This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Freelance translator and/or interpreter, Verified site user
Data security
This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
Affiliations
This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
Services
Translation, Editing/proofreading
Expertise
Specializes in:
General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters
Journalism
Poetry & Literature
Rates
Portfolio
Sample translations submitted: 2
Spanish to English: Breivik’s Islamophobic Inspirations in the United States General field: Other Detailed field: Journalism
Source text - Spanish Los referentes islamófobos de Breivik en EEUU
(Ricard Gonzalez
Colaborador de EL MUNDO en Washington.)
Aunque en su manifiesto de 1.500 páginas Anders Behring Breivik justifica su horrible matanza del pasado viernes en las políticas multiculturales supuestamente aplicadas por varios gobiernos europeos, entre sus fuentes de inspiración intelectuales se encuentran algunos de los más célebres islamófobos estadounidenses, como Robert Spencer o Pam Geller.
En concreto, como informa hoy The New York Times, Breivik cita a Spencer hasta 64 veces en sus escritos. Spencer es autor de la página web www.jihadwatch.org, co-fundador de la organización “Stop Islamization of America”.
Además, es autor de una decena de libros en los que explora los peligros del islam, y de la llegada de inmigrantes musulmanes a EEUU. Entre ellos, destaca el best sellers: “The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion”.
A menudo, Spencer hace tándem con Geller, autora del blog Atlas Shrugs y de declaraciones tan inflamatorias como la que califica al islam como la ideología “más genocida del mundo”. Juntos lanzaron una campaña contra la construcción de una mezquita cerca de la Zona Cero de Nueva York, y otra con anuncios en los autobuses en los que instaban a los musulmanes a abandonar “la falsedad del islam”.
El otro panfleto islamófobo de EEUU admirado por Breivik es el blog The Gates of Vienna, en referencia al asedio al que estuvo sometida la capital austriaca por las tropas otomanas en 1683. Precisamente, esta efeméride es la que lleva a Breivik a situar en el año 2083, 400 aniversario del asegio, la fecha de la guerra civil europea que “limpiará” a Europa de toda influencia islámica.
Ante las acusaciones que lo señalan como el autor intelectual de la masacre, Spencer se ha defendido en su página web con el siguiente argumento: “Charles Manson creía que oía instrucciones para matar en la canción de los Beatles “Helter Skelter”, y cometió una masacre. No había instrucciones para matar en la canción ... No hay, para ninguna persona cuerda, ningún inspiración para herir a alguien en mi trabajo”.
Ciertamente, no se puede atribuir la autoría intelectual de un atentado a una persona porque sus escritos hayan influido a otra a cometer un acto violento, a menos que en los textos se incite al uso de la agresión como método.
Ahora bien, Spencer sí debería reconocer que sus declaraciones y las de otros islamófobos, por desgracia muy populares entre un segmento de la sociedad norteamericana, constituyen un caldo de cultivo que pueden degenerar en violencia.
La comparación con la canción de los Beatles no es válida, pues no había unos postulados ideológicos compartidos entre el cuarteto de Liverpool y Manson, pero sí entre Spencer y Breivik, del que aún nadie ha demostrado que sea realmente un desequilibrado mental y no un simple fanático.
Cuando se estigmatiza a una persona por su simple adscripción a un grupo, ya sea étnico o religioso, se están generando las condiciones para que alguna persona o grupo lleve la lógica un paso más allá, y cometa un acto violento.
Como decía el experto anti-terrorista Marc Sageman en el The New York Times, Spencer y compañía han proporcionado “la infraestructura intelectual” de la que ha surgido Breivik. La retórica del odio islamófobo nunca sale gratis.
Translation - English Breivik’s Islamophobic Inspirations in the United States
(By Richard Gonzalez, EL MUNDO contributor in Washington)
Although Anders Behring Breivik justifies his horrible massacre last Friday by citing the multicultural polices supposedly imposed by several European governments in his 1,500-page manifesto, among his sources of intellectual inspiration one finds some of the most famous American Islamophobes, like Robert Spencer or Pam Geller.
Specifically, as The New York Times informs, Breivik cites Spencer up to 64 times in his writings. Spencer is the author of the website www.jihadwatch.org and co-founder of the organization “Stop Islamization of America.”
Moreover, he is the author of some 10 books exploring the dangers of Islam and of the arrival of Muslim immigrants to the United States. Among the best-sellers is “The Truth About Muhammed: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion.”
