Rookie MP gets attention for all the wrong reasons.  Spectator editorial 27 Oct 21.  Spectator editorial of 27 Oct 21.

The Spectator must have been feeling pretty confident in its progressive bona fides when it criticized Dr. Leslyn Lewis, MP, for allegedly comparing herself to Rosa Parks.  Being Conservative, Dr. Lewis, a truly impressive individual, isn’t *really* Black or *really* a woman (after all, the only real women these days are trans anyway.) And, fighting for the rights of the unvaccinated, Lewis isn’t *really* fighting a civil rights issue.  Only progressives get to decide that, and the progressive decision is that the unvaccinated minority are an obstacle to pandemic recovery.  In Margaret Sanger’s day, Blacks were considered an obstacle to racial improvement, so there is a consistency in the progressive line.

Lewis’s tweet about children being used as a shields for adults is absolutely bang-on, and the of course the Arts Major progressives at the Spectator find it “not true.”  The vaccine confers no health benefit to children aged 5-11, so the only reason to vaccinate them is for the benefit of others, i.e. adults. Q.E.D.

And we get that sleazy new progressive argument that it is unethical to say or do anything the progressive line doesn’t hold, which is just a variation of calling someone a racist or sexist for opposing the progressive.  But racism and sexism don’t work in the instance of Dr. Lewis, so instead the unethical argument runs in this case as “a responsibility to advocate for public safety instead of propagate conspiracy theories and promote unnecessary fear?”

Clever, but no.  the Spec editors should look in the mirror if they want to see promoters of unnecessary fear and conspiracy theories.  I guess the Spectator doesn’t remember the notorious medical experiments conducted on Blacks in America, such as the Tuskegee Study.  This is why Blacks in particular are reluctant to take the white man’s vaccines.

At least the editorial conceded that the vaccines aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.

-30-

Is sexual assault a form of self-expression?

Vincent J. Curtis

24 Oct 21

RE: Local students show power of advocacy.  Spectator editorial of 22 Oct 21.

The Spec editorial was a study in cognitive dissonance.  It found it wrong and victim-blaming that girls who dress provocatively sometimes get molested.  It may be wrong, but it isn’t strange.  If a person gets mugged while walking down a dark alley, is it victim-blaming to ask why they elected to walk down that dark alley?

Apparently, decades of sex education has failed to teach students about the birds and the bees, or even basic biology.  I guess that happens when all the emphasis is on normalizing LBGTQ2S+ and "non-binary” types, and the reality of 98 percent of the population, the fraction that got us here, is passed over as politically incorrect.

The editorial held that dress is a form of freedom of expression, evidently non-verbal expression.  And good for being free expression.  Okay, a girl dresses so as to express, “I might be available,” or “Aren’t I sexy?”  If a boy molests her, isn’t that just another form of non-verbal self-expression, saying “I’m interested?”  The editorial later dogmatically asserts that the boy is just wrong, and perhaps he is, but it offers no rational basis for freedom of self-expression to be evil sometimes.  Puritanico-libertinage is a self-contradictory ethics code.

The student trustees want dress codes reviewed upon the principles of “anti-oppressive, non-discriminatory, equitable, and inclusive.”  The old school uniform, where everyone is treated alike, meets these conditions perfectly!  However, uniforms are strangely felt to be oppressive, another example of cognitive dissonance.

What we’re going to get are sociopathic dress codes.

One of the things students learn is school are norms of behavior, like interacting with others.  Progressives hate conventional norms.  They want unconventional norms, like maintaining that LGBTQ2S+ and non-binary behavior is normal when it isn’t, especially in adolescents.  They want the sociopathic to be taught as the norms (trans boys in girls washrooms is okay because they’re really girls!), which is why abnormality is normalized, libertinage in girls is tolerated, and normal boys are the sources of all evil.  Educators appear to have lost their minds because the political bureaucracy finds going along to get along good for their own highly personal interests.  Why resign or get fired when the next fellow will only implement the progressive outrage du jour? (that is, when they don't actually believe it themselves!)

Funny, you never hear about the civilizing mission that women have on men, because that’s too normal.  Dressing in a manner that invites uncivilized behavior in boys isn’t civilizing.

-30-

Did an anti-vax editorial concede that anti-vaxxers have a valid point?

Vincent J. Curtis

22 Oct 21

RE: Only vaccinated MPs belong in the Commons.  Spectator editorial published 22 Oct 21.

No man’s fortune is safe while the legislature is in session.

The editorial argues that the last few Tory MPs who haven’t been vaccinated should be barred from attending the House because “a massive outbreak of COVID among MPs and others who work in the House would be disastrous.”  See above.

Well, do vaccinates work, or not?  The editors have to stop talking out of both sides of their mouths.  If they work, then the vaccinated MPs and others who work in the House are safe, and a massive outbreak simply won’t occur.  The few Tory MPs who might get infected are getting what they deserve, right?

And if they don’t work, then you’ve just conceded that the vaccine-hesitant have a valid point.  So,, which is it?

The editorial also says that “MPs who collectively govern this country…have a duty to set an example.”  Canada is still a democracy, as the editorial admits, and that means that MPs are under no obligation to toe a party line, even the one they belong to.  MPs are under no obligation to exemplify conformist notions about vaccination, period.  If universal conformity were required of MPs as a condition of attendance in the House on the excuse of setting the good example, then there is no need for opposition parties at all.

Funny how this good example stuff only seems to apply when progressive ideas are at stake.

BTW, the collectivity of MPs who govern the country and who must conform in solidarity belong to what is called “the cabinet.”

Opposition MPs are perfectly entitled to serve as examples of opposition in the House.    There were opposition MPs even in wartime Britain.

-30-

Why MPs can't be barred from the House - by anyone

Vincent J. Curtis

20 Oct 21

RE: MPs, staff must be fully vaccinated to return to Commons

Your country is in trouble when fundamental laws and traditions of government are unknown at the very seat of the Federal government.  You kind of expect that parliamentary procedure is well-known in Parliament, but apparently, not the more arcane parts.

It is maintained that the Board of Internal Economy made a rule that all MPs must be fully vaccinated in order to attend the House.

For starters, a Board of Internal Economy cannot be said yet to exist.  Parliament was dissolved, and an election held.  The membership of the old Board ended with the writs of return of that election, even if all the members of the old Board were re-elected.  The first sitting of the new Parliament has yet to occur, and it requires a sitting House to approve the membership of the new Board, and to confer anew upon it the authority of the Board.  So, “Speaker” Rota, who was Speaker of the last House and may be chosen Speaker again at the first sitting of the new Parliament, speaks out of turn when he makes announcements upon the authority of a pretend Board that would exclude duly elected MPs from sitting in the House.

A deeper problem is the ad hoc and unconstitutional nature of new criteria for a person to sit in the House.  Going back to the Great Parliament of 1265, the Sovereign summons the people to send representatives to discuss and make decisions about the nation’s business.  An MP is selected from among the people to represent them upon the summons of the Sovereign.  It is not the business of other MPs to decide whether or not a particular MP or a group of MPs should be allowed to sit, debate, and vote on matters of the nation’s business.  If this principle were allowed, entire opposition parties could be excluded from the House by a majority vote of the House, or even of the Board!

The ad hoc principle that vaccination status is a criterion for admission to the House is a scientifically a bad one.  In the first place, those who have already had, and recovered from, COVID are known to have vastly superior resistance to re-infection than the vaccinated.  Vaccinating them may is not just unnecessary, it may cause them harm.  Second, unvaccinated does not mean contagious or even infected, and it is the contagious person who is medically hazardous to others.  Condemning unvaccinated misses the mark.  Finally, vaccination is supposed to confer resistance to infection from the contagious, and so vaccinated MPs are supposed to be in no danger of infection from an unvaccinated MP, whether or not they’re contagious.

The admission of new and ad hoc principles for excluding MPs from sitting in the House has no principled endpoint.  Perhaps being ambulatory could be made a principle of admission, excluding those in wheelchairs.  Perhaps being insufficiently proficient in both official languages can become a reason for exclusion from the House.  A creative mind could come up with all kinds of plausible reasons for excluding elected representatives from sitting in the House.

The unconstitutionality of this ruling by an alleged Board can only be settled in one of three ways.  The first is sensibly.  No duly elected MP can be excluded from sitting in the House except by some mutual agreement, as occurred in the last sitting.  The second is to submit, and the third is by force.

“Speaker” Rota is respected by members, and he should find a way to settle the matter sensibly

-30-

Soothing words from a lightweight

Vincent J. Curtis

20 Oct 21

RE: Coming together to address housing crisis.  Op-ed by Ted McMeekin, a former Ontario Liberal cabinet minister.  The Hamilton Spectator 20 Oct 21.

A characteristic of the progressive agenda is to handle an issue as “the moral equivalent of war.”  Ted McMeekin revealed this outlook with the repeated calls in his article that, to solve the housing crisis, “we must come together.”

I’m busy, and have no patience for poorly run meetings.  But Ted wasn’t inviting me, or you, when he said “we”; he meant privileged “stakeholders.”  His list of stakeholders included “local union leadership, all three levels of government, non-government organizations, the Hamilton-Wentworth Federation of Agriculture, Environment Hamilton, academics, and a diversity of advocacy groups, and others….”

The only stakeholders Ted didn’t invite are those 236,000 future Hamiltonians who will want to buy an affordable home that they like – not one they have to take.

Economist Thomas Sowell wrote about this tendency of what he called “The Anointed” to make decisions on behalf of other people.  These imposed decisions were in accordance with “The Vision” of the Anointed, and the Anointed suffered no penalty if they proved to be wrong.  Their mess was left for other people to clean up, if it ever got cleaned up at all.  The messes created by the imposition of “The Visions of the Anointed” litter the landscape of America, the former Soviet Empire, and Communist China, to name a few.

Solving the housing crisis isn’t hard.  Make more land available, and let the market work its magic.

-30-

So much stupidity, so little space!

Vincent J. Curtis

19 Oct 21

RE: Fourth wave has been contained in Hamilton.  By Joanna Frketich.  The Hamilton Spectator published 18 Oct 21

RE: Japan puzzling over sudden virus success. By Mari Yamaguchi and Chisato Tanaka of the Associated Press published in the Hamilton Spectator 18 Oct 21

RE: Second school principal makes apology. By Katrina Clarke. The Hamilton Spectator published 18 Oct 21

Let’s start with “The worst of the fourth COVID-19 wave appears to hve been contained in Hamilton through public health measures and vaccinations.”  Readers should check out the story, “Japan is puzzling over sudden virus success” on page A9.  Nobody knows what causes the ebb and flow of the pandemic.  Ontario simply had a lower prevalence of the virus in the province when the fourth wave began, while Alberta suffered its worse wave, in terms of hospitalizations and ICU admissions, even though 75+ percent of the population was vaccinated.  The medical “experts” have no idea, but are going to take a bow anyway.  And burnish their credibility, which is sorely in need of burnishing.

Then there’s the story about St. Joe’s opening the first monoclonal antibody treatment clinic in Ontario, which means Canada.  What?? Trump was treated with the Regeneron version of this drug thirteen months ago, and the treatment became widely available in the U.S. last spring.  Why is Canada just now turning to this therapy?  How many lives could have been saved in the third and fourth waves?  Our public health officials expect to be taken seriously, but they are so far behind the science it’s a joke.

Then, there’s an elementary school principal apologizing for insisting that girls cover themselves in class.  Her apology made reference to alienating the “non-binary” and went on to say that dress codes stifled the identity of Two Spirit and LGBTQIA+ communities.  Elementary school students are just hitting puberty, and have no idea of their “sexual identity.”  This is nonsensical gender identity theory applied where it doesn’t belong.  Does the principal need refresher training in sex ed or biology?

A crazy day in the Spec.

-30-

Mac is leading, not lagging on vaccinations.

Vincent J. Curtis

18 Oct 21

RE: McMaster straggles behind most Ontario universities record high vaccination coverage. By Maria Sarrouh of the Toronto Star.  Published in the Hamilton Spectator, 18 Oct 21.

With the death at age 84 of former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell from complications of COVID-19, it reminds us that the vaccines are not all they were cracked up to be.  The rush to vaccinate everybody from infants on up now needs to be questioned.  It is particularly surprising that universities are in an all-out rush to vaccinate students in the face of the empirical data.

Universities are supposed to be places of higher learning.  They are supposed to be places questioning the intellectual fashions of the day, not following them.  Science is supposed to be empirical and follow the data wherever it leads.

Here is Ontario’s empirical data on COVID-19.  Ontario has had 595,000 cases and 9815 deaths.  Of these, 225,455 cases and 99 deaths occurred in the 20-39 demographic, which certainly covers nearly all university students.  This is a mortality rate of less than 0.05 percent, which makes COVID about as dangerous as the seasonal flu to this demographic.  Nobody demands vaccination with Tamiflu as a condition of attending university, so why is there a requirement that students be vaccinated against COVID-19, even those who have already had it and recovered?  Vaccination is of no benefit to the student, and there are some risks, such as myocarditis and pericarditis in young men.

Unfortunately, even universities have been poisoned by ideologies, which have never been shown to touch reality.  Mac is leading, not lagging in vaccination sensibility, though the lead is slim.

-30-

Toeing the company line.

Vincent J. Curtis

16 Oct 21

RE: Children’s hospital warns against reopening too fast during 4^th wave.  News article by Joanna Frketich The Hamilton Spectator 16 Oct 21.

It has become fashionable in the medical community to call for the revocation of medical licenses of doctors who don’t toe the company line – about vaccinations, passports, mandates, restrictions, and the like.  Perhaps, the licenses of the doctors at McMaster Children’s Hospital should be revoked for not following where the data leads and instead sticking to the company line!

Ontario has had nearly 595,000 COVID-19 cases, and, as of this writing, these have resulted in 9814 deaths.  Of these, 99,727 cases have been of those under twenty years of age, and there have been 6 deaths.  Yes, six.  And there have been co-morbidities in each case.  COVID-19 simply is not a danger to school age children, adolescents, and young adults.  (In fact, based on morbidity, a case can’t be made for vaccinating anyone under 40 years of age, if they have no pre-existing conditions.)  The practice of medicine to for the benefit of the patient, and vaccination of under twenties is of no measurable benefit to the patient; while the risks of the vaccines are not insignificant, especially in the young.

It is ridiculous to say that the vaccines are safe and effective for children under 12.  Children’s aspirin is just as effective in preventing a child’s death from COVID-19 as a vaccine, and comes with far fewer side effects.  The reason is that childhood resistance to COVID-19 is so great, a vaccine can confer nothing measurably more.

So, on what basis do children’s doctors say that children need to be vaccinated and that COVID-19 restrictions need to remain clamped in the cases of young people?

If the concern is that kids will give it to grandma, well, that’s on grandma - who should have been vaccinated.

Enough of the panic-driven tyranny!

-30-

Densifying Hamilton

Vincent J. Curtis

15 Oct 21

Let’s image Hamilton with 236,000 more people to accommodate, 114,000 more jobs and no urban expansion, taking the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s demographic numbers along with the Stop the Sprawl/Mayor Fred urban densification scenario.

