Published By
Created On
17 Apr 2021 16:52:08 UTC
Transaction ID
Cost
Safe for Work
Free
Yes
Why You SHOULD Share Your Goals
Derek Sivers quotes a study in his Ted Talk: Keep Your Goals to Yourself:
“Everyone wrote down their personal goal. Then half of them announced their commitment to this goal, and half didn’t. Then everyone was given 45 minutes of work that would directly lead them towards their goal, but they were told that they could stop at any time. Now, those who kept their mouths shut worked the entire 45 minutes on average, and when asked afterward, said that they felt that they had a long way to go still to achieve their goal. But those who had announced it quit after only 33 minutes, on average, and when asked afterward, said that they felt much closer to achieving their goal.”
This study shows that by keeping a life goal to yourself you’ll increase your work ethic in the short-term.
But what about the long-term?
Personally, I’d qualify Derek Siver’s by saying, “Keep Your Goals to Yourself (sometimes)”.
Some life goals I keep private.
I may not want to show too much of my hand. I may not be ready to fully commit, or it maybe too personal, embarrassing, or a surprise.
Some life goals I make public.
This gives me a greater sense of accountability since I put a high value on my word. By sharing a goal it may lead to unforeseen relationships with people who have achieved the goal before me or are on the journey alongside me. It may inspire others. And by sharing a goal it may increase my chances of success, especially if that goal requires attention in order to be successful, i.e. making the NYT Best Seller List, building a profitable business, etc.
History shows us that the greatest accomplishments in world history came about from leaders who announced their goal and rallied a nation or team behind it.
You can make your life goals private or public over at my web app Live to Challenge, which is about life goal tracking and habit development.
LIVE TO CHALLENGE
http://www.livetochallenge.com/
SIGN UP FOR MY WEEKLY LETTER
http://www.anthonygalli.com/
FACEBOOK
http://www.facebook.com/livetochallenge
http://www.facebook.com/rallywithgalli
INSTAGRAM
http://www.instagram.com/livetochallenge
http://www.instagram.com/rallywithgalli
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2tORh2xFPk
“Everyone wrote down their personal goal. Then half of them announced their commitment to this goal, and half didn’t. Then everyone was given 45 minutes of work that would directly lead them towards their goal, but they were told that they could stop at any time. Now, those who kept their mouths shut worked the entire 45 minutes on average, and when asked afterward, said that they felt that they had a long way to go still to achieve their goal. But those who had announced it quit after only 33 minutes, on average, and when asked afterward, said that they felt much closer to achieving their goal.”
This study shows that by keeping a life goal to yourself you’ll increase your work ethic in the short-term.
But what about the long-term?
Personally, I’d qualify Derek Siver’s by saying, “Keep Your Goals to Yourself (sometimes)”.
Some life goals I keep private.
I may not want to show too much of my hand. I may not be ready to fully commit, or it maybe too personal, embarrassing, or a surprise.
Some life goals I make public.
This gives me a greater sense of accountability since I put a high value on my word. By sharing a goal it may lead to unforeseen relationships with people who have achieved the goal before me or are on the journey alongside me. It may inspire others. And by sharing a goal it may increase my chances of success, especially if that goal requires attention in order to be successful, i.e. making the NYT Best Seller List, building a profitable business, etc.
History shows us that the greatest accomplishments in world history came about from leaders who announced their goal and rallied a nation or team behind it.
You can make your life goals private or public over at my web app Live to Challenge, which is about life goal tracking and habit development.
LIVE TO CHALLENGE
http://www.livetochallenge.com/
SIGN UP FOR MY WEEKLY LETTER
http://www.anthonygalli.com/
http://www.facebook.com/livetochallenge
http://www.facebook.com/rallywithgalli
http://www.instagram.com/livetochallenge
http://www.instagram.com/rallywithgalli
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2tORh2xFPk
Author
Content Type
Unspecified
video/mp4
Language
English
More from the publisher
Controlling
VIDEO
BERNI
bernie-sanders-has-already-won-the
Bernie Sanders has already won the Democratic nomination.
Of course, as I stated the morning after Super Tuesday it’s GAME OVER, for the Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign, but the argument the New York Times made and the one I’m about to make is that his movement has in some ways won.
Throughout the Democratic primary I heard the mainstream media cover the race as if it was a battle between “the moderates” and “the progressives.”
But if elected, Joe Biden would be the most radical leftist president in American history. Period. Joe Biden only looks like a “moderate” compared to a socialist proposing...
Medicare-for-All: full government takeover of healthcare,
Jobs-for-All: guaranteed government jobs at $15 per hour plus benefits, which would wipe out small business owner’s ability to find workers; and
College-for-All, which includes cancelling all student loan debt: This means tuition free public universities and cancelling all student loan debt for some 45 million Americans who owe about $1.6 trillion and placing a cap on student loan interest rates going forward at 1.88 percent.
I know those proposals sound appealing when everyone is playing the game, “What would you do if you had unlimited money?”
The beauty of Bernie Sanders proposal’s astronomical price-tag is that it’s so high that it’s hard for anyone to wrap their hear around it, especially when you can get lost in the emotional vividness of a socialist utopia.
But to put into perspective how much 50 trillion dollars is consider that the federal government could write a $155,000 check to every American man, woman, and child. It’s Absurd! Consider that the top 1% of Americans own more wealth than the bottom 80% of Americans and they still only have 25 trillion dollars, i.e. half of what’s needed to cover the cost of Bernie Sanders proposals using the most optimistic numbers. Bernie Sanders might as well promise Millionaires-for-All because the dollar would be worthless at that point.
So it’s due to Bernie Sanders popularity and kooky proposals that he’s been able to drag the entire Democratic establishment to the far left with his soft government hands that have never had to work a real job in his life.
It’s because of him that 2016 Joe Biden looks like a Barry Goldwater conservative compared to 2020 Joe Biden.
For example, Joe Biden’s proposed tax increases are double what Hillary Clinton proposed in 2016. He’s declared that the so-called “Equality Act” would be his top legislative priority. He raised his hand when asked if he’d support extending health care benefits to illegal immigrants. He’s called for the expansion of Obamacare, which would include a public option — that would cost $750 billion. He’s proposed an ad
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY4_EM7Q4M4
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
GABBY
gabby-gabby-the-trap-of-victimhood-(toy
Gabby Gabby is more than what meets the eye.
She isn't an innocent doll nor is she an evil villain... so what is she?!
Let's explore!
Gabby Gabby was created with a voice box, but unlike Woody, her voice box didn't work so for her whole life she sat on the shelf of an old antique store with no one to play with, but she believes, “When my voice box is fixed I’ll finally get my chance!” And so when she sees Woody’s voice box she decides to go full-Hannibal on him by trying to rip it out of his body! But Woody makes a run for it with his pal Forky! He escapes, but Forky got left behind so he decides to sneak back in to retrieve his friend, but then he's quicky surrounded by Gabby Gabby and her gang of psychopathic dummies. As she walks toward him she tells Woody how jealous she is of the life he’s had with Andy and Bonnie… “I’d give anything to be loved the way you have.” “Okay, just leave me Forky. Bonnie needs him.” “Of course.” The dummies then escort Woody to a sewing machine where his voice box is removed. When he awakes, he sees how happy Gabby Gabby is for having a working voice box! She hugs him and gives him back Forky. Now we can all commend Woody for his courage and selflessness. He has come full circle from Toy Story 1 where he went from trying to trap Buzz for being Andy’s favorite toy to now trying to save Forky for being Bonnie’s favorite toy. Overall, Woody’s life has been like an overflowing cup. He has had his full and now he looks to help others get their fair share, even if it comes at his own expense. This is the true mark of a great toy... and a great man. As my father used to say (whenever we tied up in ping pong), "This is where we separate the men from the boys." But realistically I think that separation occurs when you start putting the welfare of others above your own. With that said, I think it's important to have some time in your youth to be a boy (or girl) and live somewhat selfishly so that when you get older you have more to give. For this reason I can empathize with Gabby Gabby. She was born with very little water in her cup. No one... not even a toy... should be left alone on a shelf for decades. When she saw Woody she saw an opportunity to finally live out her purpose! The world can be dog-eat-dog. But as I think deeper on the matter, I feel like Gabby Gabby is a communist! Take from the rich and give to the poor. And although any thinking human would agree the rich should pay more... we should also agree that to do so as Gabby Gabby did with such entitlement and force… all the while framing herself as the victim… would make a communist blush! Victimhood is one of the greatest traps in life because it inevitably leads to someone getting ripped open, and sooner or later th
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymfubXZfdgI
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
THE C
the-conservative-case-for-taxing
I've argued for a 3% gross corporate revenue tax and today I explain why it should also apply to nonprofit corporations.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm6IVxc9MbY
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
THE C
the-case-for-tariffs
Nuance matters.
Economists generally support immigration, but to be a nation requires borders so there’s clearly some level at which we should limit foreigners. This doesn’t make one a xenophobe.
Economists generally oppose tariffs, but to be a nation requires borders so there’s clearly some level at which we should tax foreigners. This doesn’t make one a protectionist.
During the Industrial Revolution, the US had the most protected economy in the world with a tariff rate between 20% — 50%.
By 1916, we became the most powerful country in history by surpassing the output of the entire British empire! The US then pressured nations to lower their tariffs so we could more easily flood their markets.
But by the 1970s, America started to become a victim of our own success because by exporting so much stuff we made it easier to not just send our goods, but also our factories.
Overall, just as I believe in a strong border even though I’m pro-immigrant I believe in a strong border even though I’m pro-trade!
In other words, despite the fear-mongering of our globalist oligarchy I believe in borders.
Now, I don’t think we should go back to a 50% tariff rate because as economists point out tariffs reduce economic growth, which FYI all taxes do, but if we’re going to have a government then we have to tax so the only honest way to judge import taxes is by comparing them to other taxes. I think a tariff is a less bad tax than an income, corporate, or payroll tax therefore I’d like to see us raise the former so we can cut and abolish some of the latter.
Tariffs are legal under the Constitution. If we had a constitutional-size government and no welfare-warfare spending, a uniform tariff to cover the cost would certainly be a better way to raise revenue than an income or value-added tax.
I believe in an across-the-board 10% tariff.
In addition, I believe in an additional 5% — 10% “tyranny tariff” tacked onto nations that prohibit free speech such as Russia, China, and Iran because in our global economy free speech threatened anywhere threatens us everywhere. A tyranny tariff is in my opinion a more coherent way to discourage despotism than armed conflict or a hodgepodge of temporary sanctions.
But let me be clear — I’m not saying we should increase federal revenue, but simply that a greater percentage of it should come from tariffs again.
Tariffs are preferable to virtually every other federal tax because…
It’ll reduce our trade deficit. Our trade deficit is mostly due to abandoning the gold standard, but an open economic border + cheap foreign labor has increased it too.
Now, Milton Friedman was a trade deficit supporter because as he said… wouldn’t you want more stuff coming into your home than going out?
Perhaps
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwgims-R9lY
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
"ASK
ask-china-explained
This video explores CBS Reporter Weijia Jiang's question and President Trump's "Ask China" response to whether the question was warranted and the response was justified.
(don't ask me ask china, ask china trump explained, ask china trump)
The next time someone says, “there’s no such thing as a stup*d question.” show them this clip…
CBS Reporter Weijia Jiang:
You said many times that the U.S. is doing far better than any other country when it comes to testing. Why does that matter? Why is this a global competition to you if every day Americans are still losing their lives and we’re still seeing more cases every day?
President Donald Trump:
Well, their losing their lives everywhere in the world. And maybe that’s a question you should ask China! Don’t ask me! Ask China, okay! When you ask them that question you may get an unusual answer.
CBS Reporter Weijia Jiang:
Sir, why are you saying that to me, specifically that I should ask China?
President Donald Trump:
I’m not saying it specifically to anybody. I am saying it to anybody who would ask a nasty question like that.[1]
"Why does it matter if we do better than other nations in testing?"
It's because by comparing our nation to other nations we get a better sense of the job we’re doing instead of say comparing what we’re doing to [insert your ideal vision of what should be done] because compared to an ideal no matter what Trump does he’d fall short.
It’s commonsense to compare our response to real-world alternatives, which the mainstream media does all-the-time whenever they think Trump is doing something wrong…
And her question was nasty because she used a manipulative emotional appeal to basically say to the president, “Americans are dying and you are talking about irrelevant sh*t. What’s that about?”
Such a stup*d and nasty question would have angered any president. And then when he responded in a similar fashion to how he’s responded to similar questions in the past she chose to get offended like a 5th grader on the playground…
If her concern about “Americans losing their lives” was genuine then wouldn’t her follow-up question been more geared toward clarifying his solution instead of feigning offense?
And as soon as a fact stops advancing the mainstream media’s agenda, they conveniently ignore it even though they were the ones who once pushed it…
For example, the mainstream media has frequently scolded the president for blaming China instead of taking responsibility for the crisis’s negative consequences…
In this video from over a month ago they counted how many times Trump said “China” in one press conference…
So whether or not you think Trump should take more responsibility for the coronavirus, the bottom-line is that a r
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62pUJF7oTPE
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
THE F
the-future-of-israel-(how-the-israel
Before we go forward let’s go back…
The Kingdom of Israel was established around 1000 BC predating Christianity and Islam. We could therefore think of Jews as the region’s indigenous population.
