Vincent J. Curtis
31 Mar 20
I did not
expect the Hannon Times to reprint an editorial of the Beijing People’s Daily as
one of its own, but there it is.
Justin
Trudeau succored China with Canada’s now desperately needed reserves of medical
PPE, after the WHO warned the world of the coming calamity. But we’re
supposed to believe that Justin’s critics are with merit because China is so
grateful. And now China is repaying our generosity by offering
help in return. Offering! How nice! When is that help
supposed to get here – July? The editorial didn’t say.
The
communist Chinese government doesn’t feel gratitude. They recognize fools
and weakness, and know how to exploit it.
The
communist Chinese regime lied about the nature and scale of the Wuhan outbreak
when the world needed that information most. And it’s still lying.
That lying put the rest of the world in danger, but the Chinese regime doesn’t
care. All they care about is the survival of their regime, which is why
they lied. They bungled the handling of the initial outbreak because they
had to lie to themselves about the problem until it could no longer be ignored.
The
communist Chinese government is utterly illegitimate, and even they know
it. They fear revolution. They cannot afford to look incompetent,
because competence is their only justification for holding on to power.
Inexplicably,
some westerners still hold romantic notions about communist governments, as
demonstrated by Trudeau’s actions and the Times' editorial. Believe
me, the Chinese government is comprised of cold-blooded killers – just ask the
doctors in Wuhan who first spread the word to the outside world – if you can
find them.
China can
collect medical PPE domestically by taking it from regions they need to keep
oppressed. The communists send it to Canada as “repayment.” Stalin worked
that way in the 1930s with food. China is even now looking to expand its power and
influence in the Third World by offering “help” to those countries to deal with
the virus. A Faustian bargain, at best, and entirely consistent with
China’s “Belt and Road Initiative” to replace the U.S. as the dominant world
power.
The point
here is that lefties remain stupid, because there’s no fixing stupid.
Others like Chinese money. It was a mistake sending precious reserves to
China when we were going to need it here. Criticism of Trudeau’s folly
and weakness is entirely justified. It was a mistake to continue
receiving flights from China until the end of March. Maybe it was
romantic stupidity or maybe it was fear that led Trudeau to succor China, but
to attack Trudeau’s critics as being without merit makes one wonder about the
power and influence of the Chinese government in Canadian businesses.
-30-
Vincent J. Curtis
29 Mar 20
One of the
lessons we learned, or relearned, from our experience with the pandemic is the
value of single-use plastics. Besides economy and convenience, single use
plastics are hygienic. Reusable bags and containers are not.
A new
progressive-inspired hobby horse is the banning of single use plastics because
they pollute the oceans. To promote this hobby-horse, what is often
suppressed is the content and geographic sources of this pollution. It is
not widely admitted that a large proportion of the plastics found in the ocean
is abandoned fishing gear, and that the greatest sources of ocean pollution are
ten rivers that empty into the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
Canada does
not, as a practical matter, dispose of its municipal waste into the
ocean. If we did, the St. Lawrence River would be the greatest carrier of
that pollution, and the Gulf of St. Lawrence would be one of the most polluted bodies of
water in the world. But it isn’t.
None of
these facts mattered when Prime Minister Trudeau, thoughtless of hygiene,
decided upon the policy of banning single use plastics. Canada’s banning
of single-use plastics would somehow halt the abandonment of fishing gear and
stop the flow of plastics into the Indian and Pacific Oceans. This must
be what progressives call “following the science.” Others would call it
progressive narcissism.
Hopefully,
our experience with this pandemic will cause the Trudeau government to rethink
its position on the use of hygienic, single-use plastics.
-30-
Vincent J. Curtis
27 Mar 20
The
worst-case forecasts of coronavirus infection- and death rates, which were
initially offered, are now seen as being extremely high. With more
experience and data coming in, the projections are becoming more realistic and
reliable. But how could the initial forecasts have been so wrong?
The
mathematical modelling of pandemics is fairly straightforward – to a
mathematician. The model is pretty rigorous, so what could go
wrong? Like all models that are solutions to differential equations, the
models are a general solution and produce what is called a “family” of
curves. Each individual member of the family is distinguished from the
others by the values of the parameters and coefficients of the function, of the
general solution. If you put in the wrong numbers, the curve you get does
not correspond to physical reality, and the forecast is “wrong.”. As
matters have progressed, better data is coming in and so the more realistic
values being used and the pandemic forecasts are becoming more accurate – more
realistic.
It is worth
comparing what we are seeing with the mathematics and forecasts of the progress
of the pandemic with the mathematics and forecasts of global warming. The
mathematical modelling of pandemics is straightforward, but the modelling of
global temperatures is not. We understand a lot about the spread of
pandemics, and have numerous examples in the past to compare the models
to. But we lack good, historical temperature data from around the world,
and even today vast swaths of the globe report no temperature data at
all. We have no historical thermometric data around the time of the
medieval warm period or the little ice age to help study our models. We
simply do not know why theese occurred, which means the climate models may not
account for all the variables.