With no boundary expansion, most of the accommodation will have to take place in the lower city.  Housing on the Mountain is too new, and there’s practically no green or brown space available on the Mountain.  How, for example, can Buchanan Park neighbourhood accommodate 50 percent more people?  Eliminate the park by building housing on it?  I don’t think that’ll work.

The water and sewer systems will have to accommodate 50 percent greater flow though the existing set of pipes.  Water supply in the lower city is by gravity feed, so water flow rate to a house is going to drop by a third.  Sewage also flows by gravity, and sewage backups are going to become much more frequent as 50 to 100 percent more sewage is pushed into the old pipes.

Road traffic is going to increase by 50 to 100 percent on the existing road net in the lower city. Much greater congestion can be expected, especially during rush hour, and there needs to be parking for all those extra vehicles.  A comprehensive system of rapid transit isn’t being planned for thirty years from now, and it would have to be built on the existing road net anyhow.

Densification is easy to prescribe; but won’t be easy to live with.

-30-

Basic Economics and urban boundary expansion: Marxism for Dummies

Vincent J. Curtis

15 Oct 21

RE: No boundary expansion option ‘irresponsible’.  Op-ed by Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Steve Clark. Published in the Hamilton Spectator 15 Oct 21.

RE: Mayor dismisses Minister’s missive.  By Teviah Moro, The Hamilton Spectator 15 Oct 21.

RE: Ford should rethink his plan on minimum wage.  Torstar editorial of 15 Oct 21

It seems that the only book on economics read in Hamilton is Marxism for Dummies.  What else can explain the comments by Mayor Fred Eisenberger, various city councillors, and the editorial on minimum wage?  Because that’s all the analyses amount to: Marxism, with all its attendant evils of ideology over the empirical.

The op-ed by Municipal Affairs Minister Steve Clark is pretty straightforward.  Hamilton is expected to gain 236,000 in population by the year 2051, and not expanding the urban boundary would result in a shortfall of 60,000 homes.  Homes of all kinds will be required.  Therefore, to seriously contemplate not expanding the boundary would be irresponsible, unrealistic, and, I would add, grotesque.  The reason for skyrocketing house prices now is the imposition of the “green belt” around Toronto, in case an object lesson were needed.

The Minister’s reasoning is clear, and none of the objections dispute his argument.  Mayor Fred “doesn’t care” what the Minister thinks, he, Fred, knows what’s best for the city.  He added that “affordability doesn’t simply boil down to supply.”  (No, it’s supply AND demand, and the demand is forecasted to be immense.)

According to Stop Sprawl HamOnt, urban expansion should be rejected because it “plays into the interests of developers”, as if home buyers had no interests of their own in finding an affordable home they liked.  (What clearer expression of Marx-inspired nonsense could there be?  A faux grass-root front spouting Marxian class warfare rhetoric!)

The higher carbon emissions (another Marx-inspired class warfare cause!) brought about by expansion (never quantified) are raised as objections, as if Hamilton’s future development will cause a fraction of the polar icecaps to melt.  And, of course, there’s that dummy poll, in which 90 percent of Hamiltonians did not participate.

The Minister is quite right to put people before politics, but with Marxism politics over people is all there is.

-30-

It’s time to stop mandating foolishness

Vincent J. Curtis

14 Oct 21

RE: It’s time to mandate COVID shots for eligible students.  Hamilton Spectator editorial of 14 Oct 21.

The practice of medicine is for the good of the patient.  I know this concept of the individual is hard for progressives and Marxists to get their heads around, but it is essential to understanding why mass mandates are rarely good.

The editorial mentions the mandate to vaccinate young children for measles, mumps, chicken pox and rubella, but this make sense on an individual basis.  These are serious childhood sicknesses, the vaccines against them actually work for life, and the vaccines have proven to have side effects rarely.  This isn’t the case with the COVID vaccines.  COVID simply is not a serious illness for anyone under twenty, the vaccines are only 70 percent effective at best, and the risks of the COVID vaccines, though small, are not insignificant.  The AstraZenica one was pulled from Canada for its high risk profile, the J & J vaccine seems never to have been properly made, and the Moderna vaccine has produced a noteworthy number of adverse reactions.

Mass vaccination of under-twentys is going to produce more adverse reactions than it will “control the spread,” and there is no benefit to the individual, for whom COVID is not a high-risk sickness.  If the story is that the kids will spread it among themselves, and then one of them will bring it home to grandma, well, that’s on grandma.  She’s the one who should have been vaccinated based on risk.

Here is some data.  As of this date, Ontario has had a total of 593,000 cases of COVID-19 since January 15, 2020.  There have been a total of 9,807 deaths.  The under 20 demographic have accounted for a total of 89,423 cases and 6 deaths.  The 20-39 demographic have accounted for 125,456 cases and 99 deaths.  In contrast, the over 80 demographic have accounted for 25,978 cases and 5,912 deaths.  COVID-19 is overwhelmingly a problem for the very old, and becomes much less of a problem for those under 60.  For the young, COVID is not a problem at all.

Since COVID is not a problem at all for the young, the vaccine in them can only have drawbacks, and while they are few the numbers are not insignificant.  Consequently, on a risk-benefit analysis, vaccines should not be mandated for those under 60, certainly for those under 40, and absolutely not for those under 20.

