Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Old_Joe and Lewis Braham. Please Explain This To Me
I then searched all of the legislative info site for the word "honcho." The word doesn't occur. I reran the search through Google, first limiting it to the California legislature and then expanded it to a web search for the phrase "captain, head person, head honcho." It doesn't occur, so far as I can tell, in any bill or law. Or, for that matter, anywhere except all two websites that ran the story you quote.
The article claims that the Speaker of the California House sponsored the bill, so I visited her homepage. I searched for key phrases ("hostile workplace") then scanned the past two months worth of statements, press releases and other administrivia. Nothing turns up.
Broadened the search to "Toni Atkins" (the Speaker) plus "hostile workplace," and just kept finding copies of that same article. Went to the Sacramento Bee, the paper for California's capitol, and tried similar searches. Nada. Heck, I even tried The Onion and Snopes.com.
"Townhall.com was launched in 1995 as the first conservative web community. At that time, only a handful of political sites existed and Townhall.com was the first major investment in online activism made by either side. In 2005, Townhall.com split off from The Heritage Foundation in order to expand the scope of Townhall.com's mission to inform, empower and mobilize citizens for political change. In 2006, Townhall.com was acquired by Salem Communications. Townhall.com is part of the Salem Web Network. Salem Communications is the leading US radio and Internet broadcaster reaching audiences interested in Christian and family-themed content and conservative values."
"By uniting the nations’ top conservative radio hosts with their millions of listeners, Townhall.com breaks down the barriers between news and opinion, journalism and political participation -- and enables conservatives to participate in the political process with unprecedented ease."
@Maurice In life, as in investing, due diligence is paramount. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true. ("Head honcho" should have been a dead giveaway of its absurdity.)
All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
For signed copies of Mein Kampf, see me when I'm released; it won't be long now. Your soon-to-be Fuhrer, ADOLF
@Old_Joe@Maurice yeah, ha, ha!! The ironic part is that the article (taken down now...wish I could re-read it) was totally believable. The sad part is most of the rest of us are too tired and desensitized to respond anymore...so kudos to Maurice for having an energetic response and risk getting beaten up by the opposition.
@Maurice, Aside from the spurious nature of the article, which is hilarious, it would be nice if you actually learned the meaning of the word "socialist" before calling a group of people you dislike it. The words "socialist" or "communist" or "Marxist" seem the equivalent of the last acceptable racial epithets the right-wing has to bandy around with impunity. These words have very specific meanings, but there is an awful lot of slippage in their usage lately. Some seem to believe that the existence of any government at all is somehow "socialist" or that any public ownership of property is socialist. I guess that means one is a socialist if one walks through a public park or if a ship at sea uses a lighthouse, or if one supports our troops because they're government employees. While there may be a socialist dimension to any public ownership or any fight for equality however ridiculous, to apply it to all such circumstances distorts the meaning of the words until they become empty stereotypes, which, sadly, I suppose is the point. Last I heard socialist countries like Sweden have bosses and hierarchies in their corporations as well as the government itself.
"The words "socialist" or "communist" or "Marxist" seem the equivalent of the last acceptable racial epithets the right-wing has to bandy around with impunity. These words have very specific meanings"
The right-wing feels free to indiscriminately apply these terms to anyone who has any opinion that is in the least bit out of sync with their beliefs. These words are used mindlessly and indiscriminately, and those who use them frequently affect surprise when others take exception to or offense from their use.
It's very interesting to me that there is evidently no corresponding set of terms in use by those of different persuasions. Strictly a one-way street. The closest that we can come is to holler "Koch brothers" once in a while. Then again, "selfish bastards" does seem a reasonable general-purpose descriptor.
@littlebee: and unfortunately, those who from this point on shall only be named as 'downward trending from the left or 'dtfl'', have this country on a dangerous slide. If you haven't noticed, there's now legislation that has been introduced to prevent money from being sent out of the country. You know it's always a bad sign when the Government attempts to hold hostage the resources of its citizens. They will first spend us into oblivion and then claim ignorance when the inevitable occurs. Truly delusional. If that makes me selfish, then so be it.
If you haven't noticed, there's now legislation that has been introduced to prevent money from being sent out of the country. You know it's always a bad sign when the Government attempts to hold hostage the resources of its citizens. It's all Greek to me, BW
And this is especially for BW (but the rest of you can read it, too, if you like):
@Old_Joe Yes, you're right...it's terrible how the Democratic party manipulates its unsuspecting base.