The region was eventually conquered by Muslims and then Christians and then Muslims and then finally Christians again.
“Make Israel Native Again!”
Now, I don’t personally find genetic land claims persuasive. I don’t love the idea of passing down massive wealth from father to son let alone to draw a broad line from a millennia ago to the present. I recognize, however, that I may be in the minority here because there are many of my fellow Americans who believe that the federal government should give special privileges, reparations, and land to people simply on the basis of their genetic makeup.
Anyway, after many Jews were expelled from their ancient homeland, they were forced to live under Christian and Muslim governments who fluctuated between tolerance and genocide. This is known as the Jewish Diaspora.
Naturally, Jews became frustrated by being raped, killed, robbed, and scapegoated for centuries so they requested the League of Nations give them back a piece of their ancient homeland, which since then had basically passed from one colonial power’s hands to the next.
The bottom line is Zionist Jews recognized that the best way to defend themselves from antisemitism and preserve themselves from cultural disintegration was to have a state of their own.
And then after the most horrific genocide in history where basically the world sat by as Jewish men, women, and children were gassed to death, the British/United Nations offered to split the colonized land into two states: one for Jews and one for Arabs.
This should have been hailed as a triumphant victory for the region! The first time it would rule itself since perhaps the Kingdom of Israel, but do you know how the Arab League responded to this gracious offer?
War.
Genocide against Kurds? Nothing.
Genocide against Christians? Nothing.
Jews want to establish their own democratic state in a small piece of their ancient homeland where they make up a majority of the population after the most horrific genocide in human history? Arab nations unite in moral indignation to declare war!
They didn’t declare war because all of a sudden these theocratic governments developed a deep love for democracy, self-rule, and human rights. It was about maintaining Arab Islamic power.
The goal of the Arab League wasn’t a two-state solution or one-state where everyone would be “equal,” i.e. name a Muslim-majority country where Jews are treated as equals or where a single Jew holds elected office? The motive was as many Arab Leaders actively proclaimed to, “drive the Jews into t
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgRQiQYHjaU
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
NIT V
nit-vs.-ubi-vs.-job-guarantee
The free market creates prosperity.
It makes things cheaper and better.
But some people can’t even afford “cheap” so in the richest country in human history should We the People just let struggling individuals go without basic necessities like food, healthcare, and housing?
If your answer's “yes” well then most voters have thus far disagreed with you whereby since the New Deal, no matter who’s been in office, the welfare state has only ever grown, therefore, for better or worse, Americans will not accept “yes” as an answer so then the question becomes, “What’s the best way to provide basic necessities?”
The answer has thus far been to make them free for those who can’t afford them.
But I think rather than a hodgepodge of anti-poverty programs, which just exacerbate poverty, we should eliminate poverty itself!
The poverty line is about $12K per year so let’s guarantee people can get that amount…
NIT
Milton Friedman supported a Negative Income Tax, which is where “earners above a certain level pay money to the state while earners below it receive money.”
If Person A has an income of $50K and Person B has an income of $10K then if the break-even income was $24K with a 50% NIT then Person A would pay taxes whereas Person B would receive $7K. If a person had no income they’d receive $12K.
"In my opinion, the negative income tax is more compatible with the philosophy and aims of the proponents of limited government and maximum individual freedom than with the philosophy and aims of the proponents of the welfare state and greater government control of the economy."
Proponents say it would effectively eliminate the welfare trap, poverty, and streamline benefits.
The US has a version of NIT in the Earned Income Tax Credit, but one has to work to qualify for it. A political compromise could be to abolish Medicaid, SNAP, Housing Assistance, TANF, and CHIP in order to repeal the work requirement and increase the credit, therefore, making EITC into a full NIT.
In 2000, Milton Friedman said that a universal basic income was "simply another way to introduce a negative income tax.”
UBI
A Universal Basic Income is where the government gives money to every citizen on a monthly or annual basis.
But I think there’s five key structural differences between NIT and UBI:
The first is a person receive’s less money the more one earns with NIT, which could disincentivize work more than UBI.
The second difference is that NIT would theoretically cost less than UBI because if the goal is to eliminate poverty then only people with no income would receive the full $12K whereas with UBI everyone would.
