Jump to content
The Education Forum

Kirk Gallaway

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kirk Gallaway

  1. I agree with both of you. He's always looked rather ludicrous to me. I've never seen a grace or a sustained coordinated rhythm to Jagger's dancing, but he's more like an actor on a stage.. If you like his moves on stage. You've probably seen every one of them 100 times,anyway. At that stage of R&R, The spontaneous show stealer in dancing was James Brown, and you'd get very simple coordinated moves among backup singers. In those first 3, Lady Gaga, with her wailing, just eclipsed everything vocally. I liked her outfit, which sort of highlights her dancing., I also marvel how these woman mange to move around in high heels. Usually when a band welcomes an outside artist, it's one of the final songs, and it's understandable that the crowd will forgive and even love it's looseness because it's sort of a "aren't we having fun now"moment. But every passing Stone song with a guest did get tighter after Gaga, Weinhouse, Sheryl Crow and I believe Aguilerra had the best dynamics. The Taylor Swift thing bugged me because it seems they can't seem to make up their mind if they want to harmonize or sing in unison in different octaves. Of course, none of these are rehearsed, but some real adept vocalists, can just harmonize all the way through a simple song like "Tears go by" even without a rehearsal.. Just my take.
  2. Trump fans seem to have a highly developed tolerance for reductios ad absurdum -- like wanting Trump to get credit for the COVID vaccines that they refuse to get. 🤥 Ha ha ha If Trump ever did the socially conscious decent thing to do. His base would leave him in droves! They're not particularly disappointed to find out Trump got the vaccine, But will be forever grateful to Trump that he didn't tell THEM to get the vaccine, and they're not getting the vaccine dammit!. 😜😬 ***** Steve I'm sorry to hear about your bad jab in your rotator cuff! That seemingly would have been a hard thing to do!
  3. Right on W.! Graph looks pretty much as I thought it would be. I knew Trump increased Defense spending but was wondering about inflation. You and Greg might like this interview I saw with Paul Krugman a while back about Piketty's book. Psst. Don't tell Jim it's from Bill Moyers! Krugman has said recently he's very pleased at the covid relief package. https://youtu.be/QzQYA9Qjsi0
  4. Greg said:I believe Piketty had an argument that about 65% was the maximum right number for taxation at the top end, Really interesting, Greg, I wonder if that dedicated fund to go out at 21 is his projection for just France or all the G7 or what? Putting 2 ideas together, if you took Andrew Yang's $1000 a year and projected it for 21 years, a person might get $21k at 21. That's a nice chunk. I wonder what his attitude would be about such a chunk in U.S.? It would seem, he might suggest it be directed to one's education. In France that might be a good idea, but what kind of education could you buy in the U.S. for 21k? Of course maybe it's that hopelessness in the U.S. that's make it more likely that people here are going to have to rethink their ideas about education. W. Yes, Greg. JFK got it about right with his 70% top rate, which endured for roughly 20 years. I know JFK lowered rates, but it does show a lag, the rates start lowering around 1967 to the Reagan tax cuts in 1983. JFK got it right, if you could consider Picettys projections to be gospel. It would be interesting to see the Defense outlays adjusted for inflation for the last 3 years.
  5. Hey that's an idea! Since we know now that Trump and Melania were secretly vaccinated. Trump can now come out and Let the Word Go Forth to all who would hear his call to vaccinate. What do you think?
  6. Right on W! I've read excerpts of Picketty's Capital. It does make sense that money will more likely percolate through the economy when given to people who need it for their existence. W. said: Is there an optimal income tax rate for stimulating economic growth? And what is it? Is that a rhetorical question? What is the answer?