I mentioned a 70 percent effectiveness of the vaccines.  As of this date in Ontario, 32 percent of those hospitalized with COVID, are either fully or partially vaccinated.  Of those in ICU, 19 percent are either fully or partially vaccinated.  Vaccination may help reduce the severity of the infection, comparing hospitalizations to ICU patients, but it is by no means bullet-proof protection against getting COVID at all.  Hence, even if students under the age of 20 were vaccinated, it still would not eliminate the potential for students to become infected and become carriers, even if the severity of the disease in them is small.  It could introduce a false sense of security.

We are now also aware of the limited life-span of the immunity provided by the vaccines.  A booster shot is not being administered after only eight months.

There are no easy answers, but the proclivity to simply order that this or that be done in haste – stumbling around in the dark trying hit-or-miss solutions – is bad, and needs to be stopped.  I know progressives love exercising government power, so someone may have to stop them.

In addition, public health officials have to stop being lazy.  Declaring an outbreak and closing a school because three cases have been detected is lazy, stupid, and wrong.  You can, with testing, figure out which classes were exposed, and test students individually for the disease.  The aim should be keeping schools open as much as possible, not the better comfort of the public health professionals.

-30-

School Board to review dress code

Vincent J. Curtis

13 Oct 21

Why does a dress code even exist?  Who should design it?

You have to wonder if the girls protesting dress codes learned anything in sex ed classes – that it’s all social construct unmoored to reality?  The reason dress codes exist nowadays is to keep decorum somewhat professional in the class room and as a reason to control some girls from giving in to their natural inclinations after they’ve reached the nubile age of consent.

Should a dress code be developed by the likes of Jeffrey Epstein?  Some days, you’d think he had.

(In 2019 Toronto District School Board updated its dress code to allow tops that expose shoulders, stomachs, midriffs, neck lines and cleavage, and bottoms that expose legs thighs and hips.  Students are now allowed to wear crop tops tank tops tube tops and backless tops.)

School principal Theresa Sgambato was forced to apologize for have advised girls not to wear tank tops and crop tops to school.  She did so probably to avoid having numerous girl-to-girl talks about what the male teachers are staring at, and to have the boys concentrating on what’s being taught, not what’s on display.

Oh, we can’t “blame the victim!”  But if we started to, then dress might rapidly become more modest.

The days of school uniforms aren’t that distant, and school uniforms aren’t a bad idea.  The woke comments by the Associate Professor of social sciences, child and youth studies at Brock University are beneath contempt and disgrace whatever academic merit her field pretends to.

(Shauna Pomerantz was quoted as saying that school dress codes often serve to “police” girls’ bodies – and some bodies more than others.  “I’ve seen cases in school where larger girls who had larger breasts, more cleavage, they were sent home for wearing the same type of tank top that a skinnier, smaller-busted girl was not sent home for.”  The message that can send is that a student’s body is “dangerous” or “inappropriate” or even “ugly.”  Dress codes serve to teach a “hidden curriculum.”  “When we tell students they have to look a certain way – quote unquote professional – that’s actually code for looking white, middle-class, heterosexual.  We’re really limiting what we tell young people is good and right and normal.)

(Aside: And what could be more evil than white, middle-class, and heterosexual?  It never occurs to the prof that maybe normal is what should be taught, so that not-normal can be recognized for what it is – not normal!  This is the woke crap that is taught at university “studies” courses these days.)

Dress codes ought to be developed by the adults.  This isn’t one that can be trusted to the adolescents.  The adults can’t shirk their duty on this one.

-30-

Horse laugh on “horse therapeutics” for COVID-19

Vincent J. Curtis

9 Oct 21.

RE: Doctor who said he gave Ivermectin to rural Alberta COVID-19 patients prompts warning from health authority. Wallis Snowden CBC News Posted Oct 8, 2021 12:36 PM MT.

“A doctor who was filling in at a rural Alberta hospital says he treated three COVID-19 patients with Ivermectin, triggering a warning from provincial health authorities about the dangers of the controversial drug.  Ivermectin is used primarily to rid livestock of parasites.  It has not been approved for use in either Canada or the United States for the treatment of coronaviruses and no clinical studies have proven whether it can slow or stop the spread of the coronavirus.”

Actually, neither has Aspirin been so approved.  But if a doctor advised the taking of Aspirin in the course of treating COVID, would that make Aspirin a “controversial drug” that “wasn’t approved?”  Oh, and neither Aspirin nor Ivermectin nor any other therapeutic “slow the spread” of COVID-19; they are intended to mitigate the effects of COVID in a patient infected with it.

So runs the story.  The urban sophisticates having a horse laugh on those Alberta rubes for taking a “horse drug” to treat COVID-19.  The medical community can rely on journalists being too lazy to look up what Ivermectin does, or why it comes in tablets for human consumption, as the picture accompanying the story plainlyshows!

A quick Google search shows that Ivermectin was developed and patented by Galderma Labs, a division of Merck & Co.  A long list of patents dating from 2014, which I quickly perused, indicate that the use of Imvermectin is as an anti-inflammatory.  If its major use by weight is in livestock anti-parasite drugs, it is for its anti-inflammatory function in the anti-parasite compound.  Inert binders are also used in the compounding of pills.

