Net Neutrality: A Foreshadowing.

Screencap via GIPHY.

Sites across the web today devote their digital real estate to protecting net neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission regulations that ensure every website can be accessed at equal speed and convenience. If you’ve visited Reddit, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Google, or Netflix, you may have read that these Obama-era regulations preventing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from charging extra for faster web connections are in danger, thanks, in part, to FCC chief Ajit Pai. The principle behind these regulations is that the internet, like water and electricity, is a utility that everyone should have equal access to. Without the internet, it’s nearly impossible to participate in modern society.

So, for a glimpse into the future of a net without neutrality, we’ve gathered 10 infuriating loading screen GIFs from artists like Alex Apostolides and Nikita Liskov. Spoiler: they never end. For more details on how net neutrality works and the specific threat facing it today, click here. But to feel the pain of a future without it, simply scroll on down.

And it is painful, believe me. I get enough of this painful already with Verizon, it does not need to be worse, but that’s what we all have to look forward to, unfortunately.

To learn how you can help protect net neutrality, click here.

There’s more at The Creators Project.

From Finance to Fiber.

Misz Ajdacki.

Misz Ajdacki.

A motley crew of fuzzy creatures are lurking in a forest somewhere, thanks to a financial analyst turned fiber artist. Using natural wool and a combination of felting techniques, Misz Ajdacki makes a living creating unique sculptures. Although there isn’t a specific theme to his body of work, Ajdacki often combines the whimsical with the anthropomorphic, adding hats, ties, and even leather shorts to various woodland creatures that reflect the absurdity of the corporate world he left behind.

“There are hordes of creatures milling around my head. Some just pop out, some need more time to ripen. They are built from me, my experiences, memories, from the stories I hear, things I read, see, watch. Life itself is quite inspiring, but most of them come from the center of me,” Ajdacki tells Creators.

There’s much more to read and see at The Creators Project.

See more of Misz Ajdacki’s creations on his website and look out for upcoming projects, like a spider brooch, bunny epaulets, and more bears on Instagram.

So That’s Why Prayer Doesn’t Work.

Once again, noise is being made about prayer. The right kind of prayer, prayed by the right kind of christians.

Ralph Drollinger, the minister who leads regular prayer and Bible study meetings with members of President Trump’s cabinet and members of Congress, says in his written Bible study guide for this month, “Do not be deceived by syncretistic, ‘prayer breakfasts:’ God only hears the prayers of leaders and citizens who are upright, who live righteously through faith in Jesus Christ.”

Drollinger’s claim is reminiscent of a notorious 1980 declaration by the then-head of the Southern Baptist Convention Bailey Smith, who told a Religious Right political gathering that it was “interesting” to him that political gatherings would “have a Protestant to pray and a Catholic to pray and then you have a Jew to pray.” Added Smith, “With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew. For how in the world can God hear the prayer of a man who says that Jesus Christ is not the true Messiah?”

I remember that nonsense from 1980, because as the statement spread, Reagan was expected to make an impromptu ruling on it, by issuing his opinion on whether or not prayers by Jews were heard by Jehovah. Ronnie went with yes, they were heard.

Getting back to Drollinger’s current statement:

Scripture is clear; those who are at enmity with Him—who passively or actively reject the Son of God—their prayers are worthless and go unheard. And the State suffers for want of His blessing. The righteous leader is a man of potent prayer.

Obviously, there aren’t many christians who are righteous enough, because there’s zero evidence of any kind that prayer works. Of course, I’m sure it would help if the entity you directed your prayers to existed.

CBN reported in April that Drollinger started working during the transition to set up White House Bible studies, noting that “sponsors include Vice President Pence; Secretaries Betsy DeVos, Ben Carson, Sonny Perdue, Rick Perry, Tom Price and Jeff Sessions; EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and CIA Director Mike Pompeo.” Drollinger’s most recent Bible study guide lists more than 50 members of Congress as sponsors, along with Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin and Arkansas Lieutenant Governor Tim Griffin.

I suppose it’s good to know who the seriously venomous ones are, but this is hardly news. It does show just how deep the infection runs, and how far we are on the road to utter ruin.

Drollinger’s comments about prayer were part of a discussion of separation of church and state. He says that while the Bible supports institutional separation—no state Church—it does not support “influential” separation. This month’s Bible study is all about the church’s obligation to develop righteous governmental leaders. He is dismissive of Christian groups that focus on lobbying for specific policies, rather than winning politicians’ souls or replacing them with people who are “strong in Christ Public Servants.”