  7. My reaction was exactly the same Paul, the most painless shot I've ever taken! But I didn't really look, and it was over! Do you think this could all be a big charade that the whole nation got sucked into? ha ha ha My first moderna shot a month ago was quick and painless. I had my second moderna shot a week ago, and particularly moderna I had heard packs quite a wallop, with any one of a few symptoms up to chills for a 24 hour period. I experienced no specific symptoms but I did feel under the weather the next day. I would compare it to feeling like you're about to come on to a flu, that never really happens. A day later I'm fine. Just my experience. Just to give you my overall experience. I don't take flu shots every year. But I've taken a pretty fair amount of vaccinations in my life and I've never had a worse reaction than a little muscle soreness. But I've been blessed with good health and a good immune system, not to say you couldn't have good health and have a bad reaction. And of course, it's true is that you won't be able to sue anybody for a bad vaccine reaction. It's been done very quickly because it's a worldwide pandemic emergency. There's always risk in life. If some argue that some drugs with some efficacy that were cheaper were ignored, that night be true. Then get on your government for overpaying, but for you, the vaccine is free! My guess is that they're not going to force you to take the vaccine any more than they're going to take your guns away. But keep away from me! If countries require to see your vaccination card to travel to a foreign country, I don't see that as an infringement at all. That's a country's right. And if you come from somewhere with some weird strain, I don't want your filthy untested ass in my country. There is some prudence in waiting to see if there is going to be a good degree of adverse reaction. Obviously we can't wait for years. I've heard there's a lot of adverse reactions within 6 months. The testing, I believe has been going on for at least 9 months, and there have been a lot returns that have come in now. Some of us aren't able to get it right away. So that gives some of us a little more time to judge. But it's a complete illusion to think you're going to "know' with utter certainty. Hearing Cliff talk about so many injections in his childhood. If ever there's a case for fear taking the vaccine, he has it, but he has taken it. I'm on an expat forum of people largely from the U.S. Canada and Europe who are living in foreign countries. Some of these people are in their late 70's even 80's and are in failing health. In some cases I've heard reservations to take the vaccine because they've been surprised that the isolation that they've had to endure over the last year was not near as hard as they had anticipated, because they're reaching a station in their lives where there will naturally be more seclusion and fewer contacts. I'd ask anybody here who has not had an adverse reaction to some vaccination in the past. Why would now be any different? What's holding you up? Hopefully not some silly theory that this is all a big conspiracy involving Bill Gates and Faucci and George Soros that your peer group have given themselves over to? ( and their aim is to what ?"chip"you or corner the world money supply?") Or any number of other theories. Or reading some life changing article or watching some life changing video? I've certainly seen here where people cling to books that reinforce their previous theories to the point that it's caused me to ask how substantiated a theory is it really? If these theories make you go counter to your life experience, without any outside real evidence, then you're not thinking for yourself. No you're not thinking for yourself! heh heh To those I would say, Stop being afraid of your peer groups response, or what you may have authoritively told your friends, just do it! If that night, you're feeling tired, headachey and slow, bear it in silence and suck it up! People on both the right and left, are getting hep to the tyranny of the last 40 years of the financial elites and their marginalizing of the middle classes. Why do you think it is they've been paying big money to cut in line for a vaccination? Because they're stupid?? And you're smart? That's music to their ears!----Fooled again! ******
  8. Yeah, I'm sure the thought of pitching in for a cause greater than themselves is absolutely terrifying! When their kids ask about the pandemic, they'll go into a 25 minute spiel! Kids eyes glaze over! Imagine all the poor public school teachers who have to work around and delicately try to undo the stupid anti social responses the kids inherited from their Fathers! Any hazard pay for that?