Because it is an anti-inflammatory, it makes sense that Ivermectin could have some use in the treatment of COVID-19.  One of the adverse effects of COVID is to drive the body’s immune response into overdrive.  Drugs that calm the tissues can be of help in those circumstances when the body is overreacting.  Dexamethasone is another “horse drug,” which, ironically, has recently been approved for use in the treatment of COVID-19.  It is a corticosteroid that is used on people on ventilators because it helps keep patient lungs from being damaged by the forcing of oxygen into them.  Corticosteroids are like cortisone, the hormone the human body produces to calm inflammation and the body generally after lots of adrenaline has been secreted into the bloodstream.  A cortisone shot is used to relieve joint pain by reducing the swelling of irritated tissue.

Another widely derided drug is hydroxychloroquine.  Used as a prophylactic against malaria, it too has anti-inflammatory properties, and that property may have been the reason why it showed promise in the early days of the pandemic.  That is, before Trump championed the idea and so it had to be destroyed.

For some reason, the grand poohbahs of public medicine in Canada don’t want it known that therapeutic drugs are available for the treatment of COVID-19.  You never hear about Remdesivir in Canada, even though it was approved for use in Canada for COVID in July, 2020.  You never hear about monoclonal anti-body treatments from Regeneron or Eli Lilly.

Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are cheap and widely available.  Big Pharma makes no money selling them.

However, Merck & Co. stands to make $1.2 Billion selling 1.7 million doses of its new COVID-19 therapeutic Molnupiravir, but only makes pennies on each Ivermectin pill it sells.  Connection?

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) thinks so!

So, who’s getting the horse laugh: the rural rubes who get relief from “a horse drug” that cost pennies a pill, or those urban sophisticates who are willing to pay US$705 a dose for Merck’s new COVID therapeutic Molnupiravir?

-30-

Vaccine Mandates Can't Be Justified on the Evidence

Vincent J. Curtis

8 Oct 21.

Tough and useless

RE: Ottawa’s vaccine mandates tough but necessary.  Hamilton Spectator editorial 8 Oct 21.

Johns Hopkins University this week released a report on American deaths due to COVID, and said that more people had died in 2021 than in 2020.  More Americans died of COVID under Joe Biden than under Donald Trump.  More Americans died of COVID despite a national vaccination campaign.  Donald Trump had helpers like former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo drive up the death count under his watch, and Trump left Biden a vaccination program that was inoculating people at the rate of one million a day.  Still, more Americans died in 2021 than in 2020.

Alberta’s vaccination rate did not lag far behind Ontario’s, yet both provinces experienced a third and now a fourth wave of the pandemic in 2021.  Ontario’s fourth wave has luckily been mild, while Alberta’s fourth wave has been more severe in terms of hospitalizations and ICU patients than waves two or three.  What is remarkable is that Alberta’s fourth wave was supported by only a quarter to a fifth of the population that supported waves two and three.  Alberta has a 75 percent full vaccination rate, and 84 percent at least partially vaccinated, yet the fourth wave was the worst.  This isn’t what was expected.

The promised herd immunity did not arrive, even with 80+ percent vaccination rates.

These facts needs to be taken into account.  The vaccines, apparently, aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.  They aren’t producing herd immunity.  Breakthrough infections are not uncommon.  Vaccination, therefore, ought to remain a personal decision.  A vaccination does not contribute to herd immunity, to a lesser pandemic wave, or even bulletproof personal immunity.

This is not to say that vaccinates are worthless, but they’re worth a lot less than initially expected.  Vaccine mandates cannot be justified on the basis of vaccine performance.

-30-

Kenny & Henshaw cover themselves with fake glory

Vincent J. Curtis

7 Oct 21

RE: New COVID modelling suggests restrictions helping Alberta turn corner on pandemic.  CBC report Posted Oct 7, 2021, at 9:00 AM MT

Those who follow these things know that Premier Kenney and Dr. Deena Henshaw are peddling a field of bison pies when they claim that their measures are “helping Alberta turn the corner on the pandemic.”

In the first place, there is no “turning the corner on the pandemic”; there is only passing the crest of the current wave and expecting the tide to ebb for a while.

On September 30^th, I forecasted that the fourth wave in Alberta was cresting, and the data up to October 7^th shows that it has.  Cases are down, and most importantly, ICU occupancy is off its crest.  It only took a glance at the plotted data of waves two and three to see that wave four would crest imminently, as it did.  Provincial restrictions had nothing to do with it; it was just the natural course of a wave revealing itself.

Those in charge are trying to make it look like they have control, when they don’t.  They’re claiming their measures turned the tide, when they didn’t.  Those in charge think that more measures will end the scourge, when they won’t.

Mask mandates didn’t stop waves two and three, and did nothing about four.  Lockdowns stopped only business.  Even high vaccination rates proved unavailing, which is surprising but nevertheless true.

To hell their cursed models.

-30-

Environmentalists talking out of both sides of their mouth, again

Vincent J. Curtis

6 Oct 21

RE: UN report warns of global water crisis amid climate change.  An Associated Press story by Suman Naishadham.  Published in the Hamilton Spectator 6 Oct 21.

