Sic Semper GOP

[Vandiablo]

You may have heard of our governor, who forgot to mention that little matter of slavery when he announced Conferate History Month recently. Oopsie.

More recently, you may have heard of our attorney-general Ken, who tried to supplant our breast-bared state seal with a more modest one. I think it was on pins that he gave out to his staff. (His version is actually an older version of the seal, and it actually looks cooler than the current one -- but the "current" one is over 200 years old and was designed by a group that included prominent Virginians such as George Mason. The current breast is very 2-dimensional, basically looks like a one-eyed smilie .) so it's hard (is it cold in here?) to imagine it being the source of any breast-induced emotions except in the most adolescent of males (ahem) or the most sanctimonious of Morals Police.)

So, what else is this attorney-general up to??

Something much worse...

As Courtney Stuart first reported last week in Charlottesville's The Hook, Cuccinelli's office quietly filed a civil investigative demand (or CID, which is basically a subpoena) with the University of Virginia on April 23, giving the school 30 days to produce more than 10 years' worth of documents related to the state-funded research of a former faculty member, Michael Mann. Operating under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, the CID seeks from the university, among other things, "any correspondence, messages or emails" to or from Mann and 40 named climate scientists; any documents sent to or from Mann that reference any of those 40 scientists; and any "documents, things or data" submitted in support of any of five different grant applications that amounted, in total, to almost $500,000. The university is also expected to turn over "any and all emails or pieces of correspondence from or to Dr. Michael Mann since he left the University of Virginia."

(link)

Dr. Mann is a co-author of the famous/infamous climate-change "hockey stick".

Sounds to me like Ken thinks this climate change hubbub is a concoction by a cabal of the elite.

U-Va has powerful friends, both liberal and conservative, so this should be interesting.

I see this as both politically-based badgering intended to intimidate, and as an attempt by Ken to further himself by attacking an "enemy" of the conservative base.

Have you no shame, sir? Must you embarass Virginia further?

[kandrathe]

You may have heard of our governor, who forgot to mention that little matter of slavery when he announced Conferate History Month recently. Oopsie.

I have heard of Robert C. Byrd.

Speaking as a Yankee (or perhaps in Byrd's language, a white n----- <-- I can't bring myself to even use that word), I actually think the Civil War was an inevitable clash between the industrial and agrarian regions of the early US. I would consider it a given that slavery would provide a natural rift large enough to divide the continent. It was already held in high contempt by a large part of the population, was largely ignored, and put off, or worse, codified by the early American confederation legal documents. Secession was the only possible way the southern states could retain their monetary and political power, as the nation expanded westward being populated by rapid immigration. This created an anti-slavery majority in the United States further diluting each states legislative power, namely the southern slave states. However, had the southern states originally formed a separate union, the clash of escaped slaves, anti-slave activities (raids to free slaves), and possible embargoes of southern products would probably have also instigated a war between the northern and southern states. Ultimately, the "shame" of southern secession was that earlier politicians continually put off making the hard decision of ending slavery 100 years earlier. The entire nations shame is that we allowed it to take a civil war, a destruction of state sovereignty and a huge death toll to end what was an obvious moral wrong to a large majority of the nation, even the south. What is an even greater shame for the entire nation, is how racism, bigotry and injustice are allowed to fester even up to this day. We are slowly crushing it, and achieving reconciliation, but it has taken far too long already and is practiced by people of many political persuasions and many skin tones. It shows how impotent force is to change people's minds, whether it be done with guns or laws.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . Conferate . . .

"Pat, I'd like a 'd'"
"Now, Pat, I'd like to buy an 'e'"

Ah, that ethanol. It's not just keys it causes you to lose.

. . . breast-bared state seal . . .

I didn't know there was a Virginia seal. I know there's a California seal, they're forever coming up here to Seattle and stealing our fish. But I don't see what the big deal is. Pretty much every seal I've ever seen has been bare breasted.

Sounds to me like Ken thinks this climate change hubbub is a concoction by a cabal of the elite.

You are missing the point. He took government money and failed to 'prove' the preconceptions and desired conclusions of the government. Silly him, actually thinking he was being funded to search for the unbiased truth. He obviously didn't pay attention in history class, specifically that of Rome in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, Germany in the 1930s and '40s, and the USSR in the '40s and '50s.

Have you no shame, sir? Must you embarass Virginia further?

No. Yes.

--Pete

[DeeBye]

Hi,I know there's a California seal, they're forever coming up here to Seattle and stealing our fish.

Up here in Canada we have a way of dealing with seals.

[LavCat]

Trade you governors. You can even keep the attorney-general. We have a sheriff the next county over who was just indicted. You can have her too.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I actually think the Civil War was an inevitable clash between the industrial and agrarian regions of the early US. I would consider it a given that slavery would provide a natural rift large enough to divide the continent.

Indeed, those that study history beyond the PC pap taught in K-12 know that slavery was not the only issue dividing the North and South. But, perhaps, it was the only issue visceral enough to actually cause a war. After all, the Union was restored, the differences remained (with the addition of the bitterness caused by the war), and yet there hasn't been another attempt as secession.