Spencer often works in tandem with Geller, author of the blog Atlas Shrugs and of declarations as inflammatory as one that qualifies Islam as the “most ... genocidal [ideology] in the world.” Together, they launched a campaign against the construction of a mosque near ground zero in New York and another campaign with ads on buses urging Muslims to abandon “the falsity of Islam.”
The other American Islamophobic source admired by Breivik is the blog The Gates of Vienna, a reference to the siege of the Austrian capital by Ottoman troops in 1683. Indeed, this historical date is what led Breivik to predict that, in 2083, on the 400th anniversary of the siege, there will be a civil war in Europe that will “cleanse” Europe of all Islamic influence.
Faced with accusations that single him out as the intellectual instigator of the massacre, Spencer defended himself on his web page with this argument: “Charles Manson thought he heard instructions to kill in the Beatles song ‘Helter Skelter’ and committed mass murder. There were no instructions to kill in the song. ... Nor is there, for any sane person, any inspiration for harming anyone in my work.”
Of course, one cannot attribute the masterminding of an attack to someone because their writings have influenced someone else to commit a violent act, unless the texts cite the use of aggression as a method. But now, Spencer should recognize that his statements and those of other Islamophobes, unfortunately very popular with a certain part of American society, serve as a breeding ground that may lead to violence.
The comparison with the Beatles song is not valid, because there were no shared ideological positions between the Fab Four and Manson, but there are between Spencer and Breivik, whom no one has shown so far to be really mentally unbalanced and not simply a fanatic.
When a person is stigmatized simply because of membership in a group, whether it is ethnic or religious, the conditions are generated by which some person or group takes the logic a step further and commits a violent act.
As anti-terrorism expert Marc Sagemen says in The New York Times, Spencer and company have provided “the infrastructure” from which Breivik emerged. Hateful Islamophobic rhetoric always has a cost.
French to English: A Well-Deserved Downgrading Detailed field: Journalism
Source text - French Une dégradation méritée
Pierre-Yves Dugua, Le Figaro
Standard & Poor's a bien fait de dégrader les États-Unis. Passer de AAA à AA n'est pas une catastrophe. C'est humiliant. Mais c'est surtout mérité.
L'an dernier par exemple, les démocrates controlaient les DEUX chambres du Congrès. Ont-ils voté un budget ? Non. Ils faisaient campagne...
En février, Barack Obama a présenté son projet de budget pour l'année fiscale 2012. Contient-il un plan crédible de réduction de l'endettement à moyen et long terme ? Non.
Mi mai, lorsque le plafond légal de l'endettement a été atteint, des négociations se sont engagées avec les républicains pour le relever. Barack Obama ne s'en est pas mélé pendant plus d'un mois. Joe Biden, son Vice Président, en était chargé. Puis il s'est enfin impliqué. Mais jamais il n'a proposé de plan de réduction de l'endettement à moyen et long terme.
Les administrations précédentes présentaient des plans. Le Congrés parfois les examinait. Parfois les ignorait. Mais au moins on savait où trouver un document exposant ce que l'exécutif souhaitait. Obama ne procède pas ainsi. Il fait des discours et des conférences de presse. Il laisse fuiter des informations dans la presse, mais jamais il ne s'engage sur des propositions par écrit. Pourquoi ? c'est son style très détaché. Il avait procédé de même pour sa réforme fétiche de la santé. Il n'avait jamais présenté de proposition, préférant amender à distance le travail des commissions du Congrès.
Il procède ainsi également par calcul politique. Il ne veut pas être accusé en campagne d'avoir osé proposer des baisses de dépenses sociales.
Tout a été dit sur les républicains qui à l'inverse ont voté des projets de loi réduisant les dépenses sociales. Ils plongent dans les sondages. Passent pour des saboteurs de Medicare et Social Security, deux piliers du "welfare state", très populaires.
Tout a été dit sur leur tactique de prise d'otage du Trésor qui a fait trembler le monde en rendant possible un défaut de paiement de l'oncle Sam. Cette méthode a démontré que le système politique américain ne fonctionnait pas. Standard & Poor's le dit clairement.
Tout a été dit que leur refus absolu d'augmenter les impôts. Leur intransigeance est proclamée par beaucoup comme responsable du blocage politique.
Je ne suis pas du tout d'accord. Leur intransigeance a obligé Obama à céder. Sans cette intransigeance, le plafond de la dette aura été une fois de plus relevé sans réductions de dépenses.
La tactique républicaine a certes démontré que Washington était bloqué et incapable de prendre des décisions impopulaires. Mais c'est à la Maison blanche que l'on refuse de poser le problème des dépenses sociales, pas chez les républicains. Or sans s'attaquer aux dépenses de santé et de aux dépenses de retraite, on ne peut pas réduire l'endettement à long terme des États-Unis. Les démocrates doivent l'admettre. Accuser les républicains d'être des horribles serviteurs des riches, fait gagner des points dans les sondages. Cela ne change pas le fond du problème: il faut réduire les dépenses sociales.
Et bien-sûr il faudra aussi augmenter les impôts. Et pas simplement les impôts des riches. Les républicains devront céder. Mais d'abord, que le Président des États-Unis ose faire son métier. Qu'il ose proposer par écrit des réductions de dépenses sociales.
L'irresponsabilité à Washington est largement partagée. Les démocrates sont co-responsables de la dégradation de l'Amérique. Barack Obama est président depuis janvier 2009. L'endettement public fédéral était de 10, 6 mille milliards de dollars à son arrivée à la Maison blanche. Il est aujourd'hui de 14, 6 mille milliards de dollars. On ne peut pas augmenter l'endettement de 40% et continuer de dire que tous les maux viennent de George W. Bush. Ce n'est pas crédible.
On ne peut pas augmenter l'endettement de 40%, ne pas proposer de plan concret pour restaurer la crédibilité fiscale de l'État et s'offusquer ensuite que Standard & Poor's dégrade la dette fédérale.
Translation - English A Well-Deserved Downgrading
Pierre-Yves Dugua, Le Figaro
Standard & Poor's was right to downgrade the United States. Going from AAA to AA is not a catastrophe; it is humiliating, but above all, it is deserved.
For example, last year the Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress. Did they vote on a budget? No. They were campaigning. ...
In February, Barack Obama presented his budget plan for the 2012 fiscal year. Did it include a credible plan for reducing the debt in the middle and long term? No.
In mid-May, when the debt ceiling was reached, negotiations began with the Republicans to raise it. Barack Obama did not get involved for over a month. Joe Biden, his vice president, was put in charge of it. Then, Obama finally got involved. But he never proposed a plan for debt reduction over the middle and long term.
Previous administrations presented plans. Sometimes Congress reviewed them, sometimes Congress ignored them, but it was at least known where you could find a document detailing what the president wanted. Obama does not operate that way. He gives speeches and press conferences, he lets information leak to the press, but he never engages himself through written proposals. Why? It is his very detached style. He proceeded in the same way with his signature health care reform. He never presented a proposal, preferring to amend the work of congressional committees from a distance.
He operates like this partly out of political calculation. He doesn't want to be accused of having dared to propose cuts in social spending during his campaign.
Everything has been said about Republicans who, on the contrary, voted for bills to reduce social spending. They plunged in the polls, coming across as saboteurs of Medicare and Social Security, two very popular pillars of the “welfare state.”
Everything has been said about their tactic of holding the Treasury hostage, which had the world trembling at the possibility of Uncle Sam defaulting on payments. This method demonstrated that the American political system is not working. Standard & Poor's clearly says this.
Everything has been said about their absolute refusal to raise taxes. Their intransigence is declared by many to be the reason for the political gridlock.
I don't agree at all. Their intransigence has forced Obama to yield. Without this intransigence, the debt ceiling would have been raised once again without cuts in spending.
The Republican tactic has certainly demonstrated that Washington was gridlocked and unable to make unpopular decisions. But it is the White House that is refusing to acknowledge the problem of social spending, not the Republicans. Without tackling health care and retirement spending, the United States debt cannot be reduced over the long term. Democrats have to admit this. Accusing Republicans of being horrible servants of the rich wins points in the polls. It does not change the bottom line: Social spending must be reduced.
And of course, taxes must be raised, and not only rich Americans' taxes. The Republicans will have to yield. But first, the president of the United States needs to dare to do his job. He needs to dare to make a written proposition for social spending cuts.
The irresponsibility in Washington is widely shared. The Democrats are also responsible for America's downgrading. Barack Obama has been president since January 2009. The national debt was $10.6 trillion when he arrived at the White House. Today, it is $14.6 trillion. You can't raise the debt by 40 percent and continue to say that all of the problems came from George W. Bush. It isn't credible.
You can't raise the debt by 40 percent, fail to propose a concrete plan for restoring the fiscal credibility of the government and then take offense when Standard & Poor's downgrades the federal credit rating.
More
Less
Experience
Years of experience: 15. Registered at ProZ.com: Sep 2011.