Once again, the left hand of the environmental movement doesn’t know what its far left hand is doing.

The UN report warns of climate change induced floods and droughts.  It warns that global water management is fragmented and inadequate.  It warns that as populations grow, the number of people with inadequate access to water will also rise.  It advised on improved water management.  “We need to wake up to the looming water crisis,” said the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Institute.

Let’s talk about California.  This state is one of the most environmentally conscious jurisdictions on the planet.  California is subject to frequent and prolonged periods of drought, followed by rainy spells (i.e. droughts and floods).  To cope with fluctuating water availability, the state designed in the 1960s the California water project scheme, which would dam rivers and develop reservoirs to store water as the population grew.  The last dam was built in the 1970s when California’s population was 20 million.  It is now 40 million and not a new dam has been built to adjust for the growth, which was expected.  This is all before climate change.

No dams have been built to save the snail darter fish, and so as not to disturb the environment generally.  Water shortages are now blamed on climate change.  But the UN now demands better water management!  Old environmentalism meets the new.

-30-

There’s no ‘C’ in AUKUS

Vincent J. Curtis

5 Oct 21

RE: Canada should push reset on its China policy.  Hamilton Spectator editorial of 5 Oct 21.

The editorial was remarkably clear-eyed in its assessment of China, and gave a good outline of the need for Canada to reset its policy towards China.  The wonder is that such an assessment was necessary at all.  Have people forgotten that nearly 70 million Chinese died during the Great Leap Forward (1958-62) and the Cultural Revolution (1966-76)?  Was the Tiananmen Square massacre (1979) not recent enough?  The utter ruthlessness of the Chinese Communist Party ought to come as a surprise to no one.

Among the recommendations for a reset was Canada’s joining of the new Australia – United Kingdom-United States alliance for the Indo-Pacific region.  The problem is that Canada has nothing militarily to bring to the table, and Prime Minister Trudeau is fundamentally an unserious person when it comes to matters of war and peace.

Canada isn’t expected to acquire her first replacement fighter jet until 2025, and nor a new surface combatant ship until 2028 at the earliest.  Mr. Trudeau spends most of his time enlarging on Canada’s systemic racism, and on the atrocities committed against indigenous peoples.  Why would anyone want to defend as atrocious a country as Canada anyway?

If Canada does reorient its defence policy towards the Pacific, it will impact the choice of fighter jet and combatant ship she acquires.  Long range will be key.

This means that Canada should consider the F-15-X fighter instead of the F-35 or F/A-18 Super Hornet, on account of the F-15’s greater range.  With 2900 gallons of on-board fuel the Avro Arrow, suitably engine and with modern avionic would be the equivalent of a Russian MiG-31 but with extraordinary range.  The Type 26 Frigate with a 7,000 nmi range is appropriate for the Pacific, but an Arleigh Burke class missile cruiser could be adapted for range also, has greater speed than then Type 26, and has a better developed array of long range weapons.

The last paragraph is just some idle speculation on things that ought to happen, but won’t.  Too many vested interests against all of them.

-30-

 

 

Tit for tat

Vincent J. Curtis

4 Oct 21

RE: Tory MPs should be vaccinated before entering parliament.  Torstar editorial published in the 4 Oct 21 issue of the Hamilton Spectator

The editorial says, “The decision to bar some of those MPs from entering the [House of Commons] should not be taken lightly.”  It then proceeds to treat the matter frivolously.

The editorial shows why lightweight Arts Majors who don’t understand “the science” should be careful about weighing in on important matters, especially when those writers are from the Liberal party’s semi-official organ, the Toronto Star, and are advising on the disposal of Tory MPs.

It has never been explained how the vaccinated are endangered by the presence of healthy, unvaccinated people.  The vaccinated are protected from infection by their vaccination, and healthy people have no virus to pass on.  So, Artsie, explain how the vaccinated are endangered.

The purpose of the vaccine passport isn’t to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated, it is to coerce the unvaccinated into getting their shots by denying them a social life until they do.

But since Torstar thinks that ad hoc, unconstitutional, and hitherto unthought of barriers should be placed before an MP who wishes to enter the House, what else can be thought of along those lines?

What touches freedom of the press?  The brain disease known as progressivism oughtn’t be allowed to pass on to the next generation.  Hence, Torstar writers, a progressive breed, ought to be sterilized before being allowed to publish?  It’s good for the nation’s health!

-30-

What about therapeutics?

Vincent J. Curtis

2 Oct 21

The Hamilton Spectator published interviews of four doctors on the front lines of treating COVID patients in Hamilton as part of its panic-porn campaign to scare people into getting vaccinated.  Of the four doctors the Spectator interviewed for the October 2^nd, 2021, issue, only one of them, Dr. Kuldeep Sidhu, said anything about therapeutics for those having COVID.  When asked what sort of treatments are available, Dr. Sidhu answered, “Quite literally at this point it’s still supportive care, supportive ventilation, and oxygenation.”  In short, they’ll hold your hand and give you oxygen to live, if necessary.

