En un País Extraño: Cinco

The English version of this post—In a Strange Land: Five—was posted here on January 10, 2016. This spanish translation is my own and may contain errors. I invite native speakers of the language to comment on my errors and to suggest corrections. Aquí está una traducción en español de In a Strange Land: Five. Me gustaría que hispanohablantes quienes leen mis traducciones, por favor, me permitieran saber mis errores y sugirieran enmiendas.

We can never know about the days to come
But we think about them anyway
And I wonder if I’m really with you now
Or just chasing after some finer day.

Anticipation, Anticipation
Is making me late
Is keeping me waiting

[Carly Simon, “Anticipation”]

Yo no sabía lo que fue que yo estaba esperando. Era un sentimiento recurrente, sin embargo, de que algo iba a suceder y que yo debía prepararse para él. Este sentimiento vino a mí en esos momentos de reposo, cuando yo no era distraído por algúna inmediata incumbencia. Durante las actividades de mi vida diaria, yo podría sentir una pausa cuando yo pensaba sobre que hacer siguiente. Algo iba a suceder, o yo iba a haber hacer algo que no me sienta listo. Me sentía que yo deba estar preparando yo mismo.

Era el aparente necesario estar listo que me hizo ansioso e inquieto. El sentimiento me recordaba sobre el tiempo antes de mi exilio cuando yo vivía de fecha límite a fecha límite. Personas esperaban cosas de mí. Tuve que producir producto de trabajo, seguir horarios y mantener citas. Quizás la anticipación que ahora me sentí fue sólo un fantasma sentimiento que quedó desde el tiempo antes. Similar al fantasma sentimiento de un miembro amputado, las expectaciones de estar listo y responsible por el resultado se quedaron real a mí y sin embargo no tuvo sustancia.

No fue como antes cuando el resultado de mi trabajo fue bien definido, y logro podía estar medido contra nociones de alguien sobre goles y objectivos, incluso mis propios.

El resultado de exilio fue cómo una vida fue vivido. Ese resultado no podía ser definido por adelantado y no podía ser predecido. Yo podía elegir si poner goles y objetivos para la duración de mi exilio, pero eligí no. No hice ninguna sentencia que criticaba a quienes pudieran continuar incluso en exilio a medirse por definidos logros, pero parecio a mí que un gol logrado podía requerir la creación de un nuevo objetivo ad infinitum, hasta muerte nos separaría. Por mi manera de pensamiento, creando objetivos para lograr en esta etapa de mi vida perdía el propósito de alguna manera.

El resultado de mi exilio fue, para mí, incognoscible. No fue una cosa que ser anticipada. Mi repetiendo sentimiento de anticipación—la idea que yo debía preparando para algo que sucedería—podía estar explicado como una reflección en la peculiaridad de el paisaje donde encontré mi mismo. No hubo más preparación para hacerse. Hubo sólo estando listo para el presente.

And tomorrow we might not be together
I’m no prophet, I don’t know nature’s way
So I’ll try to see into your eyes right now
And stay right here, ’cause these are the good old days.

Share This:

Some other stuff for later,

  • 79
    The English version of this post—In a Strange Land: One—was posted here on October 4, 2016. This Spanish translation is my own and may contain errors. I invite native speakers of the language to comment on my errors and to suggest corrections. Aquí está una traducción en español de In…
  • 73
    The English version of this post—In a Strange Land: Four—was posted here on December 5, 2016. This Spanish translation is my own and may contain errors. I invite native speakers of the language to comment on my errors and to suggest corrections. Aquí está una traducción en español de In…
  • 72
    The English version of this post—In a Strange Land: Two—was posted here on October 19, 2016. This Spanish translation is my own and may contain errors. I invite native speakers of the language to comment on my errors and to suggest corrections. Aquí está una traducción en español de In…

Something So Wrong: Hearing Comey

The morning after the drama of former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, our local newspaper editorialized that the “key question” was whether anything the president said to him amounted to obstruction of justice. While most of the questions from Republican members of the committee seemed to focus on getting Comey to say that the president never ordered him to drop the Flynn investigation, the question of obstruction of justice is a distraction. Vladimir Vladimirovich must be chortling.

Republicans made much—as much as they could—of Comey’s report of the president’s words: “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” The president, according the Comey’s notes, did not use the word “order,” and therefore the president’s defenders would have us concede there could be no obstruction of justice here.

But it is rather like a parent taking a child aside, looking him squarely in the eye and saying “I hope you will clean your room.” It would not take any higher powers of deduction than those naturally possessed by the average seven-year-old to know what the parent wanted—and expected—the child to do, or else. Nevertheless, the president’s attorney, Marc Kasowitz, insisted that the president “never, in form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr. Comey stop investigating anyone.”

The line of questions doggedly pursued by the Intelligence Committee’s Republicans is all about demonstrating their loyalty to the president, and ultimately, it is about earning political power. Loyalty is the coin of the Trump realm, and those members of Congress who prove their loyalty believe that they will be rewarded by having influence with Trump.

Obstruction of justice, let’s assume, is an impeachable offense. Maybe what the president has done in his less-than-five-months in office is probable obstruction. A case can be made that Trump’s “hope” in the circumstance of a tête-à-tête in the Oval Office was a direct order. Still, the Republican House of Representatives, where Democrats are outnumbered 237 to 193, is not about to impeach Trump. A whole lot more hell would have to break loose before we get to that unlikely place.

For now, all the overwrought debate about obstruction of justice diverts our attention from what is really important. The most haunting moment in the Intelligence Committee’s examination of James Comey was Comey’s level-eyed testimony about Russia’s campaign of interference in the election process in the United States:

“There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose. They did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts. And it was an active-measures campaign driven from the top of that government. There is no fuzz on that.

“It is a high-confidence judgment of the entire intelligence community, and — and the members of this committee have — have seen the intelligence. It’s not a close call. That happened. That’s about as un-fake as you can possibly get, and is very, very serious, which is why it’s so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that, because this is about America, not about any particular party.”

The real key question is: what is the United States going to do about it? There is, so far, no leadership from the White House on this. There is no leadership from the Republican Party. There is no leadership from the Democratic Party. The public discussion should be about protecting the integrity of our elections—and not so much about obstruction of justice nor even about Trump campaign collusion with the Russians.

Comey testified that the president never asked him what the government should be doing to protect America against Russian interference in the election system. Trump believes that “the Russia thing” is “fake news.” By his own words, Trump fired Comey because of “the Russia thing.”

At least the Senate Intelligence Committee has taken on the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 elections as part of the committee’s mission. We can hope—in the strongest terms—that the committee will continue its investigation, wherever it might lead, but Congress needs to act and the president needs to care.

Share This:

Some other stuff for later,

  • 74
    The first general election debate will be held tonight. The contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is stubbornly close with the two candidates polling neck and neck, according to today's national averages reported by RealClearPolitics. Tonight, neither candidate will win, but it is difficult to see how Donald Trump…
  • 73
    Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton won the debate last night at Hofstra University in New York, but Clinton gave the better performance. Donald Trump played to his base. He seems incapable of appealing to voters who do not already support him. The same might be said of Hillary Clinton,…
  • 58
    On May 3, the Republican-controlled Senate voted to repeal an Obama era rule that provided a safe harbor for states to set up retirement plans that automatically enroll workers (allowing them to opt out) if they work for an employer that does not offer a retirement plan. The rule clarified…

el próximo capítulo