The
mathematics of forecasting the progress of pandemics is reliable, while the
mathematics of modelling climate temperatures is crude and empirical – to say
nothing of the problem of picking the right coefficient and parametric values
to get the curve that corresponds to physical reality.
When the climate models came out forecasting catastrophe, my first reaction was
“that’s interesting, worth more research, but too crude to base large decisions
upon.” However, politics took over from the science. It was as
though a fragment of thought answered the prayers of a political
movement. That fragment was seized upon as gospel truth; we simply
couldn’t risk this forecast of the future being wrong, and therefore couldn’t
be doubted. Immediately, the focus turned away from the models, however
crude, to the economic prescriptions demanded by the movement - all of which
tended to the destruction of western economies. Kind of like what we are
seeing during the pandemic.
After
twenty-five years of experience, we now see that all the climate models were
extreme. They all forecasted temperature increases much higher than the
actually observed measurements. Given the empirical nature of the models,
we cannot tell if there is a fundamental flaw with the underlying mathematics
or just with the selection of the values for the coefficients and parameters of
the models. Because of the extreme politics surrounding global warming,
it is impossible for a dispassionate review of the entire theoretical basis for
modelling global temperatures on a long-term basis. Too many careers and
reputations are at stake in the scientific community itself.
Looking
back to 1995 and comparing the forecasts at that time to actual events, it is
obvious that global warming skepticism was completely justified. And
since nothing has changed on the climate alarmism side, skepticism is more
amply justified today, having been proven right for the last quarter century.
Understanding
the mathematical modelling of the progress of a pandemic proves informative
on another major issue of today; the modelling of climate.
-30-
Vincent J. Curtis
26 Mar 20
No one can
be more indignant and a spectacle of self-righteousness than a progressive
caught with her pants down. Such is the case with Canada’s Minster of
Castigation and International Development Karina Gould. Gould was
defending Canada’s allocation of $50 million to help poor countries riddled
with malaria, measles, and even Ebola, to cope with the coronavirus.
Oddly,
China is on that list of poor countries needing Canada’s assistance. In
mid-February, after the WHO warned the world to batten down the hatches
against the coming pandemic, the Trudeau government sent China sixteen tonnes
of medical personal protective equipment from our own strategic stockpile,
equipment we sorely need now. China is the country where this equipment
is made. I wonder if China considers it a gift or a return for credit.
In a case
of his left hand not knowing what his far-left hand is doing, Trudeau didn’t
halt travelling from China to Canada until March 23rd. Besides
sending China our medical PPE, we continued to accept, potentially, some of
their coronavirus seedlings to care for. We can’t be accused of racism or
inhumanity in the midst of a crisis now, can we?
Minister
Gould replied with righteous blather when asked to explain why Canada, with its $50 million grant money, was, in
effect, increasing the number of bidders for the same supply of scarce
resources. All that does is drive up the price. It’s all part of
“our enlightened self-interest” assured Minister Gould, and we place ourselves
at risk if we’re not thinking about the world’s poorest and most vulnerable, she says.
Speaking of
the most vulnerable, Minister Gould’s deepest concern is found in her assurance
that the allotment of money is not being diverted from “helping improve sexual
and reproductive health of girls and women,” which is the verbose way of saying
abortion. Such is her “fierce commitment” to preserve development and
humanitarian programs. Minister Gould was not asked why continue paying
for abortion when simply letting these pandemics rip gets the same job done free of charge.
The Trudeau
government miscalculates a lot, but they are fierce in defending themselves,
especially when they can feel that cold draft in the nether regions.
-30-
Vincent J. Curtis
25 Mar 20
The late
Senator Eugene Forsey, an expert on the Canadian constitution, was rolling in
his grave. Somewhere, the severed head of King Charles I of England was
grinning in satisfaction. The government of Justin Trudeau was asking
parliament to be granted the powers that Charles I was beheaded for exercising.
Where the
hell was the Department of Justice? It is supposed to supervise the
drafting of legislation, and say “you can’t do that!” The Minister of
Justice ought to have resigned.
Section 2
of the original COVID-19 emergency legislation would have granted the Trudeau
government full powers, without further reference to parliament, to raise
taxes, spend money, and borrow money on the credit of Canada as it saw fit for
the next year and nine months. Charles I tried something like that, paid
the ultimate price for it; and his beheading established a constitutional
precedent that holds to this day.
It is one
thing to ask for emergency powers for a month or two, but to ask for a year and
nine month raises the question of what parliament was going to be doing over
that time – nothing? Did Trudeau really think that the country couldn’t
risk having a debate in parliament over a new tax or spend measure four or six
months from now? What was Trudeau planning? A Nancy
Pelosi like jamming of hobby-horses into an emergency measures bill?
Never let a good crisis go to waste!
Luckily,
the bill passed the House without Section 2. When the dust settles, there
needs to be a reckoning with the Department of Justice, which is supposed to
uphold law and constitutional precedent, and protect the government - and us -
from such mistakes - or power grabs.
The price
of freedom is eternal vigilance.