  9. My prediction, some can read it and weep. History will show Sleepy Joe Biden will have been successful at using the Federal Government to largely mitigate the corona virus in the U.S. in 2021. I fully expect that covid vaccination success would be met with the same utter astonishment, by the anti vaxxers, with maybe even the same anger and rage that many of them had when Trump lost. Let's just hope they don't storm the Capitol this time, for their own sake. I know their pre existing excuse already. It's a worldwide covid hoax to deny Trump re election, so of course now everybody says they're cured! This coupled with a relief plan that the majority of Americans approve. Of course since when do people object to be given money? Nonetheless the Republican resistance to be involved doesn't work for their party's standing. The massive influx of Capital under normal circumstances should boost the economy for the great majority of Biden's term. The Republicans are using their advantage in state legislatures to massively restrict voter registration. The only recourse the Democrats have is through Federal legislation where they currently need a 60 person vote in the Senate. This would be overcome by the Democrats ending the filibuster. The biggest problem up to now facing the Democrats ending the filibuster was that if the Republicans win back control of Congress in 2022, and the Presidency in 2024, they can just reverse all the work the Democrats did. But with the wind at their backs with a largely successful covid relief program, and an economic relief package that also amounts to a stimulus, and the suffering future demographics of the largely, religious white male Republican party. It would seem like the perfect time to seize the moment, try to accomplish some longer term goals and force the Republican party to reform itself. Nothing is for sure in politics. But it's quite obvious divided government was never as unproductive as it is now. The Democrats have to try to get a little more testosterone and run the table again in 2022 and 2024.
  10. Thanks Richard, I'm not claiming to be a super expert. I guess I'm not use to writing "John" as "Jon" so I change it to Ron. It's really remarkable to me that Georgia elected that guy because he actually seems he'd even thrive in California! heh heh
  11. Dennis said: When you give a private network the power to control credit, you have a major national security ticking time-bomb. In theory I agree with you. Would you like to make a prediction on when that will be? Because people have been saying that for 50 years! Maybe you're a gold bug Dennis. though maybe now it's crypto. There has always been people who have bought gold and silver promising that the terrible day will come when it all falls apart, then they'll be ready. They've always eschew the stock market and site previous crashes. So they were always invested in precious metals while the stock markets went up all around them. Then at certain particular points of great market uncertainty, they found themselves in the good position to sell. But the collapse never did happen quite as ominously as they had foretold and they never sold out to make any profit and just went back to holding a rather worthless commodity again. I agree with you Dennis in that everybody wonders about the power of the Central Banks. Dennis: The NY fed has distributed over $12 TRILLION to its friendly mega banks since September 2019, just a few months before the virus that then destroyed Main Street small business. This is tantamount to a coup Just facts here, You say "distributed" like they're giving the money to the banks.These are short term overnight "repo" loans made at low interest rates. But they don't go out to local banks, credit unions or small individuals. It's not fair and it has never has been. That's the real issue here. You're trying to make a case that the Central Banks knew of a "plandemic" without any real facts. I see in this article below they distributed 9 of that 12 trillion between Sept 2019 and 2020 , an equal amount of time before the beginning of the pandemic and after the start of the pandemic. I'll accept your figures that they've distributed 3 trillion more in the last 6 months, which shows a pretty even flow. What you have to prove now is, was that outlay at all precipitous to the 12 month period between say Sept 2018 to 2019? Even if the spending abruptly began in Sept 2019, you're a long way from making a plandemic connection by the Central banks 4 months in advance of the China breakout. But you have to first prove this is not beyond" business as usual", but even a discrepancy could be passed off to the market conditions at the time.. So you're saying in their omnipotence, they were aware of how infectious the strain was and how ominous the breakout would be, and also successfully predicted that Trump would handle it like a deer in the headlights and they would be able to instigate their vllanous plan to eliminate the corner liquor store? Is that your read of the plan? Those kind of plans always reflect to me more than anything else, the utter sense of powerlessness of the people who hold them. And of course one thing is true is that the neglected oversight in the case you're making did occur under the Trump Administration, but people have always wondered about the oversight. But we agree Jon Osoff is at least turning the public attention to the power of the Central Banks. And just because they've been saying it for years, doesn't mean the worse couldn't happen, particularly with the Central banks and the Federal government spending like crazy, like they are now. And if it did happen, the most protected will always be the wealthy. https://wallstreetonparade.com/2021/03/senator-ossoff-drops-a-bombshell-the-12-or-13-largest-banks-got-the-trillions-from-the-feds-repo-loans-last-year/
  12. Joe's is right. I remember thinking to myself that Beatty had that perfectly coiffed Hollywood long haired haircut at the time. (his next movie could have been "Shampoo") He didn't really look the part. He could have looked much more gritty, as befitting his role. But that kind of license was not uncommon at the time, and when he got into action, you could see he was pretty tough long haired guy. Beatty was a liberal who for a number of years considered going into politics. To me, he could have been a natural. America likes it's liberals sort of dashing, like the Kennedy's. When I think of a politician who was the real deal, always there to do the most for the most people, I think of Bernie Sanders and more recently Elizabeth Warren. But neither are really dashing. Even though Liberals were running for cover in the 80's and 90's. America is just image conscious enough and surface enough, I think they would have thrown that whole Liberal/Conservative thing out for a figure like Beatty. But at that time, even though there was a rather successful Ross Perot candidacy, most candidates had to have some experience in government. I'm not sure if he considered running for the California Senate or Governor. It's hard to speculate how good a politician he might be. Obviously he can't expect to suck at it and run for the Presidency. Anyway, he ended up becoming a family man, and now he's around 83.