And, he writes, public officials have a special obligation to make sure the nation has “God-fearing righteous judges,” not ones who support abortion or “make up rights for the unrighteous”:

It is only through righteous lawmakers and law enforcers that a society can have any semblance of justice.  Justice stems from righteous, God-fearing individuals who are grown into such by the discipleship priorities of the Church in a composite nation of co-abiding Institutions of Church and State.

There we have it. We must not have judges who abide by the law, no. We must have asshole christians who assume they have the right to rule over everyone else. What if someone’s god is Odin? How about Isis? Or Hekate? Or Tiamat? Or, or, or. All much older gods than Jehovah, and going by the stories, considerably more powerful. Do we get to have an all gods cage match?

Once a righteous person is in power, he says, they have the obligation to hire only righteous employees, and not to “compromise biblical absolutes in his policies or interactions with others.”

And to place all others into convenient slavery, I’d bet.

This past April, Brendan O’Connor at Fusion published an in-depth look at Drollinger and his Capitol Ministries. O’Connor reported that Drollinger had proclaimed Catholicism to be “the world’s largest false religion” and “that female legislators who continue working after having children are sinners, and that homosexuality is an ‘abomination.’” A bit more:

He has also written that social welfare programs are un-Christian. “It is safe to say that God is a Capitalist,” Drollinger once wrote, “not a Communist.” In a January radio interview, Drollinger praised then-senator Jeff Sessions, who “hungers and thirsts for the Scripture,” for his performance during his confirmation hearing, when he provided a Biblical justification for his draconian views on immigration. “I’ve had the distinct honor of teaching him on this subject, and many others,” Drollinger said. “There’s nothing more exciting, when you’re a Bible teacher, to see one of the guys you’re working with—to see him or her articulate something you’ve taught them when they’re under the gun.” …

Drollinger also argues that climate change is impossible because God promised after The Flood never to do anything like that again. Drollinger preaches against “radical environmentalism” and that to believe that human activity could have devastating impact on the environment is not just mistaken, but the result of godless pride: “To think that man can alter the earth’s ecosystem—when God remains omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent in the current affairs of mankind—is to more than subtly espouse an ultra-hubristic, secular worldview relative to the supremacy and importance of man,” Drollinger wrote recently. “It follows that we can all rest assured and wholly rely on God’s aforementioned promises pertaining to His ability and willingness to sustain our world’s ecosystem.”

No, that’s not what Jehovah promised. He promised to not have a temper tantrum and kill off most the world’s population by flood. Naturally, that didn’t stop him drowning mass amounts of people, you just need to flip right into Exodus for that one. That “promise” didn’t have jack shit to do with climate in any way, shape, or form, and also ignores that Jehovah’s “promises” aren’t worth spit in a storm. What happened to that bit about “being good stewards of the earth”? As for altering the various ecosystems on the earth, yes, we’ve been busy doing that since we showed up and started doing all the smart ape stuff. Right now, my state is suffering a severe drought. You’d have to be damn stupid to not notice such things, and how radical and rapid such changes have been. Now, it likely won’t be all that long before Drollinger drops dead, so he won’t be here to see the very worst effects of climate change. What we are seeing now is already very bad, but it’s nothing compared to what it will be in a comparatively short time span. So, there’s zero thought towards future generations, in spite of all that supposed hatred of abortion. Once again, that points to the truth of that matter: it is never about future generations, it is never about children, real or potential. It’s about stomping all over women. Christians just can’t stand the idea of women not being firmly under a thumb.

Make no mistake here: it is righteousness that exalts a nation! Therefore the priority of evangelism is the key to a great nation more so than anything else! You need to get this through your head my friends: Evangelism is the germination of righteousness! We need today to convert Public Servants who are lost without Christ!

Oh, I’m making no mistake. I recognize assholes with a vast need for power so they can hurt others. It’s a pity and a shame there are so many of them in what passes for government.

The complete article is at Right Wing Watch, and it’s damn depressing as well as infuriating.

“Trump’s crackdown on satanic pedophile and child sacrifice cults…”

Sacrifice of Isaac, Caravaggio.

Mark Taylor is a former firefighter who styles himself a prophet. I had not heard of him before today, but that’s not surprising as self-styled prophets are popping out of the woodwork everywhere these days. I get the feeling that Mr. Taylor is attempting to rival Alex Jones.