-30-
Vincent J. Curtis
24 Mar 20
If
progressives were serious about maintaining social distancing, they would recommend the
smoking of cigars.
The viruses
of tyranny and stupidity have deeply infected today’s progressives. We
have progressives who recommend the emptying of our jails to protect the
prisoners from the coronavirus, and Minister of Health Hajdu who wants to throw
people into jail for violating her orders to maintain social distancing.
Because
history is no longer taught in school, we have one or more generations that do
not know of the legal and constitutional workings that we are heir to.
King Charles I was beheaded for doing what Prime Minster Trudeau proposes to do
– tax and spend without reference to parliament. Never mind the excuses
and justification, King Charles had his too.
The reason
why we have a parliamentary democracy today is that the power of the purse lay
with the House of Commons. That power, in turn, is the legacy of the
feudal customs of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes which prohibited the king from
raising taxes beyond feudal custom without the consent of the people. The
king had his money, and the people theirs. Since the thirteenth century,
the consent of the people was expressed through the House of Commons. Mr.
Trudeau would casually do away with that custom.
It was the
power of the purse that gradually wrested power from the executive king
personally and placed it in a cabinet of parliamentary advisors to the king,
advisors who commanded a majority in the House of Commons. It is the
executive power of the King that the cabinet – the King’s Ministers –
exercises. But no one must forget that taxing and spending can only be
done by the consent of parliament as a whole, not on the say so of a
parliamentary steering committee, one that doesn’t even happen to hold a
majority in the House of Commons at the moment.
Today's Hannon Times' editorial recommendation of public shaming of scoffers is also
ahistoric. It follows more the pattern of the Chinese Red Guards than it
does anything in British or Canadian history. English-speaking people
going back to the Germanic tribes never regarded themselves as an ant-hill; we
always regarded ourselves as individuals with individual liberty. So that
should remain, whatever emergency or panic can be whipped up by authorities!
The
liberties and rights of the people are at greatest risk whenever those with
power think they can justify and get away with violating them. Those
rights include the right to be governed by a parliament, not merely by
executive power. And public shaming be damned.
-30-
Vincent J. Curtis
23 Mar 20
In a disjointed and lackluster column in today's Hannon Times, Geoffrey Stevens demonstrates declining
skills as a propagandist. If he knew what he was talking about, he would
be dangerous; but he doesn’t, and isn’t. He makes the usual demands of
progressivism, expresses his snobbish distain for Donald Trump, and mixes in a
curious tincture of protection of the communist Chinese regime in the column.
Progressivism
can be summed up briefly: rule by experts, and the moral equivalent of war.
Both of these are what Stevens demands for dealing with the pandemic. The
pandemic has quickly brought about the condition of the moral equivalent of
war. The rule by experts part comes from his “listen to the scientists”
and the “Trump is a science denier” blather. If Stevens genuinely
believed in what he says, he would shut up and listen to me.
I’ve been a
working research scientist for practically my entire career, and, among other
things, have disputed vigorously the “man-caused global warming” nonsense since
the beginning. My article laughing at the just concluded Kyoto Accord was
published in 1996, and since then I have seen all manner of dire forecasts
prove to be completely wrong.
You see,
science does not make judgements, particularly moral judgements. All
science does is discover and organize facts. The question of what to do
about those facts, the pandemic in this case, requires judgements about
economics, diplomacy, and moral questions. Science provides some, but not
all, facts on which to make judgements in those realms. If the
politicians surrendered their power and roles to scientists, those scientists
would be acting, not as scientists, but as politicians making political
decisions! When Minister Hajdu threatens to jail scoffers of her orders,
is she acting as a scientist or a political thug? (Just an example.)
Stevens is
at pains to protect the communist Chinese regime from criticism. The
Spanish flu is now, the “so-called ‘Spanish’ flu,’” which renders the expressions
Wuhan virus or Chinese virus as signs of racism – just as the Chinese regime
wants. He said “the world was caught flat-footed,,,in large measure
because decision-makers ignored or downplayed the warnings of
scientists.” If Stevens had said “China” instead of world, he would be
right. And the Chinese regime, afraid of its own illegitimacy, lied to
the world about the explosion growing in its midst. Nevertheless, Trump
closed travel from China to a chorus of ‘xenophobe’ and ‘racist’ on the day after
his impeachment trial ended. Then, he closed travel from Europe after
those oh-so-PC countries let themselves be thoroughly seeded with infected
cases - but it’s Trump who’s the bad guy.
Meanwhile,
the Trump Administration has been closely guided by its experts in its policy
decisions. A joint committee of experts and policy makers headed by
Vice-President Pence meets daily and recommends action. Dr. Fauci has
stated publically that President Trump closely follows the recommendations of
the committee and usually asks many penetrating questions after being
briefed. Other than surrendering their political offices to unelected
agency heads, the Trump Administration is doing what it was elected to
do. Bleating about ‘listening to the scientists’ only proves that Stevens
hasn’t been paying attention.
Steven’s
column was practically ritualistic. But when you apply his rubric and
prayers to the actual facts, he proves to be more an out-of-touch propagandist
than a journalist.
-30-