  13. Re Oprah interview: Hey, You mean to tell me that this centuries old colonial empire monarch eugenics experiment is actually.......,... racist? Oh come on now! Have you any idea of the damage such an irresponsible statement such as that can have on their masses of people? Fake news, if ever there was!! ****** Back across the pond. The average American doesn't know his political interests from a hole in the ground. You look at these people who stormed the Capitol. I'm sure some of these people could be anxiously awaiting their covid relief checks. But of course they would never think of petitioning their idol Trump for to ask for assistance? Of course not, They got sucked into the one candidate who would never offer them assistance unless he thought he was in danger of losing an election. , You know this woman, Ashli Babbit who tragically got shot and killed at the Capitol. Bill Maher said in his show she had 10's of 1000's of dollars in credit card debt. I can't remember the exact amount. But she took out a cash advance on her credit card at 44% to go to the Capitol for Trump! Had she ever heard about Bernie Sanders? Had she heard about Elizabeth Warren? The only real anti elite candidates for President who would be sympathetic to her. No she gets sucked into the one candidate who would never help her with credit card relief, who never helped her to get by from May all the way to the end of 2020 with providing her relief from the pandemic. Trump didn't care enough to even lie about lowering excessive credit card rates and not deliver like he did with Health Care. It's like a battered housewife syndrome.There's absolutely no expectation that Trump should be working for them, or held to any standard of actual performance, his only purpose is just to air their grievances.
  14. So that's Leon's son, Ron? Joe said: Franken should have fought to keep his Senate seat. Agreed, that was shameful what they did to him! The Dems will eat their own over cultural issues. At least we can be comforted that Kirtsen Gillebrand who sort of lead the charge against Franken, will never be President! P.S. then I find this! Let's throw a cultural monkey wrench into things and elect Al Franken president in 2024! ********* Yeah Dave, Brian Williams, I don't know what he was thinking. What a weirdo! Always trying to end his interviews with an off the wall spin!
  15. Great article! W. Some good 21st century historic lessons. And a warning to not be tolerant of Biden should he try to advance this further. Wow! Neera Tanden, super hawk, no wonder the only problem the Republicans had with her appointment was caddy "Republican tweets". But as the article said: A 2018 survey found the public still infected, with over two-thirds in support of limiting military action overseas, including 78% of Democratic voters. And with registered Democrats outnumbering registered Republicans by 25%, (31-25) You can conclude that probably a little over half the Republicans don't see limiting military action oversees.So it's the Democratic base that has to prevail to nip a potential expanded conflict in the bud. Provided there isn't a major upset in the equation. Since Biden is not a peace candidate, My guess is that the general trend is to continue what started with Obama, and continued with Trump. And that is, when determined as needed, progressively more drone strikes at specific targets, to minimize loss of American life which Americans are becoming increasingly intolerant. They went into the press coverage of 2017 Trump authorized airstrikes in Syria: The article did quote "A FAIR study (4/11/17) found that 39 of the top 100 U.S. newspapers by circulation published editorials praising the Trump decision, with only one (Houston Chronicle, 4/7/17) offering limited pushback on technical grounds." 39 out of 100 is 39 too many but some of those newspapers have to be pro Trump already anyway. But I was sort of confused at the attempt at a strong ending. Using a Brian Williams quote about the 2017 Trump authorized airstrikes in Syria: Brian Williams: I am tempted to quote the great Leonard Cohen: "I am guided by the beauty of our weapons." And they are beautiful pictures of fearsome armaments. My first thought was that Brian Williams wasn't such a cultural bumpkin, that he has to be aware that a figure like Leonard Cohen wouldn't be one to write a line that would extol the glories of war, and it does seem unlikely that Williams would praise Trump for any such action. Among FAIR's assessment of only one press critique of Trump's action. They didn't mention this WAPO editorial below "Democracy dies in darkness", using Williams misplaced comments.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/04/07/dear-brian-williams-leave-the-rhapsodies-to-cohen/ But as to Williams quote: I think it was more his sort clumsiness out of wanting to wax poetic.