@LewisBraham As a business writer, don't you think the business cycle has a little to do with it, as well?
Gotta go work out now....I've got the crappy bronze Obamacare plan, so I need to exercise some personal responsibility and stay healthy! See you in a bit!
@LewisBraham: whereas I have enjoyed the seemingly endless rise of the market, please review what had to occur to get us here. Idiotic policies (DEM and Republican) created an epic bubble and subsequent crash, To bring us back from the brink of implosion, emergency efforts were deployed to keep us solvent. This included lowering interest rates to an unprecedented level of zero. It is odd, for a group who seemingly are hell-bent on the destruction of the 1% are doing things to make them richer and to keep the poor, poorer. Having said this, however, the structure of it all remains unsustainable and it will not end well. The stock market is not an indicator of what is right in the world. And, truth be told, I could care less about the direction the market takes when a Dem is in office. I said it in jest, but the policies of DTFL, will always ultimately lead to economic peril. And, I'm not endorsing Republican either. They once had the chance to enact a balanced budget and failed to see it through. DTFL has nothing to do with the market and everything to do with the sustainability of policies.
@little5bee Well, you folks certainly had plenty of time and opportunity to suggest reasonable alternatives. Can't seem to remember any, though. What were they, again?
Oh, sorry... I guess that's another "gotcha", and you don't care for those. A "gotcha" is any response that you have a problem answering, right? Right-wing attacks are "truth", any response is "socialist" or "communist" or "Marxist" propaganda. You folks are a trip.
@little5bee, Most of the people on this board have been bullish on healthcare stocks, including, I see, yourself with the Eventide Fund. Why do you think the healthcare sector has been performing so well? Could it have something to do with the "socialist" Obama's healthcare reform, which is arguably one of the biggest giveaways to the for-profit private healthcare sector in history?money.cnn.com/2015/06/25/investing/obamacare-ruling-health-stocks/ Socialists don't generally create policies that are windfalls for the private sector.
@LewisBraham, @Old_Joe, Wikipedia (for whatever that's worth) suggests "There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them." Maybe the meaning isn't so precisely specific as you'd like to believe.
On the other hand the definition of racial epithet seems pretty precise. "A racial epithet is a derogatory term based on someone's racial background, used as an insult" or from another source "Racial epithets are terms used to characterize people on the basis of their race, and are often used to harm the people that they target".
It seems that while you're criticizing @Maurice for using a not completely precise term incorrectly even though modern socialism, according again to Wikipedia, is broadly concerned with the social problems created by capitalism (such as inequality-my term), while using a somewhat more precise but just as, if not more inflammatory term in a completely incorrect way. Unless, of course, if you think socialism, communism or Marxism somehow include an implication related to race then it would be more understandable. I just couldn't find anything suggesting that.
It doesn't seem to me that anyone has a monopoly on using words either literally or figuratively depending on what serves them best, although politicians and writers in particular seem to be far more skilled than the average Joe at using words or language to elicit specific reactions or emotions that may not be entirely precise.
I wouldn't argue with you for a minute that people on the right do it and even though you seem to believe it's "strictly a one-way street", here are a few examples from the other side as well. You might remember "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", which we now know was meant in a very precise and specific way that not everyone thinks of when someone uses those words. We were also told "I have been as clear as I can be. Under the reform I've proposed, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. These folks need to stop scaring everybody" only to find out a bit more than 4 years later that he forgot to mention "if it hasn’t changed since the law passed". Oops, apparently it wasn't so clear to everyone.
@MFO Members: Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time----Anonymous Regards, Ted
@Old_Joe: Churchill is democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time was credited with the quote, but he never said, "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" Regards, Ted
@LLJB, I make no apologies for Clinton's mincing of words, although the fact that a public witch hunt began over someone's sexual peccadillo seems somewhat extreme given the lack of one over, say, lying about WMDs being present in Iraq. But no question: Clinton lied. Obama on the other hand I think deserves more slack as the "minimum coverage standards" in the law were meant to help people by eliminating plans that were so terrible they provided almost no coverage at all. Still, he should've been more straightforward about that and deserves criticism for it. As for socialism, yes there are various kinds, but much like the various forms of Christianity they revolve around some core concepts. And by no stretch of the imagination can anyone reasonably say that a significant portion of the California legislature is "socialist." Sorry, it just isn't so. Nor can anyone reasonably say Obama or Clinton are socialists. Their biggest donors have been hardcore capitalists. About the closest we've come to a socialist in mainstream politics is Bernie Sanders and even he has disavowed some aspects of that connection.
