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-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A test of gullibility

Vincent J. Curtis

15 May 24

RE: Last summer was the warmest in 2,000 years, records show. AP story by Seth Borenstein. The Hamilton Spectator 15 May 24.

The headline and story were actually tests of gullibility: if you believed them, you’re gullible.  They can’t possibly know what they claim to know.

First, there are no temperature records that go back 2,000 years; and there are no trees scattered around the world that are 2,000 years old.

Second, there is no theory that connects tree-ring thickness to average annual temperature. What kind of tree these “researchers” relied on goes unstated.  Anyone who’s actually seen a tree-ring, knows that they can vary considerably in thickness as you trace it around the trunk.

Third, before the hockey stick graph, a theory was proposed (DA Graybill & SB Idso 1993) that CO2 fertilization could thicken tree rings: and the very same tree ring data were used in 1998 to make the famous hockey-stick graph, which is based on temperature!

Lastly, what was going on 2,000 years ago that made it hotter than last summer?

These alleged studies are all faked to wipe from memory the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, the Dark Ages cold period and the Little Ice Age to protect the hockey stick graph, which doesn’t show them.

So, how gullible were you?

-30-

They still hate Harris

Vincent J. Curtis

13 May 24

RE: ‘Common sense’ was anything but. Editorial written by John Cartwright, Chair of the Council of Canadians. The Hamilton Spectator 13 May 24

When the Left fixes its hate on someone, that hate is undying.  The Left fixed its hate on former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, and to this day it can’t let it go, as the article written by the Chair of the pretentiously named “Council of Canadians” amply demonstrates.

Harris became hated by the Left because he proved that taxes could be lowered, government could be made smaller, and budgets could be balanced; and to the Left that demonstration is an unforgivable crime, for it explodes all their myths of government.  That Cartwright still goes out of his way to slime Mike Harris only proves that Harris and his “Common Sense Revolution” are consequential to this day.

Although they are different men, in different times, and in different levels of government, Pierre Poilievre and Mike Harris are confounded together from their common phraseology of common sense government; and the alleged evils of one are smeared on the other by the Chair of the Council of Canadians, out of fear that treasured myths may get busted again.

The hatred of the Left endures forever; just as their errors never get admitted.

-30-

The psychological sadism of climate nuttery

The psychological cruelty of climate nuttery

Vincent J. Curtis

13 May 24

RE: Climate anxiety is more common than you think. Op-ed by Maliha Ibrahim, Trevor Lehmann, and Natalie Thomas.  Ibrahim is a professor of counselling psychology at Yorkville University and member of the Climate Psychology Alliance – North America, Canada Chapter.  Lehmann is a career counsellor and founding chair of the Climate -Informed Counselling and Psychotherapy Association. Thomas is a professor in the college of arts at the university of Guelph-Humber, and Conestoga College. The Hamilton Spectator 13 May 24.

(To summarize the above credentialled pretentiousness: they’re activists, and therefore untrustworthy.)

Nobody suffers from “climate anxiety” while taking a trip to Florida.  Many sane people from northern climes move to Florida.  People go to Florida from colder climates for the warmer climate offered by Florida.  So, how could “climate anxiety” arise in people as a result of a warmer climate?

It turns out, if you read the article, that it’s the fearmongering over climate change that causes “climate anxiety.”  “The impacts of climate change are profound, affecting everything from extreme weather events to changing ecosystems, to volatility on farms (what?) and in food production” they say.  None of this is true, of course, but such claims can alarm the uninformed, and I can imagine a constant diet of this fearmongering nonsense could cause anxiety in the young.

To the extent that, since 1979, there’s any warming at all, it is found in milder winters and in the high latitudes.

It’s not climate change per se that’s causing anxiety because, for practical purposes, it’s not detectible by people; it’s the fearmongering by the psychological sadists of the climate-nutter movement that’s responsible.  And if you go deeper, the anxiety is found among people who are pre-disposed to say they have it in the first place.

-30-

Microplastic dust: the cause du jour

Vincent J. Curtis

6 May 24

RE: Microplastics: a mega problem. Op ed by Tricia Clarkson, who is co-chair of the Peterborough Alliance for Climate Action.

That a story on microplastic dust would be written by the head of a “climate action” committee merely proves that “microplastics!” is replacing climate as the woke-progressive cause du jour.  She can claim that “scientists are finding these harmful fragments in every part of our bodies” all she likes, but it’s still bunkum. She can claim that some “study” found heart disease patients with microplastics in the blood vessels on either side of their necks” (which would be in the carotid arteries) and this too is bunkum. And all the rest about microplastic dust particles raining down on us and in our drinking water.

If microplastic dust particles existed, they would refract light. We could see them, just as we see ordinary dust; we could see white particles in water, floating on top, on the bottom of the container, or turning the clear water murky, depending upon the density of the plastic in question.  Our bodies do not absorb indigestible solid particles like dust: they pass out the digestive tract unabsorbed. If somehow microplastic particles were floating around the bloodstream like tiny blood clots, they would immediately induce strokes and thrombosis whenever they blocked a capillary.  Yet, none of this is observed.  And never mind that the mechanism by which microplastics are created in such enormous volumes remains a mystery.

Microplastics is just the latest in a long line of scares in the attempt to force modern society to stop using wonderful, healthy, and inexpensive modern materials.

-30-