Houston Translator Association Irregularities

The Houston Translators and Interpreters Association has in recent years been a model of competence in the industry. Yet the current bylaws amendment ballot looks more like a model of practices to avoid. The online bylaws dated April 14, 2010, define members as follows:

Article III – Membership…

Section B – Classes and Qualifications

The Association has three (3) membership classes: individual, corporate and institutional.

  • Individual: An individual who is engaged in translating, interpreting or related work (and may include students)

  • Corporate: A business with an interest in translation or interpretation

  • Institutional: An institution with an interest in translation or interpretation.

Directors elected in single-candidate elections now propose to change those member classes by creating a special class of students who at this time would not be allowed to vote to elect their teacher nor be listed in the online members directory (where the public expects to find professional linguists). To propose the change, voters were told that “new text is indicated by underlining, deleted text by strikeout.” But for the ballot proposal sent to members to change the bylaws, the board of directors approved the following:

Section B – Classes and Qualifications

The Association has four (4) membership classes: individual, corporate, institutional and student.

The above introductory sentence (followed by four, not three bullet items) appeared with no underlining for the new text nor strikeouts for deleted language. It gives the incorrect impression–instructions elsewhere to the contrary notwithstanding–that the student category already exists whether one likes it or not, and that there is mere quibbling to be decided on some trifling point of verbiage in the last of four preexisting bullet points.

In an association of quilt-makers, brewers, basket-weavers or kickboxers, the omission might be brushed aside as simple incompetence, the result voided and new ballots produced. Indeed, one such error in ballot translation into Spanish for the Texas State government had precisely that outcome and cost taxpayers about $100,000 to reprint.

The bad ballot language at issue, however, is presented as approved by the very people immigrants depend on for legal defense of their individual rights in courts that order execution by letal injection. Credible fear reviews can shield dissenters or whistleblowers from extrajudicial execution or torture by junta-style dictatorships, and HITA hosted a presentation on those. Professionals educated abroad want their syllabi competently translated with all legalities accurate so they may exercise a profession despite entrenched lobbyists erecting barriers to entry.  Our newsletter and web tips just now alerted linguists of at least a dozen different fraudulent scams. But more perfidious scams are perpetrated from within the profession. Must we circulate ballots that are an indictment of the board’s competence to frame and edit a simple bylaws amendment proposal?

For over a decade beginners were advised by prominent HITA and AATIA members not to bother to apply for municipal and county court interpreting in Texas. From a position of public trust they emphatically proclaimed that a license was required as a prerequisite. Nevermind that this was a law urged by three individuals claiming to represent the profession without their lobby efforts appearing in our trade publications. The persistent lie was finally exposed at a regulatory meeting at which a government regulatory attorney explained on the public record that the law meant nothing of the sort.

The old law merely formalized a procedure for showing an incompetent interpreter the door and ordering up a substitute, typically someone grandfathered in irrespective of real credentials or ability.  The dissembling was a sales platform for quickie diploma mill courses pushing test answers, podiums for grandfathered insiders to talk down to aspirants, and a loophole enabling agencies possessed of counsel to quietly and without fanfare exploit inexperienced youngsters at pauper rates. The law was only repealed after a libertarian interpreter put up a website playing a recording of the regulatory lawyer’s explanation in language too clear and simple to falsify.

If sidetracking students from earning a degree liable to make them employable is deemed a good idea, it ought to be passed by honest vote of fully-informed members using a ballot prepared in conformity with its own instructions and specifications.  Leaving out the underscores and strikethroughs is a demonstration of lack of competence or subterfuge that can only lead to the outcome being challenged. That is not the sort of attention the board needs to be focussing on the Houston Interpreters and Translators Association.

Any association of actual linguists can raise revenue and provide a public service by hosting interpreting contests. Winners selected by the attendees could thereby earn credible credentials by live testing. A similar competitive approach is used to select and rank athletes, speakers, dancers, writers–even tire-changers or jugglers performing at association events. An interpreting contest need be no more complicated than a live debate or a spelling bee, and its results would carry weight with the membership, judges, attorneys, doctors and honest regulators interested in an objective assessment of competence in performance.

If you are an interpreter or translator interested in the honest defense of individual rights, by all means do get in touch.

 

Trump Brennt Paris?

Remember the debates? the platform? The Republican party published a huge platform way before the election with lots of fanfare. (Disclaimer: I vote libertarian!)

