Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Digital Art / Hobbyist Sean McKnight27/Male/United States Groups :iconalternate-worlds: Alternate-Worlds
In the sea of time
Recent Activity
Deviant for 6 Years
Needs Core Membership
Statistics 398 Deviations 8,919 Comments 235,336 Pageviews
×

Newest Deviations

Favourites

Commissions

Commissions are Open
High Kingdom of Montival by YNot1989
Skychasers by YNot1989
2112: Balkanization by YNot1989
Interplanetary Trade Commission by YNot1989
Diana of Themyscira: Wonder Woman by YNot1989
Well, I'm finally broke enough to open up for commissions. I've never done this before, don't really know how it works, so I apologize in advance for any difficulties that may arise.

===FLAGS AND SEALS===
*Flag or Seal with existing logo - $5
**Variation with different existing logos - $2 for each additional flag or seal
*Flag or Seal with modified logo - $10
*Custom Flag or Seal - $20

===MAPS===
*Small Wikia style map - $5
*Large Regional Map - $10
**Country and Ocean Labels- $5
**Sea Labels - $5
**City Labels - $10
**Rivers - $10
**Longitude & Latitude -$5
**Weathering - $5
**Mars Map - $5
**Flooded Earth Map -$5

===Characters===
Single character sketches: $25
Single character animated style: $50

All prices are in $USD
Payment in points
Payment in advance: Money up front, or else I'm not doing the work.
No refunds. I'm not doing work only to find out the customer wants their money back.
- Fair warning, turnaround will vary.
- Feel free to scan my previous work if you want something similar as a reference
- all work will be uploaded online unless specified (surprise gift perhaps?) 

FIRST IN FIRST SERVED.
I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE

I'll update the IN PROGRESS ticker as this goes on.

In Progress:

Completed Commissions:

Commissioned Seal by YNot1989 

deviantID

YNot1989's Profile Picture
YNot1989
Sean McKnight
Artist | Hobbyist | Digital Art
United States
I'm just another denizen of the internet trying to add a little nuance where its needed, and a little bluntness where it's not.

I'm from Western Washington, though I currently reside in California.

I'm an actual Rocket Scientist (did research with rockets, and am an Aerospace Engineer).

Politically I can best be described as Liberal American Imperialist; so basically I want Universal Healthcare as an excuse to annex Canada.

I love sci-fi movies, books, and TV shows, classic cars and modern ones too, bitching about politics, speculating about the future, and analyzing the past.

Current Residence: Lancaster, California
Favorite genre of music: Rock in all its forms and all its glory!
Favorite animated character: Spike Spiegel
Favorite literary character: Takeshi Kovacs
Interests

Activity


Richard Nixon is generally considered to have been a cruel, paranoid, warmongering monster who extended the Vietnam war well past the point Americans were willing to accept... but in doing so he was able to force the Chinese to the negotiating table which led the Russians to the negotiating table, leading to the recognition of China and the SALT treaties, which arguably did more to end the last cold war than anything else.

The point is that Nixon's entire doctrine was to be chaotic and force the great powers to the negotiating table less they risk disaster. Is it possible, that Trump, either individually or as a figurehead for Republican foreign policy leaders inside the State Department and the Congressional Foreign Relations committees, will serve a similar purpose? To upset the established order in ways that someone like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton simply couldn't without reaping domestic political disaster?

There has been much talk by Trump of the US reducing its commitments to NATO, and there has been understandable backlash to this. But really, has NATO served much use to the US since the last Cold War ended? Germany and France's support of sanctions against the Russians (due in no small part by financial assets in Russia) has been lackluster at best, our allies were quick to pull out of Iraq and leave us there to continue fighting an unending war (granted one we started, but as Jim Mattis said, "The enemy gets a vote," and wars don't end just because we're tired of fighting them). Its cynical to say, but do these cold war institutions that Trump wants to tear down really serve the US any kind of purpose anymore? The Visegrad group is a more useful ally to us today than NATO is, and Turkey is still a necessary and more autonomous ally, but Western Europe, save for Britain, seems to be perpetually at odds with the US in practice.

I didn't vote for Trump, and I fully expect his domestic policy to be the stuff of nightmares, but perhaps he isn't the harbinger of the apocalypse we think he is for foreign policy, and his successor will likely be forced to continue his policies.

BONUS SECTION: Why I haven't named a Democrat to defeat Trump on the wikia in 2020, and why I'm actually not convinced he'll lose.

