The Chocolate Chip Country

On the internet, there exists a group of people that argue that any artist who takes commissions should be willing to draw porn for them. They're willing to pay, and any artist who won't accept their commission just because that artist does not want to draw their favorite subject is a liar and a hypocrite who just needs to 'grow up' or 'get over it'.

They are largely recognized by the broader internet community as assholes. However, there are enough of them and they are loud enough in their grievances to bully talented artists into caving or simply not accepting commissions altogether. Some of them go so far as to single out one or two artists who refuse them, bullying them with constant requests and trying to find ways to trick the artist into accepting a commission just so they can finally get their way.

The argument is entirely that the single act of accepting money for services - doing any commissions at all - means an artist must accept any and all such requests that come their way. It is accompanied with belittling of the reasons why someone may refuse.

So.

What difference is there between these internet bullies and the people who keep hounding Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado?

The difference between the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies can be summed up very easily.

Larry, Brad, and Hoyt (leaders among the Sad Puppies) are Never Trump.

Vox Day (the leader of the Rabid Puppies) is a Trump supporter.

And now you know.

So, ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attacks on Paris yesterday. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/14/world/paris-attacks/)

President Hollande of France has said that they will wage "pitiless war" on the terrorists in return. (http://breakingdefense.com/2015/11/vive-la-france-says-secdef-carter-hollande-pledges-pitiless-war-on-terrorists/)

France is our ally. Our oldest ally as a country. They're a member of NATO. We are honor bound to support them in war.

So.. I hear there's a Democrat debate tonight. Over/under odds on a question about it?

Let's ask all the candidates running for President. What's your strategy? Not just this or that tactic (like the "no fly zone" that came up in the Republican debate). What's your plan? What does victory look like? Do you think we ought to do nothing? To move economically? Invade and capture territory and hang the bastards?

I note that four of the candidates (Rubio, Cruz, Paul, and Sanders) are in the Senate. They can, in fact, introduce legislation to support whatever strategy they think is best. You think the President ought to go to war? Bring up legislation to declare war. You think we ought to impose sanctions? Well, go to it, sunshine. You think we ought to just sit back and support France financially? Congress holds the purse. Appropriate funds.

No need to wait for an official debate. You can go right down to the floor of the Senate and argue your plan in front of the C-Span cameras.

We don't know who's going to be President next year? Well, you're right! Means you'd better be careful designing that legislation so it doesn't have any extra stuff you wouldn't hand Hillary/Trump/Cruz/etc.

A year is a LONG time in war. If it's the right strategy now, it's the right thing to do NOW. It might not be enough later.

Plus, if we get the public debate going now, we'll have something approaching a consensus when we do have a new President. He'll know what's expected of him.

And I know, Obama might not use the shiny new tools you give him if you pass legislation. He might disdain them. Fine. At least, when the new President steps into office, the tools will be ready for use, instead of rusting away in the shed.

So, when the Senate gets back in session after the weekend, what's stopping you guys? Any of you? Rand Paul thinks we can oppose ISIS without sending in the troops? Okay, give us a plan and sponsor a bill to back it up. I honestly have no idea what Sanders would do. Tell us. Rubio and Cruz talk a mean game, but they could take action next week. It might die on the Senate floor, but at least we'd know there's more to it than posturing.

Are you serious, or not?

Just some musings..

We live in such a risk averse culture, don't we? Helmets, padded everything. Rules and regulations on how to wash hands or grow vegetables.

Capitalism may be shown to create improvements for everybody in an entire culture, but it's full of risks. Old industries and jobs and methods die, to be replaced by new ones. STarting a business is like jumping off a cliff and growing wings on the way down. Most end in a damp thud after a few months.

Our politics are full of safety, too. If only everybody could act this way, or agree, or do things the same way, then finally no crazies would hurt us. Let's exile those people far, far away so their unsafe ideas don't get in and break our perfect world we're building.

Our world is so full of comfort and technology, it's easy to fall into the idea that we can make a perfectly safe and comfortable world. A place where you need not suffer any threat to your body, or your emotions. So many battles are fought over control, so we can make that perfect world. If you stand on the other side, you're a threat. You're trying to control the thing I'm trying to control, and only one of us can win.

No wonder Christianity is so despised in such a world. To be Christian, first you have to understand that control is an illusion. That the World itself is unsafe. Building walls to keep out the chaos is like building sand castles in the rain.

If we lived in a time where disease was more rampant, or had wars in our backyard (instead of halfway around the world), it would be obvious that this is so. Life is unfair and unpredictable.

God is the only thing that endures, the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. And He doesn't promise safety. Indeed, if you want what He has to offer, you have to give up safety and control, and let Him do the work.

Imagine, to hand over your whole life to someone else! We have changed quite a lot from the days when knights pledged undying loyalty and obeyed their kings unto death. These days, such devotion is mostly found in salacious stories about dom/sub sex. It's kinky. Heaven forbid that a man and a woman might be so devoted to each other (or to God) without being into bondage or contracts or threesomes.

A stumbling block to the Greeks, indeed.

http://theweek.com/article/index/235923/occupy-sandy-how-hurricane-sandy-resurrected-the-occupy-movement

The people who used to be occupiers have used similar techniques to raise money, organize aid, and distribute it.

I do not know if they will draw the lesson that I do from this: that people are more important than government aid, and often more effective. But to see this, and things like Kickstarter, and how well these private, more social/civic methods work, gives me hope. A glimmer, maybe. If we can keep them from being squashed.

I find the study discussed in this article interesting: http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/330886/upside-polarization-reihan-salam

Basically, there is an issue in that a certain part of the population does not vote correctly. That is, if they support X and X is important to them, they end up voting for Y instead for one reason or another. The study examines what can be done to raise the percentage of votes cast correctly, to maximize how many people vote for a candidate that actually supports what they believe.

Suppose Sebellius had a seizure a week from now and created a new rule that stated that henceforth, no insurance company anywhere could provide contraception coverage.

If the current mandate is legal, than such a change would also be legal.

Note that the HHS secretary is appointed, not elected. You can't vote her out of office if you disagree with her policies.

This isn't just about religious freedom. It's about freedom, period. The government should not be able to forec me to buy something I don't want or believe is wrong.

Note that this mandate also forces homosexuals to have insurance that covers contraception. It forces menopausal women to have insurance that covers contraception. It forces unmarried, chaste men and women (they do exist) to have insurance that covers contraception. And it forces people who believe contraception is wrong or dangerous to pay for insurance that covers contraception. The mandate even includes pills like Plan B and Ella which can be used as aboritifacients.

When I think about Newt, I am reminded of a conversation my dad and I had in the late 1990s regarding the problem of what to do with revolutionaries once the revolution is over.

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/wisconsin-judge-rules-no-right-to-own-a-cow-or-drink-its-milk/

That's right, a Wisconsin judge has ruled that people do not have the right to own a cow or drink the milk from a cow they own.

Speaker's guests “are all employers who have run into unnecessary Washington-made barriers as they’ve tried to create jobs."

read the list