The GOP platform independent of any candidate announced its plans BEFORE candidates and election. The language is not at all difficult to understand:

1. We oppose any carbon tax.
2. We support the development of all forms of energy that are marketable in a free economy without subsidies, including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and hydropower.
3. We support expedited siting processes and the thoughtful expansion of the grid so that consumers and businesses continue to have access to affordable and reliable electricity.

The other kleptocracy party, instead of a repeal prohibition plank, ran to Paris like Woodrow Wilson with an opium cartel League of Nations. There, its leader tried to circumvent the Senate with a non-treaty transferring sovereignty to National Socialist and International Socialist parasites in Europe. Trump had nothing to do with the clumsy trap nor with plans for disarming it. All he did was accept the job of shoving that published platform down everyone’s throat. Here’s how voters reacted:

The GOP energy plank is their only plank that makes sense and is almost kind of libertarian in places. When was the last time you saw these platform planks mentioned anywhere? Here is another one you definitely will not see mentioned.

Protection Against an Electromagnetic Pulse
A single nuclear weapon detonated at high alti­tude over this country would collapse our electrical grid and other critical infrastructures and endanger the lives of millions.

Clearly the platform portrays electricity and access to energy as  positive thing, like the capacity to do work, earn a living and survive catastrophes. That anyone feels the need to point this out is sufficient cause for alarm. It shows that government and mystical schools have produced a populace unable to understand the elementary definition of energy, much less grasp the work-energy theorem or safety statistics. But Republican emphasis on mystical prohibitionism, asset forfeiture and the bullying of pregnant women guarantees they will again lose as soon as the Democrats learn and delete carbon taxes and efforts to ban electricity from their platform.

The Libertarian Party seeks unfettered access to energy. Its platform is short and easy to understand. Each one of the 4 million libertarian votes cast in the presidential race alone packs the law-changing clout of sixteen votes wasted on the corrupt looter kleptocracy.

If this helped make Econazi Europact rejection announced by the US president less mysterious, just think how well this translator can clarify legal or engineering documents written in Spanish or Portuguese.

Climate Change & Nonaggression Pact

National Socialist–Soviet Socialist Pact, (August 23, 1939)–Paris “Agreement” November 4, 2016… a comparison

The National Socialist–Soviet Socialist pact is also called the Hitler-Stalin Pact, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Nazi–Soviet Pact and the German–Soviet Non-aggression Pact and Russo-German Pact.** In much the way Global Cooling morphed into Anthropomorphic Global Warming, then (to cover all bases) Climate Change (which was everywhere long before mankind).  All of this is old hat. Externally, the socialist “non-aggression” treaty was short and flowery, with phrases like:

In any event both Governments will resolve this (Poland) question by means of a friendly agreement.”

and

“Should disputes or conflicts arise between the High Contracting Parties over problems of one kind or another, both parties shall settle these disputes or conflicts exclusively through friendly exchange of opinion or, if necessary, through the establishment of arbitration commissions.”

The treaty closed with a nondisclosure agreement that masked the existence of additional deals, but the thing was outwardly cute and fuzzy, as one might expect from neighboring altruistic People’s States. The fact remained that the preceding war had been largely a dispute over heroin markets in which to sell Papaver somniferum products grown in the Balkan States. Those markets and competition still existed in 1939.  The secret additional deals amounted to a divvying-up of the opium-producing Balkan States.

When the Democratic Party gained power after the George Waffen Bush asset-forfeiture crash and depression, it preserved existing domestic prohibition, high-taxes, asset forfeiture looting and other victimless “crime” legislation. However, stung by the Y2K election results in which the Green Party weighed in with enough spoiler votes to block Democrats from jobs, boodle and pelf, the Democratic platform committee hewed as close to the Republican line as possible–except for the part about trying to ban reliable power generation.

Bans on reliable power generation have been enacted in the People’s State of Australia (which replaced voluntary democracy with mandatory voting), and the Democratic People’s Republic of Germany. In both cases, utility bills skyrocketed and rolling blackouts and brownouts became familiar features of the environment. These provide pretexts for additional regulatory meddling. The result of curtailment of power generation anywhere is a net increase in the mortality rate in those places–in other words, a health hazard.