“Divine justice is being poured out right now,” Taylor said. “3,000 elite pedophiles have been arrested since the inauguration, but that’s not a whole lot of common knowledge, people don’t understand that because they’ve had a 100 percent media blackout on it.”

Oh yes, a media blackout, but you know all about it! That’s how these things work when you just dream them up. I’m getting pretty damn tired of all this “divine justice” which is conveniently invisible, with no discernible effect on our particular plane of reality. If that all mighty Jehovah is real and hanging about someplace, let him show hisself already.

Taylor said that thousands of well-known, high-ranking figures have been arrested in recent months as part of Trump’s crackdown on satanic pedophile and child sacrifice cults, but we are not hearing anything about it because Trump is keeping it all under wraps.

Ah. I’d think that if well-known, high-ranking people went suddenly missing in large numbers, someone would notice. There would, at the very least, be rampant speculation.

“The Clintons are going to go down, Obama is going to go down, they’re all going to go down,” Taylor said. “Time is up for those who are corrupt … God is very serious when He says He is going to clean house. Everybody keeps asking, ‘When is it going to start, when is it going to start?’

This body is not asking that at all. Corruption. That happens to be a frequently used category on Affinity, always used whenever there’s a post about the Tiny Tyrant and/or his hench ants, the rethuglicans and the other filthy rich. Y’know, those financially elite people. It’s of interest to me how on the conservative side, elite has been twisted about to mean knowledgeable/educated for the most part. The decades long move towards obscurantism has gathered great speed, and conservatives of all stripes are doing whatever they can to make education not only a very bad thing, but to strip most peoples’ ability to obtain any. Trump is held up by idiots everywhere as non-elite, using their very own definition. And, in the sense of dumber than dirt, they are correct. In the actual sense, of course, they are wrong. Mr. Taylor seems to be yet another who is using elite incorrectly, and obviously derides anyone who has an education, and uses it, oh, to speak in full sentences which are coherent. Awful stuff like that.

It’s already started, it’s just they’re not saying anything. And the other thing you have to understand, with Trump being ten places ahead of everybody else, he’s not going to tip his hat as to what he’s doing.”

:Tries to not choke on tea: Goodness. The Tiny Tyrant is ten paces ahead of everyone else? Okay, I’m just going to be gobsmacked here. It seems to me that Trump has a very difficult time keeping pace with anyone else.

“You’re just going to wake up one morning and Hillary Clinton is going to be in jail,” he said, “[and] it will be a sign to the United States that that spirit called Jezebel has been locked up and the key thrown away.”

Oh for fuck’s sake. Can this tiring business not be dropped already? There’s no such spirit as Jezebel, and I’m getting pretty sick and fucking tired of women being blamed for every damn thing ever. Ms. Clinton won’t be jailed, she’s not hosting any spirits, and she’s not the most evil thing since Eve, either. What an idiot.

Via Right Wing Watch, where there’s video, if you’re feeling like you need to be mean to yourself.

Brewing Stones.

Geir Grønnesby, an archaeologist at the NTNU University Museum, has buckets full of rocks that have been used to brew beer since the Viking age. They’re found in buried rubbish heaps around many farms in Trøndelag. Photo: Nancy Bazilchuk.

When archaeologist Geir Grønnesby dug test pits at 24 different farms in central Norway, he nearly always found thick layers of fire-cracked stones dating from the Viking Age and earlier. Carbon-14 dating of this evidence tells us that long ago, Norwegians brewed beer using stones.

[…]

In other words, “most of the archaeological information we have about the Viking Age comes from graves, and most of the archaeological information about the Middle Ages comes from excavations in cities,” Grønnesby said. That’s a problem because “most people lived in the countryside.”

Essentially, he says, Norwegian farms are sitting on an enormous underground treasure trove that in places dates from the AD 600, the late Iron Age — and yet they are mostly untouched.

“So I started doing these small excavations to look for cultural layers in farmyards,” he said. “The oldest carbon-14 dates I found are from 600 AD, and all the dates are from this time or later. And when I found the stones, I had to write about them, since there were so many.”

[…]

Grønnesby is not the first to remark on fire-cracked stones on farms in central Norway. That distinction goes to a pioneering sociologist named Eilert Sundt, who recorded an encounter on a farm in 1851 in Hedmark.

As Sundt later wrote, he was walking and saw a farmer near a pile of strange-looking, smallish stones.

“What’s with these stones?” he asked the farmer, pointing to the pile. “They’re brewing stones,” the farmer told him. “Stones they used for cooking to brew beer — from the old days when they didn’t have iron pots.”

