Don’t worry: be happy!

Vincent J. Curtis

28 June 24

RE: Canada’s wildfires caused four times more emissions than planes in 2023. AP story. The Hamilton Spectator 28 June 24.

At 2,980 MT of CO2 emitted by Canada’s burning forests in 2023, a more relevant comparison is that this is four times Canada’s annual emission of CO2 from all sources.  Despite Canada’s best efforts at reducing the country’s CO2 footprint, our forests betrayed us!

Luckily, none of this matters. While CO2 is, indeed, a “heat-trapping” gas, its effectiveness in trapping heat is exhausted by about 100 ppm concentration. Those familiar with the Beer-Lambert law will understand the logarithmic rise in absorption with linear rise in concentration. Above 100 ppm, the surplus CO2 is essentially serving as nothing but plant food.  A doubling of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm will result in a 0.72ºC in global temperature, which presently averages about 14.5ºC.

What isn’t in the news are fires in Western Canada.  That’s because, unlike last year, this year has been cool, and rain has been plentiful. Those cries last year of “climate change” proved to be nothing but exercises in the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The climate must have changed back, which vitiates the fear-mongering of climate change.

Despite all the fear-mongering, the planet is not headed for a “tipping-point,” and all these efforts by Canada to reduce the country’s carbon footprint are wastes of time and of limited financial resources.

-30-

He speak with forked tongue

Vincent J. Curtis

14 June 24

RE: I spoke our language for those who could not. Op-ed by Sol Mamakwa the Hamilton Spectator 14 June 24.

Further proof that no good deed goes unpunished can be found in the article written by NDP MLA Sol Mamakwa. After being granted the privilege of speaking neither in English nor French in the Ontario legislature, he pens this article of extreme ingratitude laced with racism and falsehoods.

He calls Ontarians “settlers” who unjustly and unlawfully claimed “our lands” as theirs. In fact, Treaty 3, signed at Lake of the Woods in 1873, was made with the Saulteaux Anishinaabe by the Crown and covers the very area he represents. He wouldn’t be sitting in the Ontario legislature but for Treaty 3.  His terra nullius claim is rubbish: it was never applied to British North America, as both the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the success of the Hudson’s Bay Company (founded 1670) prove.  That theory may have been argued in Australia, but never here.

The rest of his piece is but a hash of aboriginal racism, grievance mongering, and victim fantasies, which still strangely resonates in Canada.

He spoiled his effort at reconciliation with an unwonted and gratuitous attack on those who were born here.  Oh, and – a little lesson in civics – he spoke in the Ontario legislature, not “in the settler government,” as he wrote.

-30-

Parent your children

Vincent J. Curtis

12 June 24

RE: One-quarter of public schools are without food programs. The Hamilton Spectator new item. 12 June 24.

With breathless astonishment Kate McCullough reports that a quarter of Hamilton schools are without a nutrition program! (What’s a “nutrition program”?  Is that a faux-sophisticated way of saying a ‘lunch’ program?)

Twenty years ago, these were unheard-of.  It was simply expected that parents would feed their own children.  About fifteen years ago, school lunches came to be provided out of the charity of volunteers, after their own children began asking for extra food to give to classmates who came regularly to school without lunch.  And so it spread; and became official.  It became okay for parents to send their kids to school expecting the charity (or the taxes) of other people to fulfill a requirement of parenting that they neglected.

Now, we’re at the stage where it’s expected that schools take over a basic requirement of parenting, and it’s considered shocking and neglectful when schools don’t.  The Federal government is jumping in with both feet in this matter, albeit for political gain, but people ought to worry that the government is now taking over the parenting of your children.

Before 1984 truly comes to Canada, we’ve got to get the government out of the parenting business.  If “nutrition” programs are still needed here and there, let it revert to private volunteers; and maybe the neglectful parents should be privately reminded of their responsibilities.