This latest Paris pact aimed at lowering life expectancy is couched in the most florid prose imaginable:

(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development

Translation: (c) Robbing taxpayers and monopoly victims to subsidize unreliable energy experiments

Propaganda expert George Orwell commented on totalitarian persuasion:

It is important to notice that the cult of power tends to be mixed up with a love of cruelty and wickedness FOR THEIR OWN SAKES. A tyrant is all the more admired if he happens to be a bloodstained crook as well, and ‘the end justifies the means’ often becomes, in effect, ‘the means justify themselves provided they are dirty enough’. This idea colours the outlook of all sympathizers with totalitarianism, and accounts, for instance, for the positive delight with which many English intellectuals greeted the Nazi-Soviet pact. (George Orwell)

Russo-German Pact of 1939. [Note 1, below] And when news of the Pact broke, the most wildly divergent explanations were of it were given, and predictions were made which were falsified almost immediately, being based in nearly every case not on a study of probabilities but on a desire to make the U.S.S.R. seem good or bad, strong or weak. (Orwell)

-issues like Poland, the Spanish civil war, the Russo-German pact, and so forth, are debarred from serious discussion, and that if you possess information that conflicts with the prevailing orthodoxy you are expected to either distort it or keep quiet about it–(Orwell)

If this sounds like 2017, welcome to the world of alternative facts.

** [Note 1: An example is the Russo-German Pact, which is being effaced as quickly as possible from public memory. A Russian correspondent informs me that mention of the Pact is already being omitted from Russian year-books which table recent political events. (George Orwell)]

There is a genuine non-aggression principle that socialists struggle to evade:

“I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

This is the pledge required to join or donate to the Libertarian Party.

Useless Drones Claim to Represent Science Beehive–as reported by Ron

This week the AMS (American Meteorological Society) sent a letter chastising Scott Pruitt for keeping an open mind on the question of man-made global warming/climate change. The letter (here) referred to the AMS institutional statement on the matter, and summarized their position in this paragraph: In reality, the world’s seven billion people are causing climate […]

via The Weathermen vs. EPA’s Scott Pruitt — Science Matters

Physics melts political phiction–thanks to Tony Heller

NOAA shows US December temperatures increasing at 0.1F per decade since 1930. Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) They are actually decreasing at 0.1F per decade since 1930. In order to make Zeke happy, I used only a stable set of stations which haven’t changed latitude since 1930. The NCDC…

via Corrupting December At NCDC — The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

Why Dems lost election and pseudoscientists get fired…

Zeke Hausfather has provided the latest excuse for trying to erase the hiatus, so let’s have a look at his work. He claims my US temperature adjustment graph is flawed because of changes in average station latitude and altitude over time. Zeke’s graph below also shows huge amounts of data tampering by NOAA, but shows 1940 cooler than…

via Zeke Debunks Himself – Twice — The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

Nixon’s anti-Libertarian Law

nixon1960aHere is how President Richard Nixon, after decreeing wage and price controls over the US economy destroyed by the Democratic and Republican parties’ undeclared war against “Godless Communism” in Vietnam, resorted to taxation and political subsidies in an effort to destroy the Libertarian Party. The following law was passed by the Republicans and Democrats and signed by Nixon on December 10, 1971.

It begins with TITLE VII–TAX INCENTIVES FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE (You may read the full law online and see just who benefits from the tax subsidy). The more important part is:

TITLE VIII – FINANCING OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS


SECTION 801. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND ACT.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subtitle:
“Subtitle H – Financing of Presidential Election Campaigns (…)
“SECTION 9002 DEFINITIONS.
“For purposes of this chapter –
“(1) The term ‘authorized committee’ means, with respect to the candidates of a political party for President and Vice President of the United States, any political committee which is authorized in writing by such candidates to incur expenses to further the election of such candidates. Such authorization shall be addressed to the chairman of such political committee, and a copy of such authorization shall be filed by such candidates with the Comptroller General. Any withdrawal of any authorization shall also be in writing and shall be addressed and filed in the same manner as the authorization.
“(2) The term ‘candidate’ means, with respect to any presidential election, an individual who (A) has been nominated for election to the office of President of the United States or the office of Vice President of the United States by a major party, or (B) has qualified to have his name on the election ballot (or to have the names of electors pledged to him on the election ballot) as the candidate of a political party for election to either such office in 10 or more States. For purposes of paragraphs (6) and (7) of this section and purposes of section 9004 (a) (2), the term ‘candidate’ means, with respect to any preceding presidential election, an individual who received popular votes for the office of president in such election.
“(3) The term ‘Comptroller General’ means the Comptroller General of the United States.
“(4) The term ‘eligible candidates’ means the candidates of a political party for President and Vice President of the United States who have met all applicable conditions for eligibility to receive payments under this chapter set forth in section 9003.
“(5) The term ‘fund’ means the Presidential Election Campaign Fund established by section 9006 (a).
“(6) The term ‘major party’ means, with respect to any presidential election, a political party whose candidate for the office of president in the preceding presidential election received, as the candidate of such party, 25% or more of the total number of popular votes received by all candidates for such office.
“(7) The term ‘minor party’ means, with respect to any presidential election, a political party whose candidate for the office of President in the preceding presidential election received, as the candidate of such party, 25% or more of the total number of popular votes received by all candidates for such office.
“(7) The term ‘minor party’ means, with respect to any presidential election, a political party whose candidate for the office of president in the preceding presidential election received, as the candidate of such party, 5% or more but less than 25% of the total number of popular votes received by all candidates for such office.
“(8) The term ‘new party’ means, with respect to any presidential election, a political party which is neither a major party nor a minor party.
“(9) The term ‘political committee’ means any committee, association, or organization (whether or not incorporated) which accepts contributions or makes expenditures for the purpose of influencing, or attempting to influence, the nomination or election of one or more individuals to Federal, State, or local elective public office. (…)