The third difference is that with NIT there’d be more political pressure to keep it low because fewer people would be receiv
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV0HwtQ3x04
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
Controlling
VIDEO
HOW T
how-to-make-stretching-a-habit-tips
This year I made stretching a habit. In this video I go over personal tips and the science-based benefits of making stretching a habit.
"A good goal is like a strenuous exercise - it makes you stretch" - Mary Kay Ash
Tips for Making Stretching a Habit
Set a Trigger:
After I brew tea, I stretch. Then I pour the tea. I make tea every morning (and usually at night) so I therefore stretch at least once a day. This has become an unconscious behavior (aka a habit) for me because I've been doing it so long.
Work Up from Feet to Face:
This way you don't forget to stretch a part of your body. My stretching regiment is pretty consistent and takes 3-5 minutes.
Hold Stretch 30 to 60 seconds (Don’t bounce!):
For example, when you bend over to touch your toes don't bounce up and down. Goes as far as you can, without hurting yourself, and then just hold that position.
Sometimes during the day I'll consciously decide to stretch if I feel like I've been sitting down for too long or if I'm just waiting around and I want to maximize my time.
For example, I started working at a sports bar and one of the girls asked me, "Why do you stretch so much?" I said that I wanted to eventually be able to touch my toes (although I can put my foot behind my head) and I explained the benefits of stretching:
3 Science-Based Benefits of Stretching
Less Tired:
“When muscles stay still the blood pools in the muscles, which makes you feel tired and sluggish,” says Floreani. “As soon as you move you nourish the muscles and improve your concentration levels as your brain gets some blood flow.”
Stress Relief:
Stretching relaxes tight, tense muscles that often accompany stress. Even a few minutes of stretching can calm the mind and provide a mental break.
Better Posture:
Assists in correct posture by lengthening tight muscles that pull areas of the body away from their intended position (because of so much time at our computers, many of us have tight chest muscles which pulls the shoulders and head forward, leaving us with a hunched shoulder look).
Another co-worker then joked that he doesn't want to see me bending over to which I shot back, "If you don't like what you see then don't be looking!"
FULL ARTICLE: http://www.anthonygalli.com/stretching-a-habit/
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhIw3BL4ay0
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
DONAL
donald-trump-medicare-for-all
A smart campaign tactic would be if Trump went to California to proclaim, “Medicare for All Californians!” The media would probably follow-up, “But why don't you support Medicare for All Americans?”
He could explain that Texans don’t want it so why should he force it on them? Democracy! He could also explain that according to the U.S. Constitution this sort of thing is supposed to be done at the state level. Tenth Amendment! Republicans believe in states-rights and so if 70% Califorianians want it, as polls indicate, then let them have it! This could be just one more way Donald Trump benefits from the populist wave Bernie Sanders helped build.
Depending on the poll question and sample size, Medicare-for-All has about 30% — 60% support across America, but over the years support has become more polarized
where Republicans support it less and less and Democrats support it more and more. The silver lining for single-payer advocates is it’ll be easier to pass single-payer in Democrat-majority states like New York, Vermont, and California.
In a previous answer, I discussed why it hasn’t happened yet, but in this article, I will discuss why it should be done at the state-level first.
Fundamentally it comes down to, “Ideas are worthless. Execution is everything.” — Scott Adams
In 2010, the Affordable Care Act’s poor execution helped Republicans take back control of the House of Representatives. In 2016, Republicans came within one vote from repealing it.
With the elimination of private insurance and bigger tax increases, single-payer would be a much bigger change and so even in a best-case scenario: Republicans don’t push back too hard in the various branches/levels of government, corporate media largely gets on board, and there isn’t “a death by a thousand lawsuits,” there still will be a lot of disagreement over the details, which will openly be aired out in the Twittersphere for Republicans to then galvanize support to take back control of the government. It’s also almost as inevitable as a rising tide that the minority party will take back control of at least one branch of government in at least 4 years. The longest period of unified American government (House, Senate, Presidency) in modern American history was 1993–1997. After single-payer is implemented and Republicans take back control then they will bring a sledgehammer or a scalpel to sabotage any success single-payer might have achieved if given enough time. Once single-payer is dismantled it will be much harder to expand or reimplement.
As a comparison, Medicare was passed in 1960 with bipartisan support, which meant neither party could crusade against it and it was expanded over time so that people who were directly affected by it, i.e. seniors
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar_sQnOgtmo
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English