-30-

Learning tactics

Vincent J. Curtis

9 June 24

RE: Muslims shouldn’t have to fear cars. Op-ed by Steven Zhou. The Hamilton Spectator 8 June 24

It is both appalling and insulting that the Spectator should run an op-ed by an Islamic apologist complaining about how Muslims in Canada shouldn’t have to fear being run over by a car.  From whom do you think this tactic was learned?

The tactic of Islamic extremists running down and killing people in Western countries was practiced particularly in the period from 2016 to 2019, and led to the bollardization of many major Western cities. A quick trip down memory lane discovered the following, in no particular order:

New Yor City, Oct 31, 2017: 8 people killed and 11 injured after an Islamic extremist ran them down in a rented truck.

Nice, Italy, Jan 5, 2016: Islamic State claims responsibility for truck attack

Barcelona, Spain, Aug 17, 2017:13 killed as van rams crowds in Las Rambles

London: March 2017: 4 killed on Westminster Bridge after Islamic extremist runs them down, then jumps out and kills police officer with a knife.

The tactic of killing with a vehicle became a standard method of expressing one’s extremist views, thanks to the Islamic State.  For that reason, it ill behooves a Muslim apologist to complain in such a self-pitying way of the tactic being used against Muslims and their sympathizers.

The insulting aspect to the op-ed is the assumption that no one would remember how this all started.  What goes around, comes around.

-30-

Fighting Swords

Vincent J. Curtis

29 Sept 23

Our esteemed Federal government has been giving away the stores to Ukraine to help them fight their war with Russia.  Could this mean that, with all of the old inventory being gone, newly manufactured and modern replacements are coming soon?  Not on your life, fella!  The Federal government chopped a billion from the defense budget, and slowed defense purchases.  I’ll bet Justin has even given away the last of our 78 year old, packed-in-original-grease Inglis High Powers. With our artillery given away, tanks, anti-tank weapons, what’s left to acquire that’s war-like, yet inexpensive?

The answer is new fighting swords.  Yes, the side-arm of centuries: that’s what the army is down to, and the designs we have haven’t been updated since 1897; when Victoria was queen.  They’ve had excuses for not updating sword design for over a century, what with machine guns, tanks, and sniper scopes and all, but it’s high time the Canadian army got an update and re-supply of fighting swords!

The dawn of modern era of sword design may be said to be in the 9^th century AD, during the migration period.  The big development of that time was the making of crucible steel.  This was a qualitative leap in blade metallurgy from pattern-welded wrought iron, and one of the first, and most famous, makers of crucible steel swords was Ulfberht, who inlaid his name into his blades as a brand of quality.  Ulfberht sold to everyone: Vikings, Franks, Thuringians, Goths, Saxons, you name it.  Ulfberht swords have been found all over Europe.

After the development of real steel, blade design became the dominant concern.  Soldiers were protected with shields, bucklers, chainmail, and improving body armour.  By the time of Agincourt, knights were well protected with articulated steel armour, and were rather hard to kill.  Blades became more sharply pointed to get into the vulnerable chinks in the knight’s armour.  Everett Oakshott developed a classification scheme of blades showing their gradual evolution from the 8^th to 15^th centuries as responses to changing battle conditions.

The dramatic improvement in sword design, quality, and manufacturing was from the latter part of the 18^th century to the beginning of the 20^th, following the development of steam powered forging hammers and industrial revolution scale, and -quality, steel manufacturing.  By then, sword makers had a lot of experience with blade design and hilt development; and design of swords for specialized purposes became common: falchions, rapiers, and spadroons being examples.  There was a lot of competition.  Besides Britain, there was France, the Austrian Empire, Italy, and Prussia in Europe.  Europe had only concluded the Seven Years War in 1763, and was about to enter the period of the Napoleonic Wars.

The modern era of British sword design I’m going to date from 1788, with the development of the 1788 Heavy Cavalry sword.  It has a well-designed basket hilt that protected the hand as well as a Highland basket hilt does, but without restricting hand movement.  In addition, it has probably the best-ever blade design.  The blade is long, at 38”; it is a backsword blade for half its length, and finishes as a narrowing broadsword (i.e. doubled edged) with a spear point.  (A backsword is a blade with only one edge.)