I saw nothing about therapeutic drugs, or which there are several, and I wonder if they are being used to treat COVID or not.  For example, Remdesivir was approved for use in Canada in July, 2020.  It is an anti-viral drug that kills COVID viruses.  There are monoclonal anti-bodies such as those from Regeneron and Eli Lilly, which mimic human anti-bodies for COVID.  There is Dexamethasone, a corticosteroid, which helps patients with real breathing problems to breathe.  The oft-derided Ivermectin has a moderate-certainty of reducing the severity of COVID symptoms if used early, according to a paper published in the American Journal of Therapeutics.

President Trump, aged 74, when infected, was treated immediately with an infusion of Rengeneron’s monoclonal antibody followed by five days of Remdesivir, and he recovered fully and quickly.

If these treatments are available and aren’t being used, then we need to ask why.  And if they are being used, then why was no mention made of it?  Is it because the political cause is to encourage vaccination, and if people know therapeutics work they might forego vaccination?  Is that the reason?

-30-

Courts Ignore the Constitution

Vincent J. Curtis

1 Oct 21

RE: Time to pay this overdue debt to indigenous kids.  Hamilton Spectator editorial of 1 Oct 21.

The Federal Court of Canada erred in upholding a decision by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to award $40,000 to some 54,000 people for something or other.

The House of Commons of Canada, with the agreement of the Senate, and the consent of the Governor General, has the sole sovereign right in Canada to decide how taxpayers’ money is spent.  If the House, under the guidance of the Prime Minister, Finance Minister, and cabinet, passes a budget no higher authority exists in Canada to compel expenditures higher than those agreed to.

(Tampering with this feudal right cost King Charles I his head.  By 1720, cabinet control of the House of Commons became the principle, and the right to raise taxes by the House and the control of expenditures by the executive became fused constitutionally.  The Canadian constitution is declared to be “similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom.”)

Hence, when the loftily named Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issues some bloke opinion that the budgets passed by the House  were “willfully” and “recklessly” discriminatory against Indigenous children on reserves because they “failed to provide adequate funding for child and family services,” well that’s just too bad.  Budgeting is a practical matter, money isn’t infinite, and choices have to be made.

Nevertheless, the members of the Tribunal, engaging in moral preening that costs them nothing, awarded a cool $2 billion of Canadian taxpayers’ money to private individuals.  As a creature of the Parliament, the CHRT needs to be modest in awarding taxpayer’s money, and in this case, they’ weren’t.

Since reconciliation is the order of the day, the money in this case could be part of a larger, overall settlement package.

We’ll see if the Supreme Court of Canada understands the constitution better than the Federal Court, or the CHRT, or if they too will engage in a power grab.

-30-

NB: There is no concept of sovereign immunity in Canada as there is in America.  At the same time, there is no Marbury v. Madison in Canadian legal history as there is in American.  The SCOC can’t amend the constitution of Canada as the SCOTUS often does in America.  Awarding $2 billion in this case by SCOC would amount to a one time amendment of the Canadian constitution, and it might establish a principle.

Mohawks declare war on Canada

Vincent J. Curtis

1 Oct 21

RE: Public Notice published on Pg A6 of Sept 30^th issue of the Hamilton Spectator.  This was a half-page “Public Notice.”

The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chief’s Council, the military government of the Six Nations reserve, celebrated Truth and Reconciliation Day by declaring war on Canada.

In a public notice, the military government of Six Nations declared a piece of property in Townsend, Norfolk County, to be their sovereign territory, it never having been “surrendered, extinguished, or otherwise relinquished” to the Crown.  To date, nothing concerning this declaration has been heard from the elected Six Nations band council.

If the German military declared that the territory known as Alsace-Lorraine was sovereign German land, it would amount to a casus belli with France, particularly if the declaration weren’t immediately denounced by the official German government.

This is how “reconciliation” is handled by the Mohawks, with a declaration of war, however laughable that declaration may be.  It ought to teach everyone who isn’t a fool that the aboriginal community isn’t monolithic, and reconciliation is possible only with those who sincerely desire it, as the Mohawks do not.

In contrast, the Mississaugas of the Credit held a wonderful ceremony at Massey College in Toronto, attended by the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, Premier Ford, and several Chiefs, all of whom spoke warmly and inclusively and without recrimination.

Reconciliation is a fool’s errand.  It has to be wanted, and offered where wanted.

If the Mohawks want war instead, then they should be given it instead.

-30-

This notice reads as follows:

“1582 Concession 2, Townsend.  The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chief’s Council (HCCC) hereby gives notice to the public that it holds exclusive use, occupation, and possession to the lands described by the Crown as 1594 Concession 2, Townsend.  The HCCC’s title to these lands has never been surrendered, extinguished, or otherwise relinquished.  Prospective purchasers of subject property are hereby notified that any attempt by Norfolk County to sell the subject property is unlawful and a breach of treaty obligations owed to the Haudenosaunee.  Prospective purchasers are hereby notified that the HCCC will not allow any non-Haudenosaunee use, occupation, or possession of the subject property and will take all necessary steps to protect Haudenosaunee use, occupation, and possession.  The HCCC accepts no liability for loses to prospective purchasers where notice has been provided to Norfolk, the Province of Ontario, and the Government of Canada with respect to our intention to maintain possession and full control of the subject property.”