“SECTION 9003. CONDITION FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR PAYMENTS.
“(a) IN GENERAL – in order to be eligible to receive any payments under section 9006, the candidates of a political party in a presidential election shall, in writing –
“(1) agree to obtain and furnish to the Comptroller General such evidence as he may request of the qualified campaign expenses with respect to which payment is sought,
“(2) agree to keep and furnish to the Comptroller General such records, books, and other information as he may request,
“(3) agree to an audit and examination by the Comptroller General under section 9007 and to pay any amounts required to be paid under such section, and
[page 565] “(4) agree to furnish statements of qualified campaign expenses and proposed qualified campaign expenses required under section 9008. (…)
SECTION 9004. ENTITLEMENT OF ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES TO PAYMENTS.
“(a) IN GENERAL. – Subject to the provisions of this chapter –
“(1) The eligible candidates of a major party in a presidential election shall be entitled to payments under section 9006 equal in the aggregate to $0.15 multiplied by the total number of residents within the United States who have attained the age of 18, as determined by the Bureau of the Census, as of the first day of June of the year preceding the year of the presidential election.
“(2) (A) The eligible candidates of a minor party in a presidential election shall be entitled to payments under section 9006 equal in the aggregate to an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount computed under paragraph (1) for a major party as the number of popular votes received by the candidate for President of the minor party, as such candidate, in the preceding presidential election bears to the average number of popular votes received by the candidates for president of the major parties in the preceding presidential election. (…) STATUTE 85 PAGE 497.PDF

Following this unnecessary legislative incentive for the media to completely ignore the LP–unnecessary because TV oligopsony had chosen only two of 17 candidates for the Nixon-Kennedy debate–the law created, in CHAPTER 96, the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND ADVISORY BOARD, to which, by definition, only Democratic and Republican politicians (plus three placeholder shills) may be appointed. Observe that only the decrepit GOP and Dems, defenders of communism and chattel slavery respectively in their youth, qualify as “major” parties. The secret ballot in the hands of the looter party oligopsony effectively guaranteed, with this law subsidizing the fossils and penalizing new directions, that vote fraud would give spavined political soft machines absolute political power and nullify the salutary effect of  small-party spoiler votes–the source of all political change, for good or ill.

For comparison, the Communist Manifesto was published in English in 1850 in The Red Republican. Its Plank 2, a progressive income tax, was enacted by presidential fiat 12 years later, for about 10 years. Word of its impending revival caused the Panic of 1893 and the Supreme Court struck the tax down down in 1895 to stop general financial collapse. The Communist Manifesto tax was then injected into the Constitution, and its first implementation in 1914 coincided with the closing of all US stock exchanges for months.  Time elapsed from fool idea to full disaster was 64 years.

The Libertarian Party’s non-aggression principle first appeared in a 1947 letter from Ayn Rand. It framed the basis for the Libertarian party 24 years later. Nixon’s importation of Italian Fascism’s wage and price controls catalyzed the formation of the party. The “Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act,” created for the sole purpose of strangling in the crib any nascent political evolution toward freedom, passed one day before the LP was born. Mr. David Nolan founded the Libertarian Party with a group of colleagues in his home in Denver, Colorado, on December 11, 1971.

Time elapsed to-date is 44 years, but today we have the Internet and “ballot selfies” to break the stranglehold of unverifiable election fraud and political machine corruption. In another 20 years it should be possible to broadcast the non-agression principle that we “do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve social or political goals,” in all languages, abolish the income tax on individuals, and thus eliminate the major driver of sudden financial instability, warfare, and ruinous economic collapse.