  16. Last fall, there was a lot of this logic going on that "my enemies enemy has got to be my friend". And when the balance of elites starting abandoning Trump, there seemed to be this silly thinking that somehow I should then embrace Trump. I see that as so personality driven and vacuous of any real ideology, comprehension or sense of functionality. This is another such case in point. Lindsey Graham on Ted Cruz. “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you,” I appreciate the sentiment. Though I don't believe it. As I've seen through experience Graham actually won't convict any Republican. So that could never cut it for embracing Lindsey Graham for me. But then, do we take from that, if public approval of Congress is at an all time low, and Congress hates Ted Cruz. I should like Ted Cruz? I think not. Check out this story from Al Franken about Ted Cruz that actually happened. This is really funny!
  17. I remember when I saw it, going back through the unsettling feeling of my experience of the JFKA, but by that time, I'd already Executive Action. It's gripping, very entertaining as well. Nice to see a hero with long hair like me at the time, beating the crap out of rednecks.
  18. If this was real, they should have kept quiet and ambushed them. You're under arrest, drop you weapons or else! ******* In the usual overkill, in mid January there was 25,000 National Guard in Washington. there's still quite a few there who came from without.These people have jobs and regular lives, and are forced to be in Washington.
  19. Joe said: Biden's eventual improbable "plurality" only win, made possible because Bloomberg diluted Warren's and Sander's vote counts, which before Bloomberg entered the field were actually ahead of Bidens. First off, it was not a "plurality", or it would have gone to the second ballot at the convention. Joe, you're the only person in the world who believes that. Bloomberg never harbored a ghost's hope of taking votes from Warren or Sanders. He's a very ambitious guy whose aim was to take votes from Biden because Biden started out so poorly, he thought he could take over the centrist Democrat vote and skew it to Wall Street and get the nomination. We've told you that over and over again. Any person on the inside of politics would tell you that, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. * Again, These are just facts. This is no way to be interpreted as an endorsement of Joe Biden. heh heh *** Steve, good article! More improprieties from guys like Louie Gohmert! And yet apparently anybody can do anything and nobody can do anything about it. Just like this stock conflict charge against Mac Connel's wife Elaine Chao. Too little , too late! *** W. Yeah, I've heard about that mayor of Stockton. Cool story!
  20. Ron,I know you're no supporter as you've said. But instead of Texas Governor Abbott being completely embarrassed and going off to lick his wounds after the Texas power debacle. He's doubling down, saying school's out for summer and lifting all mask restrictions in Texas right when we're making progress on the virus. https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-lifts-mask-mandate-opens-texas-100-percent Will I ever stop seeing General Barry Mc Caffrey on TV as a talking head, when they're "some threat" we should al know something about? Mean people suck!
  21. Why are you directing this at me? The only thing I said even remotely concerning Biden was really about Manchin and the $15 dollar minimum wage. But I do remember you showing us an editorial you wrote your readership in October where you praised Trump when he jumped on the Democrat bandwagon toward a $2000 payment to everyone, after he was party to denying you any kind of check from May to October, but you didn't tell your readership that. You made a reference to Trump caring about them when in reality it was a very transparent move to try to give everybody a check that he insists must have his name on it, to try to save his election prospects. The big problem in the U.S. is that people don't vote in their interest. You even said, though Thank God not in your editorial, that Nancy Pelosi was going to "do nothing" about getting these checks and what I'm telling you now is that if you're eagerly awaiting those checks, she is your number one champion in Washington, and its not even close! The reason you didn't get that $2000 or near it is Mitch Mac Connell, and his Senate. Period! We have a President and a bi cameral legislature, that are involved in this process. Throughout the Trump presidency during the covid pandemic, in 9 months in 2020, you got one check worth $600 (if single). If you didn't like that, did you tell your readership? If you're like most people, You've already got one check in the first 2 months of 2021, and maybe you got your hopes up for a $2000 payment and will be bitter that you're probably only going to get another one for around $1400. But if Mitch Mac Connell was still in charge, do you realize Andrew, more that half the Senate Republicans think we're starting an economic recovery, and don't think you deserve anything! You'd probably get nothing! At the most another one time check for $600. (that you probably already got in January!) Where you're probably going to get $1400, and from what I understand it's somewhat open ended that you'll probably get more checks, particularly if the economy isn't recovering. I'm sorry, I'm just giving you the facts, and if it's also of interest to your readership, they should know to.
  22. Fighting? Tanden 's been dead for a week. Biden met with Manchin probably saw it useless. It just wasn't at all a progressive victory for the Dems in the 2020 election. It was the narrowest of margins. The political reality is if you're a person who wants the biggest stimulus check you can get and a $15 minimum wage for all. Your person in Washington is Nancy Pelosi, believe it or not. If she had her way, you'd probably be $6000 dollars richer by now! She probably would have cut you a $1500 check starting last May, and every quarter since, or maybe $600 every month. People would have been able to plan much better knowing they would at least have had that income. Pelosi was holding out for more in October to try to compensate for the fact that she could only cut one check up to that one point. Trump waved the white flag, abandoned his Republican Party and conceded to his enemy, Pelosi,and came tagging along, even though he never gave a crap about aid for the 6 months prior, thinking if he could buy votes by giving people a $2000 check with his name on it, he might be able to salvage the election. But even that was a pipe dream! Pelosi has completely out maneuvered Trump for the last 2 years! He's probably never been emasculated like that by a woman before! I haven't received my $600 check yet, and was told by the IRS that if I didn't receive it by now, I can deduct from in my 2020 taxes. I don't really need a $1400 check, but I'm sure as hell not going to turn it down after paying taxes all my life. It's a bifurcated economy and people are either not missing a stitch or financially in horrible shape. Of course, a massive outlay of 1.9 trillion is debt to be paid off in the future, and is saddling those of us who have children with a enormous debt. Of course, we've have been saying that for years. For those of us who remember 19% interest rates, when we were young, they've done a remarkable job at taming inflation through monetary policy. But can we count on that forever? '
  23. All very cool. This was the R&R hit version of Apache with the warm Gibson hollow body sound that popularized Apache by Jorgen Ingmann . More rock history. This was the first big R&R hit that featured the synthesizer sound. Named after the first communication satellites. Actually a pretty song. Telstar
  24. Damn! Jim and Jeff can rejoice! Old nemesis Navalny won't be able to mouth off anymore. Putin sends him off to Gulag! Foiled again! https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/01/world/europe/navalny-prison-russia.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20210301&instance_id=27632&nl=the-morning&regi_id=61798350&segment_id=52604&te=1&user_id=48552702f942aacb0810b9de5ca41c55
  25. ahem..I say Cliff, this word "butthole" leaves me rather flummoxed! Even more so the phrase 'Butthole surfing" though it does sound rather exhilarating indeed! Are these American colloquialisms? Anyway, a bit back we did a bit of a Byrd a thon that was largely of the early Byrd Dylan folk era. Here's some later Byrds. Hey where's Hugh? I always liked the intro. A little Byrd country action.
  • Create New...