LLJB said: "It doesn't seem to me that anyone has a monopoly on using words either literally or figuratively depending on what serves them best, although politicians and writers in particular seem to be far more skilled than the average Joe at using words or language to elicit specific reactions or emotions that may not be entirely precise."
Your point is well taken LLJB. I love Lewis' writing, sharp-tongued though it can be at times. (I'll confess to being biased towards most of his views). Politicians? There are some articulate ones out there. But a great many others can't push a verb against a noun without the help of ghost writers. What you see on the surface often bellies what lies beneath. So, I'd be careful ascribing any high degree of literacy to the group as a whole.
Remember the one who couldn't remember which Federal agencies he was planning on eliminating?
@LLJB: I wouldn't for a minute suggest that any politician was capable of telling the absolute truth for any extended period of time. Since we're more or less discussing "definitions", let me define "extended period of time" as "more than 30 seconds" in this context.
Your quotes, while valid, are all examples of politicians being less than accurate or truthful. The indiscriminate use of blanket terms such as "socialist" or "communist" or "Marxist" is altogether a different subject, it seems to me.
"there's now legislation that has been introduced to prevent money from being sent out of the country. You know it's always a bad sign when the Government attempts to hold hostage the resources of its citizens"
When the US "place[d] restrictions on any financial transactions related to travel to Cuba" in the early '60s - it was a sign of something bad (a Soviet-sponsored Cuban government). Over time, some administrations relaxed those restrictions, while others tightened them.
"In 1977, the Carter Administration made changes to the regulations that essentially lifted the travel ban. In 1982, the Reaagan Administration made other changes to [the regulations] that once again restricted travel to Cuba .... Under the Clinton Administration, there were several changes to the Treasury Department regulations, with some at first tightening the restrictions, and others later loosening the restrictions.
"Under the George W. Bush Administration, the travel regulations were tightened significantly, with additional restrictions on family visits, educational travel, and travel for those involved in ... sports. [Lots more restrictions as well.]
"In April 2009, President Obama ... announc[ed] that all restrictions on family travel and on remittances to family members in Cuba would be lifted. ... In January 2011, President Obama too further action to ease restrictions on travel and remittances.
"Most recently, in January 2015, the Obama Administration further eased restrictions on travel and remittances."
Some administrations increased restrictions on what people could do with their own resources (financial transactions, remittances). That's "always a bad sign". But of what - the administrations or the situations?
Comments
The article refers to AB-69. When I go to the California legislature's site, AB-69 deals with procedures for downloading data from police officers' bodycams: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_69&sess=CUR.
I then searched all of the legislative info site for the word "honcho." The word doesn't occur. I reran the search through Google, first limiting it to the California legislature and then expanded it to a web search for the phrase "captain, head person, head honcho." It doesn't occur, so far as I can tell, in any bill or law. Or, for that matter, anywhere except all two websites that ran the story you quote.
The article claims that the Speaker of the California House sponsored the bill, so I visited her homepage. I searched for key phrases ("hostile workplace") then scanned the past two months worth of statements, press releases and other administrivia. Nothing turns up.
Broadened the search to "Toni Atkins" (the Speaker) plus "hostile workplace," and just kept finding copies of that same article. Went to the Sacramento Bee, the paper for California's capitol, and tried similar searches. Nada. Heck, I even tried The Onion and Snopes.com.
For what interest that holds,
David
Townhall.com is part of the Salem Web Network.
Salem Communications is the leading US radio and Internet broadcaster reaching audiences interested in Christian and family-themed content and conservative values."
"By uniting the nations’ top conservative radio hosts with their millions of listeners, Townhall.com breaks down the barriers between news and opinion, journalism and political participation -- and enables conservatives to participate in the political process with unprecedented ease."
About Bialosky (the articles author) - http://townhall.com/columnists/brucebialosky/
Thanks!
But I'm still waiting for Old Joe to explain why there's so many nut cases in California.
@hank- Well, you'll have to wait a while longer because it's certainly beyond me. If you get any good info on that be sure to let me know.
@Maurice- OK, so you were had, but don't feel too bad. It wouldn't surprise me if some ultra-lefty nutcake did propose something like that.
For signed copies of Mein Kampf, see me when I'm released; it won't be long now.
Your soon-to-be Fuhrer,
ADOLF
I'm sure someone has used grant monies to study the "nut job" circumstance; and hopefully with ratios related to population base.
