Vincent J. Curtis
22 Jan 20
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020, the Saltpork & Rind treated its readership to a double dose of intellectualism - so it thought. In fact, one of the Ph.D.'s is a product of the tragic destruction of the Humanities at schools of so-called "higher" learning. The doctorate is in some cultural "studies" course. The other is a out-and-out perpetrator of that destruction. He's carried his sorry act from one school to another until he completed his carrier, not in the hated home of his birth, but, sadly, in the Great White North. One guesses the Opinion Page Editor was dazzled by the brilliance of the credentials because the opinion pieces were dreary, predictable, tedious, and lunatic. Truly a case of baffling with bullsh*t, as my father used to say.
On
Wednesday, the Saltpork & Rind treated its readers to a double dose of faux
intellectualism. Latham Hunter, Ph.D., expatiated upon the ‘deeper social
significance of Harry and Megan.’ Yeah.
Henry A.
Giroux, Ph.D. in his usual bile filled way, regurgitated Democrat party talking
points to blame Trump for the constitutional crisis brought on by his
impeachment. Giroux concluded with the wish for impeachment “to be a call
to battle to put on trial the capitalist system” and for reforms that will
“usher in a radical and socialist democracy.”
When Giroux
condemns the capitalist system, one wonders if he includes the capitalism
practiced by Communist China and the People’s Liberation Army. I suspect
he doesn’t think that far ahead. It must be baffling to him for a
communist country to be practicing radical capitalism and suppressing
democracy,
The
constitutional crisis of Trump’s impeachment is brought on, not by Trump, but
by the little Robespierres of the Democrat Party: Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler,
and the imperious Nancy Pelosi. The articles of impeachment do not allege
an actual ‘high crime or misdemeanor.’ And all the sound and fury of
wrongdoing signify nothing impeachable. Yet, Trump was nevertheless impeached
- out of a need to condemn him before history as deplorable.
The
SP&R failed to see the difference between credentials and quality.
-30-
Vincent J. Curtis
3 Feb 20
The Hamilton Saltpork & Rind dutifully reports obvious gang-land related shooting in the city in a manner that makes one feel the call for a gun ban in the editorial that inevitably follows.
Here is a
news flash that the Saltpork & Rind, in its zeal to make the world safe for
progressivism, seems to have missed. Depriving people of their means of
self-defence is not going to reduce the number of gang-land slayings. It
just won’t.
The SP&R has dutifully reported all sorts of shootings in the city over the last several
years, and an uptrend seems evident. But the stories are never about one
irate neighbour shooting another; they are always about some guy getting
plugged by an unknown hitman or hit team who then escape. Gang-land
style. Sometimes they’re about home invasions.
Sometimes
the wrong person gets hit. Not all hitmen are created equal, but
depriving the fellow down the street of his means of resisting a home invasion
gone wrong isn’t going to stop the criminal underworld from acting violently.
A police
crackdown on drug distribution can lead to an outbreak of gangland
shootings. When the flow of drugs is cut off, dealers will prey upon each
other trying to steal reserves that may have been stashed for just such
shortages. And when money gets tight, debtors pay with their lives as an
example to the others to pay in cash, now. Seizing the guns of the
law-abiding isn’t going to stop this kind of violence, and even puts the
innocent in greater danger.
It is wrong
to think gang violence can be stopped with a gun-ban.
-30-
Vincent J. Curtis
3 Feb 20
Believers
in a free press should take no solace from the “clarifying” remarks from
Heritage Minister Steven Guillbeault. After releasing a document
suggesting the Liberal government needed to move to license news outlets, the
Minister denied it, saying “We are committed to a free and independent
press. Our focus will be and always has been to ensure that Canadians
have access to a diversity of high-quality and credible news sources.”
The use of
the active form ought to raise concerns. Why should the government be
“committed to a free and independent press?” What measures does the
government have in mind “to ensure that Canadians have access to ‘high-quality’
and ‘credible’ news sources?”