Ultimately, the "shame" of southern secession was that earlier politicians continually put off making the hard decision of ending slavery 100 years earlier.

It was hoped that slavery would fade away over time. And it was, until the cotton gin made it very profitable.

What is an even greater shame for the entire nation, is how racism, bigotry and injustice are allowed to fester even up to this day.

"Allowed"? Right. That statement is so wrong in so many ways. Clay Jenkinson (who portrays historic characters, most notably T. Jefferson) has pointed out that, with a gun, you can force a man to chapel but you can't make him a Lutheran -- at most, you can make him a hypocrite.

--Pete

[LavCat]

It was hoped that slavery would fade away over time. And it was, until the cotton gin made it very profitable.

Let it not be said that one cannot learn something from the lurker lounge. I had always thought (and probably had been taught) that the invention of the cotton gin made slavery *less* profitable, due to much less labor required for cleaning cotton. I sit corrected.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I had always thought (and probably had been taught) that the invention of the cotton gin made slavery *less* profitable, due to much less labor required for cleaning cotton.

Yes, cleaning cotton (the technical term is 'carding', IIRC) became much faster with the gin. Because of the large number of people it took to pick the cotton and then card it, cotton was a minor crop. When the carding bottleneck was broken, cotton became 'king', large plantations become profitable, and slavery became 'necessary'.

England had a near insatiable appetite for cotton, and in turn had an almost unlimited supply of manufactured products. The industrializing North wanted both the cotton and the markets. That led to a dispute over tariffs between the North and the South. To the leaders (but not to the general population) this dispute was as much a reason for secession as was slavery. The South actually expected England to join them in the war. Given that England was strongly abolitionist, that would have been a foolish expectation if the war had been just about slavery. As it was, it was a near thing, with principle barely beating out profits.

Of course, there were yet other reasons, not the least of which was religion. Whole books could be (and have been) written about it. But nobody reads them.

Unfortunately, what we teach fifth graders has to be simple enough for them to understand, and that often makes it wrong. Once that misinformation has taken root, it is almost impossible to eradicate.

--Pete

[LennyLen]

You may have heard of our governor

I didn't even know you had one.

More recently, you may have heard of our attorney-general Ken

Same as above.

[Nystul]

Yes, cleaning cotton (the technical term is 'carding', IIRC) became much faster with the gin. Because of the large number of people it took to pick the cotton and then card it, cotton was a minor crop. When the carding bottleneck was broken, cotton became 'king', large plantations become profitable, and slavery became 'necessary'.

If only they would have used detergent to clean their cotton instead of gin, there would have been enough booze to go around and slavery would not have been necessary. It's good that they were carding though. The last thing we need is a bunch of drunk teens with clean tee shirts, acting like kings on their playstations.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . .

"And the judges are holding up their cards: 10, 10, 10, 10, 10. Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have a winner."



--Pete

[kandrathe]

England had a near insatiable appetite for cotton, and in turn had an almost unlimited supply of manufactured products. The industrializing North wanted both the cotton and the markets. That led to a dispute over tariffs between the North and the South. To the leaders (but not to the general population) this dispute was as much a reason for secession as was slavery. The South actually expected England to join them in the war. Given that England was strongly abolitionist, that would have been a foolish expectation if the war had been just about slavery. As it was, it was a near thing, with principle barely beating out profits.

I was just reading up on Britain's need for attempting a monopoly on the cotton industry, in order to also secure their domination of the wool industry. This extended throughout their empire, to India, Australia, and New Zealand. One might theorize then that issues with British East India Company, and Egypt and India as a major suppliers (esp. during the Civil War), and then choosing to buy cheaper (slave picked), and higher quality cotton from North America after the war ended resulted in some of the angst that led to the revolt in India, and British presence in the Egypt and middle east.

Thank you Great Britain!

---

"Allowed"? Right. That statement is so wrong in so many ways. Clay Jenkinson (who portrays historic characters, most notably T. Jefferson) has pointed out that, with a gun, you can force a man to chapel but you can't make him a Lutheran -- at most, you can make him a hypocrite.

I'm not trying to imply it can be forced out of existence. Prejudice is perpetuated by ignorance... Ignorance is profligate, and I think it is getting worse not better.

[kandrathe]

We have a sheriff the next county over who was just indicted. You can have her too.

My cursory read of the Deb Trout troubles scream to me of political back-biting. It appears to be quite a bit of poor administrative decisions being attacked as "crimes" by the prosecutors office. I mean they are attacking her for things like, some deputy was issued a hand gun before his criminal background check was entirely cleared, or after another guy was let go he still had some Sheriff department property at his house. >sheesh< Jah, it was a bunch of bad decisions, and sloppy administratively, but is it criminal? Deputy Russo seems to be accused of threatening someone in an on-line forum and maybe to have "simulated" some documents. Egads! It's just like a murder! Only I'm not exactly sure how one illegally simulates a document, is that like fraud, or forgery? Maybe it's corruption, I don't know, but it smells like a witch hunt.

The prosecutor who just resigned is a piece of work as well... Three lawsuits against him by his own employees. Head butted one? Wow.

[Jester]

I was just reading up on Britain's need for attempting a monopoly on the cotton industry, in order to also secure their domination of the wool industry. This extended throughout their empire, to India, Australia, and New Zealand. One might theorize then that issues with British East India Company, and Egypt and India as a major suppliers (esp. during the Civil War), and then choosing to buy cheaper (slave picked), and higher quality cotton from North America after the war ended resulted in some of the angst that led to the revolt in India, and British presence in the Egypt and middle east.

After which war are we talking about?

Britain was the major world consumer of cotton, as well as one of several major consumers of wool. But they were far from having a monopsony (not a monopoly - they were buyers, not sellers), especially on wool. The continent still bought quite a lot of wool, for their own manufactures. Britain never became the world wool power in quite the same way it dominated cotton textiles. Even in cotton, there were competitors - the Northern US being one of them.

I think, roughly speaking, that the cotton production chain goes India - US South - Egypt - US, in that order. Certainly the world's major consumer opportunistically jumping back and forth among suppliers caused substantial disruption. How much that has to do with the revolt of 1857, I'm not sure - it doesn't factor in the standard accounts of the causes.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

After which war are we talking about?

Britain was the major world consumer of cotton, as well as one of several major consumers of wool. But they were far from having a monopsony (not a monopoly - they were buyers, not sellers), especially on wool. The continent still bought quite a lot of wool, for their own manufactures. Britain never became the world wool power in quite the same way it dominated cotton textiles. Even in cotton, there were competitors - the Northern US being one of them.

I think, roughly speaking, that the cotton production chain goes India - US South - Egypt - US, in that order. Certainly the world's major consumer opportunistically jumping back and forth among suppliers caused substantial disruption. How much that has to do with the revolt of 1857, I'm not sure - it doesn't factor in the standard accounts of the causes.

Here is an account from the US Civil War perspective. Looking at Wikipedia, I noted that around 1857, the British East India Company had been systematically annexing Raj lands, and "Import tariffs were kept low, according to traditional British free-market sentiments, and thus the Indian market was flooded with cheap clothing from Britain. Master weavers had their fingers cut off to prevent them from weaving." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_t...on_of_1857

[LavCat]

My cursory read of the Deb Trout troubles scream to me of political back-biting. It appears to be quite a bit of poor administrative decisions being attacked as "crimes" by the prosecutors office. I mean they are attacking her for things like, some deputy was issued a hand gun before his criminal background check was entirely cleared, or after another guy was let go he still had some Sheriff department property at his house.

A small arsenal as I recall. But I did not mean to single her out so much as to give a "par for the course" from the recent news.

In contrast our county's prosecutor a few years back was killed in a shootout with Federal Marshals. It is said that he took his own life as they were closing in. I had some grand jury experience with the man and he did not seem stable.

One of my coworkers has the theory that the prosecutor is really not dead, but in a witness protection program somewhere, as he had dirt on too many powerful people. My coworker maintains that no one ever saw the body.

[kandrathe]

But I did not mean to single her out so much as to give a "par for the course" from the recent news.

Things are much more ethical where I live. I don't want to trade.

In contrast our county's prosecutor a few years back was killed in a shootout with Federal Marshals. It is said that he took his own life as they were closing in. I had some grand jury experience with the man and he did not seem stable.

We've had an occasional bad apple in the barrel of police, but I don't ever recall any rogue prosecutors.

One of my coworkers has the theory that the prosecutor is really not dead, but in a witness protection program somewhere, as he had dirt on too many powerful people. My coworker maintains that no one ever saw the body.

Probably keeping Jimmy Hoffa company on the bottom of the bay.

[Jester]

Here is an account from the US Civil War perspective. Looking at Wikipedia, I noted that around 1857, the British East India Company had been systematically annexing Raj lands, and "Import tariffs were kept low, according to traditional British free-market sentiments, and thus the Indian market was flooded with cheap clothing from Britain. Master weavers had their fingers cut off to prevent them from weaving." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_t...on_of_1857

But presumably Britain, in annexing lands and in forcing the Indian market for finished cotton products, would want to do anything *but* drive the Indians out of raw cotton production? After all, they have to be making something or another, or else they aren't a market.

(You still haven't told us which war you're talking about.)

-Jester

[kandrathe]

You still haven't told us which war you're talking about.

The US Civil War. Sorry, as you said, British sourcing of raw cotton from the Southern States, then Egypt and India, and then back to the Southern States must have caused immense market shocks to the local economies.

[Jester]

You still haven't told us which war you're talking about.

The US Civil War. Sorry, as you said, British sourcing of raw cotton from the Southern States, then Egypt and India, and then back to the Southern States must have caused immense market shocks to the local economies.

Ah. Well, then, the hole in that hypothesis would be that the US Civil War didn't even start until 4 years after the rebellion in India.

-Jester