Off-grid post 11-6-21

Eating cactus

Comment:

The project is receiving a bit of additional motivation these days, with the coercive means to enforce compliance with a questionable and illegal "vaccine" mandate.

With folks saying things like "starve them out", one gets the impression that the whole situation is NOT a public health situation, but something else entirely. If this gets down to the point where starvation is attempted, then I will "hear the thunder" and take heed to be PREPARED. Yes, that means eating cactus if I have to. More than just that, I suspect.

Those out there who wish to oppose this brigandry are going to have to do things like this. I can tell you this, I sure don't want to have to eat cactus. I'd prefer the plain old Meat and Taters, please. But if I have to, I am going to be prepared to do a great many things besides just this.

Know what I mean, Vern?

Listen to the Thunder --- Deadwood clip

Comment:

The election season is over, but the matter isn't concluded. Not just yet. As I look around the web, this clip came to mind. The things happening out there are like the thunder mentioned in this clip. The election was more of the same. But are people listening to the thunder?

The conversation here has Wild Bill Hickok warning the widow, whose husband has just been killed under suspicious circumstances; that he had had a conversation with her husband and he advised her husband to leave town. But he didn't. At this point, her husband was dead, and Will Bill was seeing to her interests.

He is warning her that she should leave, and he tells her to listen to the thunder. The thunder is a warning. She is being warned, just like her husband was warned.

We are experiencing a bit of thunder like that too. A storm is coming. Do you hear the thunder? What do you do when you hear the thunder? A prudent individual would take as many precautions as is practical.

Not everything went well on election day

Austin Texas ballot initiative to hire police fails

Comment:

Austin is a little over a hour's drive from here, but I knew nothing about it. The article linked says the usual culprits funded the campaign against it. So where's our side, or do we have one?

It seems that the middle position is the status quo; as Minneapolis didn't abolish the police, but Austin didn't help the police either.

This is one reason I do not trust ideological arguments. The "middle" in that kind of argument isn't any better than the "extreme". The only reasonable approach is to improve the level of security in Austin because crime is going way up. Instead they do the opposite. It seems that the issue is being falsely framed. Otherwise you would get a more reasonable outcome.

You don't need money to fight this. One election was won without spending hardly any money at all, and the guy that got beat was pretty important. Outside people are said to have contributed to the defeat of the measure in Austin. Since I wasn't paying attention to that, I have no further information than this. It says something, and that is not good.

Very chilling warning of something coming soon

The video below discusses the situation developing right under own noses, and it is happening with our consent, even if we say or think otherwise.

The problem as described here is the world going digital. Everything is being tied into this connectivity, and the system will be able monitor everything that you do. Everything.

Shoot. I think we are already there, and been there for several years now. But I certainly agree that it is only going to get worse.

But even if you recognize this as a threat, as I do so myself, I do consider this a threat; there may not be too much that you or I or anybody can do about it.

Personally, it would be hard for me to follow the prescription he says is necessary to just slow the thing down. Even doing these things may not stop it. But stopping it would require that you stop being a part of the system. You have to drop the tech like it is a plague. Which is what it may well be. If it is all true, then it is something we are bringing upon ourselves.

That's very chilling to me. Even though I want to become disconnected from it all, it will be hard to do. Maybe it will be impossible. Very chilling indeed. Here's the video.

Cut the broken wing crap, GOP

What happened to the Reagan years anyway? It all seemed to start going downhill with the Bentsen-Quayle debate, when Bentsen disparaged Quayle in a personal way, and Quayle couldn't manage an adequate response. Thereafter, Quayle seemed to be a burden to Bush because the Democrats wanted to use that to buttress their claim that Quayle was a dummy.

It is easy to criticize when you are not in that situation yourself. Nevertheless, Quayle made a tactical blunder that Bentsen took full advantage of. Having made the blunder, Quayle couldn't take advantage of Bentsen's mistake. Bentsen did make a mistake, and that was to get personal. He claimed Kennedy was his friend, but was he really that close to Kennedy? Others at the time didn't seem to think so. Quayle might have taken advantage of that to deliver a response that would have been stronger than just saying "that was uncalled for, Senator".

But you might have forgiven Quayle for not knowing Kennedy well enough to spot Bentsen's blunder. The blunder is that for a friend, Bentsen didn't seem to know Kennedy well enough to know that he wouldn't have resorted to a personal attack like that. It violated Kennedy's belief in "grace under pressure". Under the pressure of the moment, a personal insult is not indicated. But a slight jab in a joking manner might have been more of Kennedy's style.