The proper
attitude of a government to regulating the press is supine indifference.
The government shouldn’t care. The moment a government takes measures to
fulfill a ‘commitment maintain a free and independent press,’ it involves the
government deciding what amounts to a free and independent press. And
when the commitment is to ‘high-quality and credible new sources,’ does that
leave the gutter press (e.g. Frank Magazine) and news outlets it regards as
less than credible (e.g. Rebel Media) open to government predation?
The
Minister opened his mouth, and changed feet. There is no reason for
believers in a free press to take comfort from the assurance that a busy-body
is going to leave well enough alone..
-30-
Vincent J. Curtis
4 Feb 20
The Hamilton Saltpork & Rind published an op-ed by the Director of an outfit called the Ontario Clean Air Alliance. It was a screed against the use of nuclear power, with the suggestion that power purchased from Hyrdo-Quebec and the construction of "renewable" power generation could make up the difference. Ontario went all-in with nuclearn power generation in the 1960s through the 1980s based on the Canadian designed and built CANDU reactor. The oldest of these are coming to the end of their designed service lives and will have to be replaced within the decade. Ontario eliminated both of its coal-fored power plants about eight years ago, and now relies on hydro-generation, nuclear, and "renewables," which, of course, are backed up by natural gas generators.
For thirty
years I’ve been saying that environmentalists discover problems and then
declare that every practical solution is unacceptable. Angela Bischoff
did not disappoint.
You would
think that the Director of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance would be in favor of
any energy source that didn’t pollute the air. But no. Nuclear
power, which does not pollute the air, is unacceptable. Instead, Bischoff
calls for Ontario to purchase hydro-electric power from Quebec, or to build
more “renewable” generation such as wind and solar.
The trouble
with “renewables” is that they all require natural gas generation as a back-up
power supply, for when the wind isn’t blowing and the solar panels are covered
in snow and darkness. “Renewables” aren’t as pollution-free as Marxist
environmentalists would have you believe. Never mind the production of
carbon dioxide, there is pollution associated with manufacturing and disposing
of the solar panels, to say nothing of the bird-killing power of windmills.
The real
test of the seriousness of an environmentalist is their attitude toward nuclear
power. Those who are dead-set against it aren’t serious as
environmentalists, they are simply Marxists playing the environmental
game. They don’t want answers, they want chaos and economic
dislocation. They hate western economic success and are seeking to
undermine it.
High
technology Ontario should be looking to update and renew its commitment to
clean, reliable, and Canadian nuclear generation.
-30-
Vincent J. Curtis
26 Nov 2019
Perhaps no man was better prepared by
family tradition and training for high command in the Canadian army than Guy
Simonds. Born in 1903 in England into a
military family, Guy came to Victoria, B.C. in 1911 at the age of nine. His father had been a career officer in the
Royal Regiment of Artillery, and he returned to Britain after the outbreak of
World War I.
Guy Simonds enrolled in RMC in 1921 after
coming second in nation-wide entrance exams.
He graduated in 1925 second academically in his class and ranked as best
overall cadet. He was commissioned a 2Lt
in the RCHA. Between 1932 and 1934 he
attended a Long Gunnery Staff course in England, and attended Camberley Staff
college between 1936 and 1937. Promoted
Major in 1937, he returned to RMC as an Associate Professor of Artillery and
instructor of tactics.
When World War II broke out, Simonds was
appointed GSO II (Operations) of the 1st Canadian Infantry Division,
the first formation sent by Canada to Britain.
In June 1940, with invasion imminent, Simonds was appointed CO of the 1St
Field Regiment, RCHA. In November 1940,
after the threat of invasion had passed, Simonds was appointed Commandant of
the Canadian Junior War Staff College, in which he condensed the two-year
Camberley course into 14 weeks to meet the shortage of qualified Canadian staff
officers. Subsequently, he was appointed
GSO I of the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division, then commanded by
Victor Odlum.
Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union in
June, 1941, afforded Simonds the chance to move to a higher staff
position. In August of that year, he was
promoted Acting Brigadier and placed on the staff of 1st Canadian
Corps under Andrew McNaughton and George Pearkes. Later, Harry Crerar came into the picture.
Simonds caught the eye of Bernard
Montgomery for his excellent staff work in Exercise Tiger in May 1942. Simonds was tasked to the planning of
Operation Jupiter, an invasion of northern Norway, and so was not involved in
planning the disastrous raid on Dieppe.
Switching back to a command position, Simonds was appointed GOC 1st
Canadian Infantry Brigade.
January 1943 found Simonds as Chief of
Staff of the 1st Canadian Army under the command of McNaughton. Exercise Spartan of March, 1943 demonstrated
McNaughton’s incompetence as a field commander, and the boy-wonder put it to
him that he step aside as a tactical commander.
A furious McNaughton shipped Simonds to Montgomery, then in
Tunisia. There, Simonds leaned the
Montgomery method of the set-piece battle on an army scale.
Canada sent its 1st Division to
North Africa to participate in the invasion of Sicily. Its commander, Harry Salmon, was killed in a
plane crash, and Montgomery contrived to have Simonds, then just 40, promoted
to Major-General and GOC 1st Canadian Division. Simonds led the division in the Sicily
campaign with determination, and impressed Montgomery as a field commander.
Simonds led 1st Div in the
invasion of Italy in September, 1943. He
fell ill later that month, and was replaced by Chris Vokes. In November, Simonds was appointed GOC 5th
Canadian Armoured Division in Italy, again with Montgomery’s help. Monty wanted to give Simonds seasoning with
tanks.
The activation of the 1st
Canadian Corps gave the lackluster Harry Crerar, then 55, a chance for a field
command, and thus began the poisonous relations between Crerar and
Simonds. Old Crerar was jealous of the
image and publicity the dashing young Simonds was acquiring through his
battlefield successes, the first Canadian successes of the war. Crerar tried to have Simonds sacked and
returned to Canada, claiming he was too ‘high strung’ and doubting his
suitability for command despite his brains, technical knowledge, and
experience. Crerar then deprived 5th
Div of the new equipment meant for it as a means of undermining Simonds.
Montgomery was not about to let Harry
Crerar’s personal jealousies spoil the war effort, and a protégé’s career. Montgomery forbade Crerar from sending
Simonds home in disgrace from Italy.
All this was in prelude to the Normandy
campaign.
-30-
Vincent J. Curtis
1 Feb 20
In a story headlined, "Quebec premier's Muslim support draws hateful Facebook posts" the Canadian Press reported the facts as outlined below. The taint of progressivism coloured the story.
In playing
the progressive game of identity politics and of virtue-signaling, Quebec’s
Premier Francois Legault blundered into a political crossfire. Expressing
sympathy for the Muslim community of Quebec, Legault stated that Quebec was “not
immune from hatred, but its people stand in solidarity with Muslims in the
province.”
Unsurprisingly,
these comments sparked negative reactions. In saying that Quebec was not
immune to hate, Legault implied French Quebeckers, the people who elected him, may be in sympathy with the
motives of a murderer. He also implied that Muslims in the province were
not Quebeckers - but nevertheless Quebeckers stand in solidarity with this
distinct community of people.
The air of
Gallic contempt continued in the response to the responses. Transport
Minister Francois Bonnardel said “some people…need to be better educated….There
is a problem with certain people who dare to think that.” As if to say
that sufficient time spent in a re-education camp would cure adults of their
unprogressive thoughts.
Perhaps a
lack of education is a fault of Quebec’s political class, which seems blind to
the logical implications of their own words and phrases.
People who
have been awake the last twenty years would find many reasons why a Catholic, a Jew, an athetist, and agnostic, and a few others would not stand in blanket solidarity with Muslims
– a community that stands outside Quebec society.