When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party is predicted to win the popular vote; when six or more are false, the challenging party is predicted to win the popular vote.

  1. Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections. (Unlikely)
  2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. (Unclear, but possibly False)
  3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. (True)
  4. Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign. (Unclear)
  5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. (Probably True)
  6. Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. (Extremely unlikely given the business cycle.)
  7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. (True, and horrifying)
  8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. (Unclear, but don't count on it)
  9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. (Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! False)
  10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. (Unclear)
  11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. (Unclear, but entirely possible)
  12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. (I think he's an unintelligible imbecile, but apparently demagoguery = charisma, so True)
  13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. (Unclear)
So, we have 4 Trues, 1 False, and everything else is either unclear with possibilities leaning one way or the other. I'll be frank, this election threw me more than I thought it could. Part of me always suspected he could win, but I just wasn't ready for it, and as a result, I'm kinda having trouble making any predictions with confidence at this point. I stand by the broad strokes: The Little Cold War isn't stopping for at least another four years, we will experience at least a light recession inside of Trump's administration, and Trump's foreign policy, ultimately, will be a continuation of Obama's just with some louder messier execution.
  • Listening to: Stan Rogers
  • Reading: Geopolitical Futures
  • Playing: Nothing
So now that the Republicans have control of both houses of congress and the Presidency despite having received a minority of the popular vote in both cases, the subject of redistricting reform has come up again, thanks in no small part to court decisions in North Carolina and Wisconsin striking down gerymandering of those state's congressional districts. Normally when this comes up, we hear poposals arguing for algorithmic redistricting, like the Shortest Splitline technique or algorithms that select for compactness. I used to think these were the way to go, but I always had this nagging feeling that there was something missing. Recently I dug up an old Daily Kos piece, that pretty much changed my mind:

www.dailykos.com/story/2015/5/…

Now, I still maintain that an algorithmic system would solve this problem much better than a purportedly non-partisan commission, but I think we need an algorithm that accounts for state regions, not just population compactness. Now, you might be saying there's no way to account for that, because regions like those outlined in the piece are a human invented concept... except I don't think they entirely are. If you had an algorithm that generated districts based on compactness, geographical conditions, and economic common interest (you could use census data on employment to get a good map of that), you could get a pretty good map of a State's regions.
  • Listening to: Stan Rogers
  • Reading: Geopolitical Futures
  • Playing: Nothing
There are currently a bloc of Electoral College members trying to get their fellow electors to vote for someone, anyone not named Donald Trump. If they succeed, in some strange way it would both be the greatest argument for keeping the Electoral College, and the greatest argument for its abolishment. Let us take a moment and consider what it would mean if 538 people you've never heard of gave the Presidency to someone nobody voted for. Spoilers, Nothing good.

December 19: In a shocking turn of events, 60 electors from states Clinton and Trump won cast protest votes for other Republicans and Democrats. This reduces Donald Trump's electoral lead to below the 270 vote margin, forcing the vote to go before the House of Representatives. With Trump under constant investigation, and the possibility of voting for a more traditional Republican, the House rallies around Mitt Romney to serve as President and Mike Pence to go on serving as Vice President, in the hopes of calming dissatisfied Trump voters.

It doesn't.

Public outrage over the House's decision on both sides of the political spectrum explodes, however for Trump and his supporters the betrayal cuts much deeper. Trump calls for abolishing the electoral college, claiming President Romney is not only illegitimate, but that the government itself is no longer legitimate. Several electors are attacked by Trump's supporters, and racial violence reaches levels not seen since the days of the Civil Rights Movement. President Romney is sworn in with a small ceremony inside the White House after riots break out in the Capitol. Across America members of the Alt-Right are attacking minority communities, government buildings, and elected officials who voiced opposition to Trump. President Romney is eventually forced to declare Marshal Law in cities where the violence has become intolerable, and Trump's supporters are joined by local militias against the National Guard. 
  • Listening to: Stan Rogers
  • Reading: Geopolitical Futures
  • Playing: Nothing

Richard Nixon is generally considered to have been a cruel, paranoid, warmongering monster who extended the Vietnam war well past the point Americans were willing to accept... but in doing so he was able to force the Chinese to the negotiating table which led the Russians to the negotiating table, leading to the recognition of China and the SALT treaties, which arguably did more to end the last cold war than anything else.