Quayle could have mentioned that, but it would have required that he know his subject a bit better. As Bentsen said, Quayle was making the comparison. Quayle couldn't back out of that, but what he could have done is make the comparison between Bentsen and Kennedy as well. That might have been good enough of a response to acquit Quayle of any shortcoming in comparison to Kennedy, as Bentsen wouldn't have been any Kennedy either. Bentsen was no better than Quayle, and that was an apt comparison.

Quayle's failure might have set the tone. Thereafter it seems that the only response to the left's depredations seems to be like Quayle's to Bentsen--- it's all uncalled for. Yes, that's true, but there's something missing. The missing thing is an apt response for the left's incivility. You can complain about it, but if you cannot do anything that delivers a telling blow in response, you come off weak.

Then there was Trump. The GOP seemed to just let the Democrats rip Trump with no meaningful response of their own. It's Quayle all over again. It was even worse to say that Trump had no right to defend himself. He does and they should never relinquish that. They did and that is how we are in this mess right now. Trump is a fighter, and the GOP should have never given that up. They should not pass themselves like a wounded bird, like Quayle, and expect to be respected by their adversary.

Update:

With respect to these types mentioned in this post, what do you do if you are like Quayle, and a "finesse" approach isn't available for whatever reason? The reason in Quayle's case, is that no person is likely to be that quick-thinking to prepare for a defense that can be acceptable in that scenario. In other words, would Quayle really have much choice but to do what he did?

Or could he have done something that, in ordinary circumstances, would be considered unacceptable? In other words, could he have done what Aaron Burr did to Alexander Hamilton? Hamilton insulted Burr, and Burr's response was to challenge him on the "field of honor". That meant, in those days, a duel. Do we do that anymore? It would seem that an obvious response is "no". But could that be an option when somebody transgresses the rule, and no authority can jump in and say "foul". For Bentsen's crack about "being no Jack Kennedy" was intended to be an insult, and therefore should be considered a foul.

But there being no foul recognized, then isn't Quayle reduced to just saying "that was uncalled for"? Furthermore, it sets a pattern in which an unscrupulous sort, like the political left, can take advantage of without mercy.

What else could explain the lack of response from the GOP to the left on all too many issues? It is as if their hands are tied. Shouldn't it be okay then, that Trump should refuse to be hemmed in by such rules when the other side is bound by no rules?

The point then, is that Trump was fully justified in responding to all attacks in whatever means he deems fit. Unless you are willing to hold the breach of rules accountable, then this is inevitable. If you want more civility, then hold all side EQUALLY responsible.

Consequently, the complaint against Trump is like a lot of things these days. It is a crock.

New Paradigm

As of this writing, it appears that the GOP has taken Virginia. There are a lot of things that could be said, but what would be best to say here on this blog?

Only that which could be the most hopeful scenario for the future. If that holds true, then this would be a Reaganeque victory. It will have repudiated the old paradigm of left-right-middle for a new paradigm of freedom over slavery under the rule of law. For that is Reagan's dialectic.

Reagan didn't trust that ideology ( of left v right ), and he said so in his speech that launched his political career. If I may, I would say that Reagan enunciated his own dialectic, which I will call a New Paradigm. The old one is about left versus right. This new one is about freedom, and its antithesis, which is slavery. The synthesis is what Reagan called the maximum of freedom consistent with order in a civilized society. I'd call that "rule of law".

Lots of folks will claim that, but they really don't mean it. The rule of law needs the other part that Reagan mentioned, which is a civilized society. A society cannot be at peace with itself if it is missing this quality of civilized behavior. Civilized behavior as the norm is not one in which people are lacking in integrity with regards to conduct. Rule of law, which is carried out consistently througout, is the best hope towards obtaining that desired result. I don't believe that the left v right paradigm is consistent with order in a civilized society. It appears to me that the left lacks integrity. They may even sneer at it, as they do with many other good things that still remain in this country.

Consequently, it is my hope that this is what was rejected in the old paradigm, and the new one now has a chance to get re-established, as what was happening during the Reagan years.

The New Paradigm was once used in reference towards this very thing, I believe. It was during the Bush 41 presidency, in which George HW Bush positioned himself as the heir of Reagan. But the paradigm was sneered at, if memory serves. That administration marked the end of Reaganism, and the beginning of a long road down to totalitarianism that Reagan warned about. Bush ended the unity in the GOP, and also engendered the broader disunity that that old Paradigm needs to foster and grow stronger. Perhaps that mistake can be avoided this time.