The notion
of racist, prejudiced Quebeckers is maintained in the news coverage, referring
to “hateful” posts. Quebeckers can’t win a contest of identity politics
refereed by progressives.
-30-
Vincent J. Curtis
29 Jan 2020
Minister of Public Safety William Blair issued a press release concerning the Liberal government's forthcoming actions on gun control The details are still unclear, but it may include a ban on "military style assault rifles" and empower municipalities to ban handguns within city limits - constitutionally problematic in Canada where munipalities are creatures of the provincial governments. Blair's press release was published as an op-ed in the Hamilton Spectator on 28 January 2020.
The
contribution by Minster of Public Safety William Blair is just the sort of
thing you’d expect from an ignorant brute. Blair may once have been Chief
of Toronto Police, but that doesn’t mean he knows much about firearms. And
it shows in his arguments.
Take
“military-style assault rifles” as an instance. This expression is a joke
among knowledgeable gun owners, but it continues to play well with the informed
public. The U.S. had an “assault rifle” ban from 1994 to 2004, in which
“assault rifle” was carefully defined because – strictly speaking- assault
rifles were not what were actually being banned. Regardless, the ban was
allowed to lapse because it was found to be ineffective.
Now,
consider the argument that civilianized versions of military rifles have no
place in Canada. The AR-15 platform, for instance, to my personal
knowledge has been sold in Canada since 1972 – nearly half a century. It
was in the civilian market fifteen years before the Canadian Army had adopted the C-7 (the Canadian M-16). Even
Blair complains that Chiefs have been calling for bans “for decades,” which
means such firearms have had places in Canada for decades, half a century at
least. So, the no place argument falls to the ground.
He called
them “powerful guns.” What distinguishes these guns is that they are not
powerful as compared to their military predecessors. Again, Blair either
expresses or plays upon ignorance.
Blair says
these guns “were designed to kill people.” Again, untrue. Guns, in
general, are designed to fire projectiles known as bullets. Whether that
projectile is used to kill a person, an animal, or to punch a hole in a paper
target depends entirely on the skill and intent of the shooter, not the gun.
But what
about “military?” Since the 1870s, militaries and civilians have been
using each other’s small arms for their distinct purposes. The famous
Colt cowboy gun started out as the “single action army.” Millions of surplus Lee-Enfield rifles were released to the general public after both World Wars –
when they were still current military issue. Canada’s Ross rifle, began
as a civilian rifle, was adopted by the Canadian military, and finished off
back in the civilian market.
The AR-15
platform is the most popular rifle in the United States, not only because of
its many qualities, but also because something like it is military issue.
There is also great interest in former Russian military issue firearms, the
Mosin-Nagant and the AK-47. That something like the AR-15 is in current
military use makes it also of interest in the civilian sphere has been the
rule for 150 years at least.
What Blair
doesn’t realize, and isn’t saying, is that there are rifles he is going to
leave alone that are much like the AR-15, but have a lower public profile.
Blair makes
reference to the Liberal government granting municipalities with the power to
ban handguns. This is quite unconstitutional, but never mind.
The point
of this high profile attempt to ban guns is to divert the public’s attention
from failure. It is supposed to make people feel that the government is
doing something to reduce “gun violence.” There is plenty of experience
with these efforts in banning guns that we can learn from in the United States,
and they all show that gun bans don’t work. They may, in fact, be
counter-productive because the criminal are guaranteed never to encounter
effectual resistance.
Stupid
brutes are in charge of Canada’s gun policies. What they propose not
merely makes liars of their predecessors who promised no bans in return for cooperation
by the suspicious but law-abiding (concerning the gun resistration). They engender resistance from the
law-abiding. It is a massive distraction from the failures of their other
policies. There is no accountability. When it is discovered how
useless and harmful this gun-ban is, they’ll be resting on their pensions
having created great distrust of government among the most law-abiding, cost
the taxpayer a billion dollars, and achieved nothing good.
-30-