California has "Mount Shasta" and Michigan has the "Mystery Spot".
Many "other world" portals exist, which could offer some explanations, eh?
We know this area of knowledge continues to be studied.
Survived the nasty Michigan storms on Sunday.
Take care,
Catch
The right-wing feels free to indiscriminately apply these terms to anyone who has any opinion that is in the least bit out of sync with their beliefs. These words are used mindlessly and indiscriminately, and those who use them frequently affect surprise when others take exception to or offense from their use.
It's very interesting to me that there is evidently no corresponding set of terms in use by those of different persuasions. Strictly a one-way street. The closest that we can come is to holler "Koch brothers" once in a while. Then again, "selfish bastards" does seem a reasonable general-purpose descriptor.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery...”
-- Winston Churchill
I just don't like your "gotcha" tactics...quite juvenile IMO.
If you haven't noticed, there's now legislation that has been introduced to prevent money from being sent out of the country. You know it's always a bad sign when the Government attempts to hold hostage the resources of its citizens. It's all Greek to me, BW
And this is especially for BW (but the rest of you can read it, too, if you like):
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/they-hate-your-guts_1001602.html?page=2
I
So maybe the term should be upward trending from the left.
What a sick compendium of filth and hatred.
@LewisBraham As a business writer, don't you think the business cycle has a little to do with it, as well?
Gotta go work out now....I've got the crappy bronze Obamacare plan, so I need to exercise some personal responsibility and stay healthy! See you in a bit!
@little5bee Well, you folks certainly had plenty of time and opportunity to suggest reasonable alternatives. Can't seem to remember any, though. What were they, again?
Oh, sorry... I guess that's another "gotcha", and you don't care for those. A "gotcha" is any response that you have a problem answering, right? Right-wing attacks are "truth", any response is "socialist" or "communist" or "Marxist" propaganda. You folks are a trip.
On the other hand the definition of racial epithet seems pretty precise. "A racial epithet is a derogatory term based on someone's racial background, used as an insult" or from another source "Racial epithets are terms used to characterize people on the basis of their race, and are often used to harm the people that they target".
It seems that while you're criticizing @Maurice for using a not completely precise term incorrectly even though modern socialism, according again to Wikipedia, is broadly concerned with the social problems created by capitalism (such as inequality-my term), while using a somewhat more precise but just as, if not more inflammatory term in a completely incorrect way. Unless, of course, if you think socialism, communism or Marxism somehow include an implication related to race then it would be more understandable. I just couldn't find anything suggesting that.
It doesn't seem to me that anyone has a monopoly on using words either literally or figuratively depending on what serves them best, although politicians and writers in particular seem to be far more skilled than the average Joe at using words or language to elicit specific reactions or emotions that may not be entirely precise.
I wouldn't argue with you for a minute that people on the right do it and even though you seem to believe it's "strictly a one-way street", here are a few examples from the other side as well. You might remember "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", which we now know was meant in a very precise and specific way that not everyone thinks of when someone uses those words. We were also told "I have been as clear as I can be. Under the reform I've proposed, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. These folks need to stop scaring everybody" only to find out a bit more than 4 years later that he forgot to mention "if it hasn’t changed since the law passed". Oops, apparently it wasn't so clear to everyone.
Regards,
Ted
Regards,
Ted
Your point is well taken LLJB. I love Lewis' writing, sharp-tongued though it can be at times. (I'll confess to being biased towards most of his views). Politicians? There are some articulate ones out there. But a great many others can't push a verb against a noun without the help of ghost writers. What you see on the surface often bellies what lies beneath. So, I'd be careful ascribing any high degree of literacy to the group as a whole.
Remember the one who couldn't remember which Federal agencies he was planning on eliminating?
Your quotes, while valid, are all examples of politicians being less than accurate or truthful. The indiscriminate use of blanket terms such as "socialist" or "communist" or "Marxist" is altogether a different subject, it seems to me.
When the US "place[d] restrictions on any financial transactions related to travel to Cuba" in the early '60s - it was a sign of something bad (a Soviet-sponsored Cuban government). Over time, some administrations relaxed those restrictions, while others tightened them. Cuba: U.S. Restriction on Travel and Remittances, Congressional Research Service, April 10, 2015.
Some administrations increased restrictions on what people could do with their own resources (financial transactions, remittances). That's "always a bad sign". But of what - the administrations or the situations?