In his article, Sundt noted that most of the farms he visited had piles of burned or fire-cracked stones. Every time he asked about them, the answer was the same: they were from brewing, when the stones were heated until they were “glowing hot” and then plopped into wooden vessels to heat things up. The stones were so omnipresent, Sundt wrote, and so thick and compact in places that houses were built right on top of them.

Reports from archaeologists who examined farmsteads in more recent times also confirm this observation. When one archaeologist dug a test trench in the 1980s at a farm in Steinkjer, north of Trondheim, he found a cultural layer more than a metre thick, much of which was fire-cracked stone.

[…]

Grønnesby says the presence of great numbers of brewing stones on Norwegian farms underscores the cultural importance of beer itself.

“Beer drinking was an important part of social and religious institutions,” he said.

For example, the Gulating, a Norwegian parliamentary assembly that met from 900 to 1300 AD, regulated even the smallest details of beer brewing and drinking at that time.

The Gulating’s laws required three farmers to work together to brew beer, which then had to be blessed. An individual who failed to brew beer for three consecutive years had to give half his farm to the bishop and the other half to the King and then leave the country. Only very small farms were exempt from this strict regulation.

What’s equally interesting is when brewing stones disappear from cultural layers — at about 1500, right around the time of the Reformation.

“It could just be a strange coincidence,” Grønnesby said. “It could be religion. Or it could be that iron vessels were more widely available by then.”

Some of the best archaeological finds come from rubbish heaps. Throughout mid-Norway, these rubbish heaps often contain cracked stones that have been used to brew beer. Photo: Åge Hojem, NTNU University Museum.

…You can read about Grønnesby’s research in the recently published book, “The Agrarian Life of the North: 2000 BC to AD 1000: Studies in Rural Settlement and Farming in Norway”, edited by Frode Iversen & Håkan Petersson. Grønnesby’s chapter is entitled “Hot Rocks! Beer Brewing on Viking and Medieval Age Farms in Trøndelag.”

Fascinating reading! Medievalists Net has the full story.

The Birth of Milk Bones.

Spratt’s ad, c. 1876 Public Domain.

The first dog biscuits did not resemble the bone-shaped delights of today. Developed by James Spratt in 1860, these so-called Meat Fibrine Dog Cakes were woefully square.

Spratt, an American electrician, came up with the idea for a dog biscuit after he witnessed sailors dropping hardtack—an unleavened bread—for the local dogs. He decided he could do the same—and monetize it. His flagship company, Spratt’s, was founded soon after. Their lead product, the Meat Fibrine Dog Cakes, were developed from a combination of wheat, beetroot, vegetables, and prairie meat. (The particular kind of meat in Spratt’s formula was apparently highly confidential; until his death, Spratt “kept in his hands the contract for his meat supplier.”)

At the time, the concept of a food specifically for dogs was alien. According to Katherine C. Grier, author of Pets in America, “until well into the 20th century, most household dogs lived off scraps from the kitchen, often cooked with a starch into something that people called ‘dog stew.’” But by the late 1800s, Spratt’s had shuttled dog biscuits into the mainstream—especially for dog show contestants. In 1895, the New York Times labeled Spratt’s a “principal food” of dog shows.

Spratt’s success soon spawned competition.

Over a decade later, in 1907, organic chemist Carleton Ellis received an urgent request. The owner of a local slaughterhouse was having problems with all of his excess “waste milk,” and he wanted Ellis to help him find a use for it. Ellis would eventually accrue over 753 inventions to his name and would serve as the force behind the creation of margarine, polyester, paint and varnish remover, and anti-knock gasoline. If he found the milk request odd, he did not show it. He agreed to help.

Likely inspired by Spratt’s, Ellis decided to turn the waste into food for his dog. After some experimentation, Ellis mixed the excess milk with malt, grain, and other products to form a dog biscuit—baked into what he assumed would be an appealing, rounded shape.

But when he tested the biscuits, his dog refused to eat them.

Ellis was frustrated. Clearly, the biscuit should have tasted great to a dog. He was a MIT graduate; he knew perhaps more than anyone at the time about the compounds in petroleums, oils, and varnishes. He had authored such dense, technical manuals as Hydrogenation of Oils Catalyze and The Chemical Action of Ultraviolet Rays for biscuit’s sake! Developing a treat that a dog would eat should not have provided this much of a challenge.

So he decided to do something strange: he changed the design of the biscuit rather than the ingredients. “I had some more biscuits baked from the same stock, but in the shape of a bone,” he told Popular Science in 1937, “and I found that my dog manifested a tremendous interest in the bone-shaped biscuit.”

You can read more about the origin of milk bones here. Oddly enough, I’ve always ended up with dogs who have never been terribly interested in Milk Bones.

The Puritan Dress Code.

Anne Hutchinson. Puritan dissident.

In 1676, Hannah Lyman was in trouble. She was among three dozen or so young women who had been summoned to court: They had flouted the laws of the colony of Connecticut by wearing silken hoods. Among these “overdressed” women, Lyman was, apparently, the most rebellious and strong-willed. She appeared in court wearing the very silk hood that she had been indicted for donning.

The judge was, predictably, not very happy. He accused her of “wearing silk in a flaunting manner, in an offensive way, not only before but when she stood presented” at court. She and the other young women were fined for their offensive sartorial choices.

It’s quite interesting, visualizing just how one would wear a silk hood in an offensive manner. This is obviously projection writ large, but many of the puritan sentiments are still with us, to a very deep degree. Consider how many people refer to something like silk sheets as terribly decadent, something only people of a very weak nature would indulge in, and so forth. We won’t even get into silk underwear. (Pardon, pardon, couldn’t help it.) To the puritans, silk spoke of degeneracy, a terrible flaw in one’s moral framework. All these centuries later, I can feel for Ms. Lyman, who probably just wanted to enjoy her silken hood.

The Massachusetts Bay Colony passed its first law limiting the excesses of dress in 1634, when it prohibited citizens from wearing “new fashions, or long hair, or anything of the like nature.” That meant no silver or gold hatbands, girdles, or belts, and no cloth woven with gold thread or lace. It was also forbidden to create clothes with more than two slashes in the sleeves (a style meant to reveal one’s rich and fancy undergarments). Anyone who wore such items would have to forfeit them if caught.

I can’t help but wonder just who got those “forfeited” clothes. Not that some higher up puritan would be able to wear them outside their own house, but I can imagine some scenes going on behind closed doors. Puritans were very serious about ornamentation of all kinds though, and that extended to things like christmas:

You’ll note in the above: “dressing in Fine Clothing”, with the stress of capital letters.

For decades the colony continued to refine these laws. In 1639, the colony instituted a stricter law against lace and forbade clothes with short sleeves. In the 1650s, the law became more class-conscious. Only those who had more than 200 pounds to their estates were allowed to wear gold and silver buttons and knee points, or great boots, silk hoods, or silk scarves. Exempt from the rule were magistrates and public officers, their wives and children, as well as militia officers or soldiers, and anyone else whose with advanced education or employment, or “whose estate have been considerable, though now decayed.” In 1679, the colony also started worrying about hair, since “there is manifest pride openly appearing among us by some women wearing borders of hair, and their cutting, curling, and immodest laying out of their hair.”

Oh my, how things never, ever change. The rich are different, because money allows them to be. It’s interesting to see the nod to decayed estates, there’s a bit of classism at its very finest. Naturally, those wealthy puritans had to have some way to distinguish themselves, one might say a way to flaunt their wealth. No point in having position and money if you can’t separate yourself from the puritan rabble. The hypocrisy of those who always make a claim to the highest of moral grounds is breathtakingly blatant.

Massachusetts and Connecticut were not the only colonies to pass such laws. In New Jersey, by 1670, it was illegal for a woman to “betray into matrimony any of His Majesty’s male subjects, by scents, paints, cosmetics, washes, artificial teeth, false hair, Spanish wool, iron stays, hoops, high-heeled shoes, or bolstered hips.” And if they did? The marriage would be “null and void.” Oh, and they would be punished exactly as if they had been convicted of witchcraft or sorcery.

Oh my, my, my. Betray into marriage. That’s pretty strong language, and it would be very nice if that sentiment was one that was long lost to the mists of time. Unfortunately, it isn’t at all lost, and it’s a frequent cry of complaint among MRAs. When it comes to personal ornamentation, women can never win. If we have the nerve to wander about sans cosmetics, there are complaints. If we use cosmetics, there are complaints. And there are never ending complaints about dress, of course. “Too sexy!” “Too distracting!” “Slutty!” “Drab.” “Uninteresting.” “Slovenly.” And so on and on and on it goes. Anyroad, looking at the above list, all I can say is I’m beyond grateful I didn’t live in an age where iron stays were obligatory.

Atlas Obscura has the full run down on puritanical clothing codes.