A Highland broadsword is double-edged from the end of the ricasso to the tip, ending in a spear point, with a characteristic Highland basket hilt, excellent for hand protection, but notorious for restricting hand movement.  (A ricasso is the unsharpened blade that enters the hilt.)

The 1788 was replaced with two of the most famous British sword designs ever: the 1796 Pattern Light Cavalry Sabre, and the 1796 pattern Heavy Cavalry Sword.  (A sabre, in British parlance, is a single-edged sword with a curved blade.)  The 1796 Light Cavalry sabre is famous to this day as the best “cutter” ever. It was designed for one purpose: hacking, which it does it exceptionally well; and the blade remained in British service in India until the end of the 19^th century.

 

The 1796 British Light Cavalry sabre was designed on the theory that British trooper-recruits had never ridden a horse before, and it would take years to develop fencing skills on horseback; hence, the weapon they would be given had to be easy to master, congenial to their habits, and excellent at what it did; and that was hacking at the enemy in close combat.

The 1796 pattern Heavy Cavalry sword, a pallasch, is copy of the very fashionable Austrian heavy cavalry sword of 1769. The 1796 Heavy is a long, 35” backsword blade with a hatchet tip, which made it poor at thrusting, or “giving point.”  It had good hand protection; so much so that it was a common field expedient modification to remove part of the hand guard for easier wearing.  At Waterloo, orders were issued to grind the top of the blade back of the tip, changing the hatchet point into a spear point; and Sgt Charles Ewart of the Scots Greys used one of these to capture an Eagle standard.  Hacking and stabbing, he killed three in seizing the standard.

“One made a thrust at my groin, I parried him off and cut him down through the head. A lancer came at me - I threw the lance off by my right side and cut him through the chin and upwards through the teeth. Next, a foot soldier fired at me and then charged me with his bayonet which I also had the good luck to parry, and then I cut him down through the head.”

The remainder of the 19^th century saw blade design follow fashions, and hilt design improve to combine hand protection with comfort for wear and use.  The 1796 Light Cavalry Sabre was officially replaced with the 1822 Pattern, which reduced the curvature, and reformed the tip so that it was better at thrusting.  The heavy cavalry was redesigned for better thrusting, and with a different hilt.  Infantry officers were given a new blade design in 1845, followed, in 1892, by the current blade design.  Changes were made also in hilt design, and the current hilt was settled upon in 1897; putting the 1897 hilt on the 1892 blade made the 1897 pattern Infantry officer’s sword.

The summit of British sword design was reached in the 1890s.  The infantry officer’s sword of 1897 remains the standard design of Britain and Canada today.  It is a simple blade, designed to give point only, and nothing else.  The cavalry swords became little more than short lances: used for giving point at the speed of horse, and nothing else.  Beginning in the Mexican-American War of 1846-48, revolvers became a standard battle weapon in the cavalry; Winston Churchill used his Mauser 1896 “Broom handle”, in place of a lance, during the charge of the 21^st Lancers at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898.

So, what’s there to improve? The improvement is to get infantry officers’ swords away from the ceremonial and back to a fighting weapon.  A real sword aficionado hit upon what could be the all-time best fighting blade design: the Wilkinson CJM Pattern.

The CJM, whose initials could be those of Charles J. Mitchell, decided that the 1788 Pattern sword was the best design; but at 38” it was too long for fencing on foot, which officers sometimes had to do in the days of the bayonetted rifle. CJM had the blade scaled to a nimble 33”, but kept the original 1788 basket hilt, as offering the best hand protection.  He had Wilkinson Sword custom make several of these “CJM” pattern swords.  A surviving example has a 1897 pattern steel scroll hilt on a CJM blade, which is one of the two preferred designs.  The other possible hilt is the cavalry three-bar hilt.

There it is: the best fighting sword for infantry officers and dragoons fighting on foot is the CJM pattern blade with a 1897 scroll hilt or an 1912 three bar cavalry hilt.

-30-