Shatner versus Limbaugh

Shatner v. Limbaugh

Shatner must be a big liberal, or what would the debate be about? I didn't know his politics at all. I really didn't care.

But Shatner sounded liberal when he went into space on Bezo's rocket not too long ago. He sounds a little like that in this clip.

The problem with some folks on the left is that they can sound reasonable, but act very unreasonable at times. This debate had to have taken place awhile back, because Limbaugh died earlier this year, so the recent stuff doesn't figure into it. They may have been referring to Obama, but no names were mentioned. Anyway, the times one lives in can be the factor that creates the conflict. They were talking about health care, and Obamacare was the big thing back then. The unreasonable thing to me at the time was the mandate.

We have mandates now. So there you go. The political left seems to like the mandates. The mandates don't belong in a free society. If you cannot sell a thing on its own merits, then maybe something is wrong with what you're doing. But the left doesn't think like that. Anyway, here's the debate...

It should be obvious, but it probably is not

New Zealand PM shuts down news conference because she didn't like the question.

CTH writes about this event just recently, in which someone who is not an "accredited" news person, asks a valid question about the effectiveness of the "vaccine".

The subtlety of it is what caught my eye. It should be noted that it isn't a "news" conference if valid and fair questions are not allowed to be asked. The person asked a fair question involving other nations experiences with the vaccine. That seems fair and reasonable, but the reaction definitely was NOT. The person asking the question was treated as if he was unreasonable, but that is not so. Note also the requirement that only approved people are allowed to ask questions. The "news" conference was a sham event. It was no news conference if you cannot ask valid and reasonable questions.

The subtlety of it is that the PM doesn't appear all that "flustered" or anything like that. It seemed like a very slick and well-executed diversion to regain control of the message that was being pumped out to a likely uninformed citizenry. Perhaps the citizens of New Zealand DON'T KNOW and aren't allowed to know certain things that are inconvenient to the ruling class. The citizens are UNINFORMED if they aren't allowed to know all facts relating to government policy. The idea that you can have a DEMOCRATIC type of government without free speech is counter to much of the experience of the world in the last century. The first thing a tyranny does is to shut down free speech. Not only that, but to also confiscate firearms.

All of it is being done under the radar, it seems. It is made to appear to be so natural and reasonable, but it is not. I've seen that before on a blog called Mahablog. The Mahablog is a left-wing site. Once upon a time, I read that blog and commented there. I was banned from making any further comments just because I asked a question that the blogger didn't like. It wasn't rude. It wasn't unreasonable. It was a valid question, as I recall. It took me by complete surprise. This blogger at that point seemed like a reasonable person, but that was not a reasonable way of behaving. It is a lot like the New Zealand PM.

What's the point of the discussion then, if fair and valid questions are not permitted? It is just plain and simple propaganda. Not a free exchange of information, which is what you would expect in a FREE society. The conclusion should be obvious.

Guitar theory on youtube

I've been spending a lot of time on youtube lately. Most of the time, I'm looking for stuff I can use. Sometimes it gets into stuff that really isn't practical. That happened today.

From time-to-time I've visited the Rick Beato channel. It just so happens that he has taken on the project of teaching music, as opposed to what he did before. Teaching music is not new for him, he said.

One of the videos promised to cover as much guitar theory as he could in one hour. There was so much stuff that 30 minutes in, I was way, way lost. Shoot, I was lost a lot sooner than that. This confirms that I never really learned much about the guitar. This is true despite the time that I spent on it as a teen.

One moral to that story is that the amount of time spent is in no way a determining factor in how much progress can be made. To get the most out of the time, a personal tutor who could teach what needed to be taught-- or so I would think. As for me, I had just one lesson. The other time was spent just trying to do it all on my own. Not very efficient in terms of time. But you cannot become a good player in just one hour. The practice has to mean something that is going to advance you. How to do that?

The world-wide-web is a resource that I didn't have back in the seventies when I was a teen. What a resource it is. But there's a dark side. That's the stuff of a different subject.

You can get pretty negative, but there is also another side. There is always another side. And I don't have to always be practical, either. A change doesn't have to be bad, but it isn't always a good thing either. It is just one of those things that is what it is. The choices you make are the key. Also, it matters as to what you actually want. How do you know when you are on the right track in what you are doing at the time? It is not always easy to know. Maybe you never really find "it".