The point is that Nixon's entire doctrine was to be chaotic and force the great powers to the negotiating table less they risk disaster. Is it possible, that Trump, either individually or as a figurehead for Republican foreign policy leaders inside the State Department and the Congressional Foreign Relations committees, will serve a similar purpose? To upset the established order in ways that someone like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton simply couldn't without reaping domestic political disaster?

There has been much talk by Trump of the US reducing its commitments to NATO, and there has been understandable backlash to this. But really, has NATO served much use to the US since the last Cold War ended? Germany and France's support of sanctions against the Russians (due in no small part by financial assets in Russia) has been lackluster at best, our allies were quick to pull out of Iraq and leave us there to continue fighting an unending war (granted one we started, but as Jim Mattis said, "The enemy gets a vote," and wars don't end just because we're tired of fighting them). Its cynical to say, but do these cold war institutions that Trump wants to tear down really serve the US any kind of purpose anymore? The Visegrad group is a more useful ally to us today than NATO is, and Turkey is still a necessary and more autonomous ally, but Western Europe, save for Britain, seems to be perpetually at odds with the US in practice.

I didn't vote for Trump, and I fully expect his domestic policy to be the stuff of nightmares, but perhaps he isn't the harbinger of the apocalypse we think he is for foreign policy, and his successor will likely be forced to continue his policies.

BONUS SECTION: Why I haven't named a Democrat to defeat Trump on the wikia in 2020, and why I'm actually not convinced he'll lose.

When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party is predicted to win the popular vote; when six or more are false, the challenging party is predicted to win the popular vote.

  1. Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections. (Unlikely)
  2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. (Unclear, but possibly False)
  3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. (True)
  4. Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign. (Unclear)
  5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. (Probably True)
  6. Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. (Extremely unlikely given the business cycle.)
  7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. (True, and horrifying)
  8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. (Unclear, but don't count on it)
  9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. (Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! False)
  10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. (Unclear)
  11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. (Unclear, but entirely possible)
  12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. (I think he's an unintelligible imbecile, but apparently demagoguery = charisma, so True)
  13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. (Unclear)
So, we have 4 Trues, 1 False, and everything else is either unclear with possibilities leaning one way or the other. I'll be frank, this election threw me more than I thought it could. Part of me always suspected he could win, but I just wasn't ready for it, and as a result, I'm kinda having trouble making any predictions with confidence at this point. I stand by the broad strokes: The Little Cold War isn't stopping for at least another four years, we will experience at least a light recession inside of Trump's administration, and Trump's foreign policy, ultimately, will be a continuation of Obama's just with some louder messier execution.
  • Listening to: Stan Rogers
  • Reading: Geopolitical Futures
  • Playing: Nothing

AdCast - Ads from the Community

×

Groups

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:iconimprobablespace:
improbableSpace Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Quick Question: Have you seen the movie "Arrival"? If so, what are your thoughts?
Reply
:iconynot1989:
YNot1989 Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Haven't seen it. Looks cool though.
Reply
:iconimprobablespace:
improbableSpace Featured By Owner Nov 30, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
I recommend it. It's certainly one of the smarter sci-fi movies I've seen recently.
Reply
:iconelmjuniper:
elmjuniper Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Just found your stuff and you have some super cool stuff here. Love the maps especially. :)
Reply
:iconynot1989:
YNot1989 Featured By Owner Edited Nov 15, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks :) Its rare to get someone outside the cartography/alternate history world on my page.
Reply
:iconfreedim:
Freedim Featured By Owner Nov 10, 2016
I want to change Trump's successor from Martin O'Malley to Michelle Obama. The reason being is because I see her more likely to run than him. She has stated that she doesn't want to be president, but I do think she'll ultimately listen to the wishes of the American people. So do you mind if I change it?
Reply
:iconynot1989:
YNot1989 Featured By Owner Nov 10, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I don't think it will be O'Malley either, but I'm not convinced it will be Michelle. Granted, she is absolutely my first choice, but I don't know if she'll do it.
Reply
:iconfreedim:
Freedim Featured By Owner Nov 10, 2016
Well then in that case can I please still change it? Because I think she'll be the most likely choice for now.
Reply
:iconynot1989:
YNot1989 Featured By Owner Nov 10, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Go ahead. Just names and context, not events. You know how I am with that.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconfreedim:
Freedim Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2016
You're now gonna have to do some major revisions for Second Renaissance now that Trump had won.
Reply
Add a Comment: