Something ($$$$$) lost in the translation
June 29, 2007
It is customary for customer-facing South East Asia (Taiwan, China, Korea) professionals to assume western-sounding names such as Andy, Susan or Lawrence. Sometimes the names chosen can be confusing because of the pronunciation. For example, for the longest time we thought that our friend’s name was Cassie, then we realized the name was Kathy. Sometimes the names are merely phonetic translations, such as Bo-Lai, or Alpha.
Other times we are left wondering, for example the name of our good friends Lone Chen, or Bobo Chen (not related to Lone Chen).
We think the practice of selecting a first name to our liking after reaching adulthood is good. Given that most our Chinese/Korean/Japanese friends and co-workers had had the opportunity to select a name they like, we decided to select a Chinese name and settled for Tao Rae.
William Galvin, the secretary of the state of Massachusetts is not at all amused at the federal requirement to translate candidate’s names into Chinese characters. He does not object to having ballot instructions in Chinese, but he argues names should be left in Roman letters. The reason, he argues, is that phonetic translations often times leads to similar sounding names, but with distinct meaning. For example presidential candidates’ names may translate into:
Tao Rae Signet
Mit Romney à Uncooked Rice
(Barack) Obama à Oh Bus Horse
Fred Thompson -à Virtue Soup
We find it ironic that customer–facing South East Asia professionals get to choose a Western-sounding first name, while the Federal and (and certain states) government mandate the phonetic translation of candidates’ names into Chinese characters. Just imagine the money spend by local and federal government just in translation costs for the various mandated languages!
Might this be analogous to Hoffman Study, commissioned by the CZ Master Association allegedly to “find out where the taxes go”, but in reality to buy propaganda to convince residents to turn Coto into a city.
Perhaps the CZ Master Association learned a lesson from the Orange County Board of Supervisors? When you ask the board questions about propriety of certain expenditures, one is referred to “audited financials”. When you ask the financial auditor the process used to approve these financials, the auditor refers you to the board! After the recent County of Orange Bankruptcy Debacle, we asked then candidate Bates a number of fiscal transparency questions, and these were never responded to – see below for details - Click here for the complete Orange County Y2006-2007
The CZ Master Association budget is consumed in large part by two items: Landscape = 56% ( includes the purchase of free trees, the Arizona look and River Rock) and 22% for security (the fine print says it is really not security, and included the firing of the CHP and Securitas, private security guards helping kids cross the streets and OC Sheriffs Mounties to patrol horse trails).
Federal Spending breakdown - 2006: Lost in the translation
Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Michael Carona has been clear that his department is under-funded and Proposition 172 ($286.3M for FY2006-2007) is intended to spell come relief
County Or Orange Sheriff's Funding - Proposition 172
RELATED STORIES
CZ Master Association Harkins (Attorney) Letter - Zipperman's (CZ President's) First Test?
Mr. Harkins: I am in receipt of your letter dated June 12, 2007 in reference to the requests that I made concerning our last CZ Board Election, obtaining the CZ Master?s financial records and the Sports League Roster specific to use of our Sports Park ....
New CZ Master Association Leadership, New Name?
The Varo/Mezger administration recently engaged a high-priced intellectual property law firm, contributing to the barrage of nasty lawyer letters going to residents, in attempts to suppress free speech
CZ Master Association Transparency - Mr. Zipperman
Mr. Zipperman: As the new President of CZ, you really need to break with the Varo/Mezger past and culture of corruption if more transparency is really a goal you want to advance. Executive Session issues relate to Contracts, Specific legal issues and...
Coto de Caza BOD's involved in transparency, or committed to it?
Given that certain reporters either do not know the meaning of the word paraphrase, (or misplace), or simply define the terms as they please to promote their own agenda, we figured that it is best to define the term commitment, since the CZ board...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions posed to then-candidate Bates and never responded to
Background:
During 1995 and 1996, Orange County borrowed $1,039,000,000 ($1,940,000, 000 including interest) to resolve bankruptcy claims resulting from the collapse of the Orange County Investment pool in 1994.
In 1995 Orange County issued Refunding Recovery Bonds in the amount of $278,790,000. The county pledged Motor Vehicle License Fees (MVLF) to pay debt service on this issue. The debt service schedule postponed beginning principal payments until fiscal year 2000-2001.
Then, in 1996 Orange County issued Recovery Certificates of Participation (COPS) in the amount of $760,800,000. The county pledged sales taxes; MVLF and $38,000,000 DIVERTED from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to pay debt service.
The combined debt service schedule increased from $78,000,000 in 1995-96 to over $90,000,000 in the fiscal year 2000-2001.
A Grand Jury was convened and it was concerned that the financial impact of the bankruptcy had been postponed until 2000-2001.
In December 1998, the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted a plan that would use $230,000,000 resulting from the settlement of various lawsuits to defease and/or "pay off" the 1995 bond issue. It was purported that, that plan would reduce the annual debt service requirements to $62,500,000.
Then in 1998 the Board of Supervisors purportedly adopted a five-year strategic financial planning process.
1) One of the Superior Court recommendations after the Grand Jury hearings was that "The Orange County Board of Supervisors not reduce its lobbying efforts in Sacramento."
2) Another so-called recommendations was that the "Orange County Board of Supervisors continue the policy of defeasing bankruptcy related debt whenever possible."
3) And, lastly, recommendation was made that "Orange County prepare and publish each fiscal year a detailed analysis comparing original estimates with year-end actuals; explaining any variation consisting of plus or minus 10%.
Questions:
i) "What" is the Orange County Board of Supervisors lobbying in Sacramento? WHY are they paying lobbyists? HOW MUCH are they paying lobbyists? WHAT do the lobbyists do? WHO are the lobbyists? Is this really a good use of taxpayer funds? That money should be put back into the community. What is your position?
ii) DOES the Orange County Board of Supervisors continue the policy of defeasing bankruptcy related debt? HOW are they, or HOW have they, defeased bankruptcy debt, using what funds to do so? Additionally, is the bankruptcy debt fulled defeased? Is any of it remaining, if so, how much has totally been defeased? What is your position?
iii) In the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted a plan to use $230,000,000 resulting from the settlement of various lawsuits to defease and/or "pay off" the 1995 bond issue -- [WHY WOULD THE OC SUPERVISORS ADOPT SUCH PLAN?] (a) WHAT "various lawsuits" were used to defease or help offsset or pay off that 1995 bond issue? (b) What lawsuit settlements have, since that time, been used to offset the 1995 bond? (c) Have any lawsuit settlements been used for a purpose OTHER THAN the 1995 defeasement? (d) Has the County Board of Supervisors continued this action of using lawsuit settlements to pay off bond issues, OR other such issues that would otherwise fly off the radar for its citizens? What is your position?
iv) Does Orange County prepare and publish the recommended "detailed analysis comparing original estimates with year-end actuals and explaining any variation consisting of plus or minus ten percent" and if so, where can we find such is document? We have been trying to get a copy of it ever since--its been impossible! What do you know and can you help us get such information?
v) Because the debt service schedule was postponed until fiscal year 2000-2001 for the beginning of principal payments -- did those principal payments actually BEGIN during that time or are they STILL POSTPONED? What can you tell us about this?
vi) Because the county pledged sales taxes the Motor Vehicle License Fees and $38,000,000 were DIVERTED from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to pay debt service. Was this money ever repaid to the Orange County Transportation Authority -- AND -- if it was not, WHY NOT? Was ANY of that borrowed money repaid? Is there a penalty for non payment? What can you tell us about this?
vii) Has this bankruptcy been resolved in toto? Is it paid off? What is the status and how has it affected the taxpayers?
Advertisement
Select Blogzz & click icon
BlogSpot FeedBurner CotoBlogzz BraveNet Y!360
Archived Issues
General Information
HOA Resources
Emergency numbers
Public Safety Resources
Crime Watch
Sex Offenders in the Area
Real Time Traffic Report
LA Times Orange County
Subscribe
- What is RSS?
Area Links
ORANGE COUNTY BLOGS:
R
To subscribe/unsubscribe to the CotoBuzz Journal or send Letters to the Editor : click here or send email to:
The CotoBuzz Journal P.O. Box 154 Trabuco Canyon, CA 92678 (509) 355-8895
Privacy Policy Need Help? Contact Us Administrator: cotobuzz@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment