Interview to an European in NY

B. C. is an European young photographer who lives nowadays in New York. She has a great and varied heritage: Her parents are both Cuban, who met when they studied in Russia, and there she was born. So was born in Russia, then moved to Portugal when she was 6, and later, when she was 19, she moved again to Spain to study a degree on Journalism and Audiovisual Communication. Then she traveled to Estonia as part of the Erasmus Exchange Program. She travelled then to California, where she finished her studies. She lived in Miami for a while, and finally she moved to NY, where she has been living for one year, four years in the States. Now she works at a company of entertaining news.

She has travelled a lot, and she has met a lot of different cultures, which I found really interesting to interview. During our interview, B.C. explained how did it feel to live in the States, and in New York. As she said, places like California and New York are the most representative places because of their different cultures and nationalities. There you get to know people from all over the world, unlike in the center of the USA, where there are only Americans. In New York, the people is very open-minded. In Europe,  she felt a bit alien because there aren’t a lot of people who has moved as much as she did, but in New York there is a lot of people who has lived in a lot of different places, which makes her feel very normal.

I was interested too in the perspective of an European, who has spent quite a lot of year living in the USA, about the political campaign there. From her point of view, it feels a bit crazy, all this Trump stuff. The first thing that surprises her is that she doesn’t really know any Trump supporters, there in New York. “I think people who has access to a minimum  education, that have access to university, know that Trump is not a good candidate for the US presidency. Even though he has a lot of people supporting him. That surprised me because half the country seem to like Trump.” Also, it seems that there is some people who would vote for Trump just because they don’t like Hillary. “The thing is, I think, that a lot of people hate Trump, but there’s a lot of people who hate Hillary too, and that scares me, because I know people who like Bernie Sanders, and that tell me that if he doesn’t win for the democrats, they will vote for Trump, because they’d rather vote for Trump, since they don’t like Hillary.

She also told me a bit about the current situation of the campaign and the ideas and measures Trump is proposing if he achieves to become the next president of the USA. “Well, I think next week is important for the campaign, because California is voting, and there is quite a lot of people in California, so it’s kind of decisive, it can make Hillary win for the democrats or, well, I think if Trump wins, I’ll come back to Europe” She speaks then about how racist are Trump’s measures. “The measures Trump want to implement are very very racist, like the thing about the Muslims, that he wants to control them and stuff, I don’t know, it’s like every week he has something horrible to say. It is quite incredible, because I think at first everyone thought Trump’s candidature was kind of a joke, and that would last for, like, two or three months… Now you can see in the polls Trump’s results very close to Hillary’s and, I don’t know, it worries me a lot because there exists the possibility of Trump actually becoming president.”

Finally, B. told me about her view of the European people and their point of view of the political campaign of the USA. She said that there is a lot of people in Europe that can’t see yet how worrying this issue is, since it isn’t their country and they feel too far away, but the United States of America are a powerful country, whose president is very important too, and what happens there is definitely affecting the whole world.

By Alejandro Conesa Martínez

An Interview with Irina Feldman

My name is Pablo Llamas Aparicio and I am a first-year student of Translation at the UEM. On June 9, 2016, I had the privilege of interviewing Professor Irina Feldman, who teaches Spanish language and Latin American literature at Middlebury College, in Vermont, United States. I thought it could be interesting to know the opinion of someone who lives in a state that usually remains unnoticed for Europeans in comparison to some of the states where we get the idea that everything seems to happen. On top of that, being born in St. Petersburg, Russia, Ms. Feldman’s own intercultural experience only added spice to this amazing interview.

First, it seemed a good idea to me that Ms. Feldman introduced herself to my readers. She told me that she had moved to the U.S. when she was fifteen years old, short after the U.S.S.R. had dissolved, because her mother –a single mother- was not sure of whether it would be possible for them to live safely in Russia during the transition. After a period of time during which she was not precisely infatuated with the States, Ms. Feldman took her high education in Georgetown, Washington D.C. and graduated in Hispanic literature. After living a couple of years in South America, she got a job in Middlebury College. She explained me that her research focuses on left-winged movements in South America, as well as the authors of those movements, especially in the Andean area (Bolivia, Peru…).

My next question to her was about the origin of her interest on Hispanic literature, given that she was born in Russia and works in the United States. She confessed me that one major factor was the fact that she did not really like the English language when she moved to the U.S. or the country itself, for that matter. She also told me that she had had wonderful Spanish teachers when she was in high school and later at college. She had had really positive experiences with teachers and professors from Spain, so she started studying Peninsularists, that is studies on the Iberian Peninsula, and she was highly interested on Medieval Spain. However, once she got in contact with studies on Latin America, she finally made up her mind and started focusing her studies on Latin America.

Wanting to know more details about what made her like the Hispanic literature so much, I asked her whether Hispanic literature had traditionally had a big impact on the Russian culture, as well as the American. To that question, she answered that actually, it had a great impact on the Soviet culture, when she was young. In that time, the classics from the Golden Age of the Spanish literature, like Cervantes or Lope de Vega, were indeed very famous in Russia. She told me that her first contact with the Spanish literature came when she was young and lived in Russia. She would read all these classics that are so important for the history of Spanish culture and literature. She also told me about a Russian-made movie of El Quijote, saying that it was “a very impressive movie.” As for Latin American literature, she answered that both in Russia and the U.S. it was famous for “the Boom” of authors like Gabriel García Márquez or Mario Vargas Llosa. However, she expressed her disappointment on the newer generations of students in the U.S. due to their little knowledge on Hispanic literature, even in the case of her own students at the very beginning of their degrees.

Next, I thought it was time we spoke about current affairs. Laughing, Ms. Feldman said that she could already guess what I was going to ask her (and she happened to be right). First, given that only two days before, Hillary Clinton had become the first woman to be an official candidate to the U.S. presidential elections, I asked Ms. Feldman why she thought Clinton received so much supporting from the U.S. citizens. She explained that Vermont is a state that traditionally votes as much to the left as it can. So then, she asks, why does Hillary Clinton receive so much supporting? In her opinion, Hillary’s popularity has been supported by her relation with former president Bill Clinton. She thinks that Hillary’s stand on immigration is not progressive, but she receives so much supporting because people think of Hillary as a professional who knows what she is doing. However, according to Ms. Feldman, Hillary’s presidency would not mean the revolutionary change that a lot of people seem to ask for.

When asked about Donald Trump, she answered that it was completely the other way round: people think of Trump as an anti-establishment candidate. From what she told me, a lot of people seem to believe that because Trump is so rich, he will not accept bribes. People, Ms. Feldman says, are sick of the system, they think that the government does not represent the people, they think that the state is corrupted by the big money, and want someone who can change the game. She, however, thinks that these people are wrong. She can’t see the logic behind the bribes argument, and sees Trump as the main example of the decay of the political system in the U.S.

Anti-Trump speech, the lethal weapons of Elizabeth Warren.

By: Delia Porta, Sofía Pachón, Maribel Zapatero and Jessica Navarra.

The accusations’ war has been started between the progressive senator Elizabeth Warren and the republican candidate Donald Trump.

Elizabeth Warren on the left. Donald Trump on the righ. By Sophia Tesfaye for Salon.

Recently, the Anti-Trump critics have been more accentuated. The arguments against the republican candidate, expanded by Elizabeth Warren, at the annual gala for the liberal non-profit Centre for Popular Democracy are an example of that. In the speech the U.S. Senator from Massachusetts remarked the need of the democrats to show the true identity of Donald Trump and why he can’t be a good president for USA.

Responses about the speech has been very variated and contrary. Twitter is having an intense action on this debate. On the republican side it has been interpreted as a poke, and even Donald Trump himself has publish some tweets against Warren, accusing her to be a liar and not native American. He also referred to her as the senator with less action ever in United Stated, “Only talk!” he said.

The accusations made by Donald Trump are only criticizing Elizabeth Warren for superficial irrelevant reasons as if she is native or not, but he can’t say anything about what she says against him, because what Trump does is always criticize the others with no-sense accusations. We needed someone to stop him.

The less sensibility of Trump is unacceptable and it means he won’t do any effort for the weaker people. He wants to get America great again with the only power of the high class, as the senator’s affirmation remarks, “Donald Trump cares about exactly one thing—Donald Trump”.

US is a big power on a global level, and it is supposed to be an example for the other countries in the international scene. Trump is now concentrated on the total elimination of problems with brutal manners, he is not thinking about the humans beside the problem, that situation should never become an example to follow for the rest of countries all over the world.

From our point of view, it was completely necessary to expose the real situation with Trump in order to aware the American people in favour of him about who they are voting and which would be the consequences if he became president. A selfish unconscious person can never be the president of a country. And Elizabeth Warren was the ideal person to show it.

First of all, Donald Trump has been strongly rude against women with hard comments and attacks to the feminine gender. A strong representative woman as the progressive senator of Massachusetts, who is a respected figure in both sides of the democracy in United States, is the perfect person to make him know that women have a strong action in the American society and shatter all his racist, sexist, and homophobic ideas. As Bernie Sanders said, ‘Elizabeth Warren, I think, has been a real champion in standing up for working families, taking on Wall Street’ on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

 

Moreover, she is incredibly good at making herself be understood by the others. As the Bloomberg page says, it is accepted by many analysts that she has an important talent for distilling political messages. She is very clear and coherent, and make things easy to understand for everybody. And in addition, she says what she thinks, but her thoughts are focus on making her country a better place for everyone, not just for herself.

She is popular because of her good deeds and her fight against social injustice and inequality, and not for rude comments on television. BBC exposed as proof of her popularity, the 40 million dollars she collected from the small donations of the people who heard one of her public messages in favour of the equitable distribution of money in United States.

Elizabeth Warren is a representative figure of social justice and human rights. Those are the values we want for the American society. And exactly the values that Donald Trump tears apart every time he talks about immigrants, women, homosexuals or anyone different than him.

Obama leads the 2012 U.S presidential elections

As we all know the U.S. presidential election is really a milestone for the planet that is repeated every 4 years, that is why we decided to make the article of this topic which we consider as important and even more so considering we study a career of Foreign Affairs.

Firstly we´ll explain briefly how the U.S. election works, then we´ll explain in detail how they are evolving today and what conclusions can a normal citizen have.

To explain the U.S. presidential elections we´ll not be doing the word limit agreed so we´ll explain it briefly.

Initially we note that any man or woman affiliated to a political party, whether Republican, Democrat or Independent has a chance to be president, provided that initially he or she wins enough delegates through local votes in the states, in the famous caucus and important dates like “Super Tuesday” and have money to fund his own campaign. After being elected prime candidate to be president, citizens can vote who they want to be the president of the United States.

Below you find a story written by our real-time monitoring of the elections this year 2012

According to a survey published by Reuters, the fame he has acquired U.S. President Barack Obama due to the campaign has increased slightly, while increased its distance from the Republican candidates ahead of presidential elections next 6 of November.

For the first time since last July 1, 50% of Americans surveyed approve of Obama, this means an increase of two points on the survey conducted in February.
Also 37% of respondents believe that the U.S. leads to success, representing an increase of five points over the previous measurement.

Cliff Young, from Reuters, explained that the shift may be related to the creation of 227,000 jobs, a figure that indicates an improving economy. “Not by leaps and bounds, but people notice that things are starting to go better,” he noted.

ELECTORAL HORIZON

This increase of popularity led Obama to be in front of the Republican Party candidates for the presidential elections next 6 of November consolidating its leadership.

If there was a clash with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, favorite Republican candidate choice, Obama now will get 52% of the vote against 41% for Romney, who is twice the distance recorded in February measurement.

The same goes for the other two Republicans who have real options for being in office. Obama would get a 52% to 42% of former Senator Rick Santorum, and 54% versus 37% of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich representatives.

Diana Cerviño

Antonio Crespo

Celia García

Paula Zapata

Concerns about the Olympic Games security plans

By Isidoro Arriola, Rafael López, Alejandra Rojo y Patricia Martínez.

It is known that the US has repeatedly expressed their preoccupation about the security in the London Olympics. Due to this preoccupation, the US Government has sent over one thousand security agents.

The American officials have been ultimately organizing the number of personnel in security matters that should be operating during the Olympics Games, telling what to do to the anti-terrorist and police forces of the UK.

This mandatory attitude from part of the United States is making the UK officials to get bothered, as they think that they are not equal partners in this theme. The general opinion about the position of the US is that they are being very demanding.

In the other hand, it has been known that the original security plan was composed by 10.000 security agents, and, after the first review, they realised that up to 21.000 agents where going to be needed, so the changes have to be done in this plans.

This error has brought some severe problems, such as the money that will need to be paid to the new security agents, money that will have to come from the Ministry of Defence, as there is no more money left for this in the budget due to the economical crisis that we are living now a day.

The problem will do little to reassure Washington, which will be supplementing its FBI personnel with an equal number of diplomatic security officials, some of whom will be armed to protect even better the security. Though the UK’s Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre has lowered the threat of attack to the third level, even though western intelligence agencies remain in alert because there is still some danger.

It is possible that Al-Qaeda, or other terrorist group, may attack to disrupt the Olympics Games, with members of the US team being obvious targeted. It is the perfect situation to attack because there will be many important political leaders with whom they may have some problem, and to they want to attack.

Even the believe of the strong security strategy and the solving of the problems that occur, some American officials have continued with the concern about the actual level of security agents.

One well-placed Presidential source said the whole Olympic security operation was being prepared actively “with the US in mind”, and that “The US will have no qualms in saying it is unsafe. If something happens and we say we did not have enough people, we are finished.”

Other source explained that the Americans where “risk averse”, that they want to control absolutely every single point of the security, such as building protection, counter terrorism and the VIP security.

Several anti-terrorism exercise have been carried out at the London Olympic Games Village amid fears of armed sieges, sniper attack and even bombing attack or biological weapons.

Finally, an official explained that the security plans were being mounted with the help of the government and some specialised security agencies, so the security is going to be more effective.

Here we can find an example of an anti-terrorism exercise in the Thames.

Obama reactiva la Conferencia sobre el Desarme

El Gobierno de Estados Unidos quiere reactivar el control mundial del armamento y ha dicho que ningún país tiene derecho a impedir que haya negociaciones sobre el, posiblemente aludiendo a Pakistán.

Pakistán reiteró este martes que no puede apoyar unas negociaciones sobre el fin de la producción de plutonio y de uranio muy enriquecido. Varios diplomáticos y responsables de la ONU afirman que es el único Estado miembro de los 65 que asisten a la Conferencia sobre el desarme que se niega a respaldar el consenso. Pakistán insiste en que también habría que incluir las reservas existentes de material fisible para contrarrestar lo que percibe como la ventaja estratégica de India. Leer más de esta entrada

Ratificación del tratado nuclear entre Estados Unidos y Rusia

La Casa Blanca sostiene que el nuevo tratado nuclear se ratificará este año mientras que los republicanos mantienen que dicha ratificación no será posible hasta el 2011.

El portavoz  de la Casa Blanca, Robert Gibbs afirmó que “creo que se ratificará el tratado ya que tenemos los votos suficientes para aprobarlo”. Debido a la preocupación por parte de los demócratas de perder la mayoría en el Senado el año próximo, la Casa Blanca quiere que el tratado sea aprobado lo antes posible. Por el contrario los republicanos opinan que es poco probable que el nuevo tratado START se ratifique antes de que termine el año.

El tratado START, Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, fue un tratado entre Rusia y Estados Unidos, firmado en 1991, que consistía en autolimitar el número de misiles nucleares que poseían ambos países. El tratado perdió vigencia en noviembre de 2009.

Este nuevo tratado fue firmado por Obama y el presidente ruso, Dimitri Medvedev, en abril, con la intención de reducir definitivamente el armamento nuclear tanto en EEUU como en Rusia, pasando de 2.200 a 1.550 cabezas nucleares.

Leer más de esta entrada