Psa For Drinking And Driving

A literature is not complacent. Interview with Daniel Sada


A literature not willing
Interview with Daniel Sada
Ariel Ruiz Mondragón

just a few weeks ago, it was announced that a jury Clotas Salvador, Juan Cueto, Luis Magrinyà, Enrique Vila- Matas and editor Jorge Herralde, unanimously decided to award the Prize Novel Herralde 2008-one of the most important in English-Mexican writer Daniel Sada, for his book rarely.

Sada (Mexicali, 1953), who was already a recognized writer and winner of several literary awards previously obtained with this award is a distinction that will surely facilitate internationalization, though most of his work has been translated into several languages, including Slovenian, for example-and a greater interest in their work.

way of getting his award and his recent book Sada had with a conversation about their training and development as a writer, his literary training in the desert is mixed and classical readings as well as its foray into journalism career. The author also conducted a general reflection his work both as a poetic narrative, as well as future projects.

AR: You were born in Mexicali, Baja California, and then lived in Coahuila. How has expressed in his work his experiences in the desert?

DS: Almost all my work was farm in the desert, and especially in the central region of Coahuila. There I lived my childhood in Sacramento, where I learned to read and write, I began to read literature and got my literary education.

My father was an agricultural engineer, and got a chamba in Mexicali. He was an expert in cotton and cotton Mexicali was an area, so there he went to live with my mom and there I was born. After the business was over and we came to Coahuila, where we live a long time.

It was very impressive, very significant that all of my childhood. I must say that I can brag that I had a very happy childhood, Marcel Proust said that authors put their entire childhood literature are far more things to say. I think it was very shocking to me all that I lived at that time because I had no restrictions at all. He lived in a village, I could go to the river, the hill, no prohibition of any kind. It was an absolutely quiet town, I went to the river, bathed me, I could spend all day, despite that my mother sometimes worried that I was absent, in fact I felt I owned the world in this little town. And all that I lived there for me was a landmark precedent in my life.

AR: In those early formative years, and also as a teenager, what were your favorite authors?

DS: from very young I read the classics, I read many poets. read The Iliad and The Odyssey since childhood, as well as children's books as The White Elephant , many books of stories from India, and that was my training. But I really had no reading the classics. In Sacramento there was no library, the only was that of a teacher, and I had no vision of classical literature. The local bookstore had was in Monclova, after I hit puberty that I began to search for books, other literature, but it was very difficult to transport 50 miles to find a book. So I stuck to classic literature.

AR: Then what followed in their readings?

DS: Well, I arrived in Mexico City and I felt at a disadvantage because I had a classical culture that nobody here had, everyone was reading Joseph Augustine and the nouveau roman, the French and experimental literature. I felt very out of date because they did not even know nineteenth-century literature. It was a fight against the tide, collecting time readings in order to nurture and be aware about everything that was done in the nineteenth century, early twentieth century and what was written in those years.

Incidentally, when I read Joseph Augustine as I did because it was a way into Mexico City with all my friends in the neighborhood, read, and then I had to read all that literature in order to live, if I was not very isolated.

AR: You also had training as a journalist, How was your visit to this profession?

DS: I studied journalism because I was interested in the career of Arts. I never thought that humanism were academia, said: "Well, if I study lyrics, I'll end up as a research cubicle, cubicle literature, and I need the streets." Then I liked journalism so, because I learned literature, economics, history, politics. I

agency a number of skills that would have been impossible to capture in the career of letters. I studied journalism because there was no other: it was the closest thing I found in the literature, and besides, I felt that in my case journalism was also a way of living. To become a master of cubicle, who knows what would have done.

AR: In the last two decades appears to be a literature boom in northern Mexico, you would be part. Do you think there is such a stream?

DS: This question is for both sides. For the first time in the eighties began to appear the literature of the desert, Jesus Gardea, Ricardo Elizondo, Severino Salazar, etc., but it was the first time the literary optical moved north. Began to call attention to writers from the north, and now there are many writers there. Now not said desert culture, it has diversified and expanded both the northern culture that now there are many authors that interest abroad, they begin to be translated and with increasing force.
other hand, say that I do not care if literature is north or south, central, or Chiapas chilanga: I think there are good and bad literature, and I would not classify the literature of the north, or I'm interested to see me as a writer from the north. Abroad does not matter where you are, in other countries are not valued because it is such a place, but the quality of books and literature.

AR: Some critical notes on his work have been written, is may highlight the claim that you are an author difficult to classify, which is a difficult author, uncomfortable. What would you say are the specific characteristics of your work?

DS: Well, I'm very strict in what I write. My world is verbal, I really like the expression, the cadence, the language, I hate maquinazos in any form. I can not write to vuelapluma, I am very analytical writing. So in that sense maybe I am uncomfortable because I'm not going with the flow, the inertia of many writers who produce and produce.

I am very slow in production, I'm steady but slow. Since I have 15 books, but all I have cost a lot of work. But that is not the value, but I like to do so, give it my best and look for more expressive in what I do and the best insight as well.

So I can not predict what my work projected. I think there are some that do not like absolutely nothing of my work, others are fascinating, but in that sense I am unarmed, I do not know what impact may occur.

Epictetus said that there are things that are unique and things that are foreign. The same is to do my best, that is the responsibility of one, or your job, your profession. But what are the fame, prestige and reputation, that is totally foreign. One can make cartwheels and a half to get attention, but the others are famous, you can not give himself fame. That belongs to others, and one is helpless before these things. At one point, for as one moves and turns of the head, can influence people to read, but fame is a fleeting, lasting fame can not identify one as an author.

AR: Behind his writing is all work and rigor that are not usual. In this direction, what challenges it presents you the reader?

DS: My literature no longer a challenge, I am not complacent, nor my writing is conventional. I've always imagined a hypothetical reader will want all the best, that taste is very demanding. I can not know in advance what the desires of an ordinary reader, who does not cost any difficulty reading.

AR: Many people consider it a good book that you read fast.

DS: It is not my case, I am happy in that sense, but in another, appreciate other forms of expression. That's the writer I want to be and I wanted to be forever. If I succeed or fail, it will be strictly on what I do. But I'm not going to bow to the demands of the market, I do not want publishers to win the battle.

AR: The prize you just won also implies recognition of some of the major publishers in English, such as Jorge Herralde. How was your relationship with publishers, while his work is not so simple and commercial?

DS: There's always suspicion of how he is going to the book. The bet is for literature, but have no absolute certainty that it will succeed. It is hardly a prize, do not know if the book will be widely read or not, but what is rewarding is literature, not sales or whatever you can enable.

AR: So many publishers are very accommodating with his readers?

DS: Well, there are currently very specific aesthetic parameters to which many authors are attached. Now, to be in the market there to sell, that is indiscernible. If you do not wants to be marginal and is on the market, then one has to sell and have an audience. Now, within that age some people are more receptive to literature, and there are others looking for entertainment at all costs.

AR: To move to another topic. broadly understood and how the policy expressed in his work?

DS: To me politics is an issue, it is not something absolutely inherent. What happens is that politics affects us all, is part of our daily lives, we are people who live in a society, we need her and she needs us. In that sense I am interested in politics, but I can not give political guidance in my work, and especially if it is a work of fiction.

I do not want to demonstrate anything, I want to do thesis novels where you read this or that, or disclose unpublished stuff that is political corruption or the vicissitudes of political grid. It is not my intention.

To me, the most important literature is the fable, imagination, and there affects politics. Not an end, a means, say it is one issue among many others.

AR: I think it also has talked more of his work in the poetic narrative. How important is it in his poetry and how it relates to his narrative?

DS: Most part of the same, nothing that I have not saddled the name of poet. I write poetry without knowing what will happen also. I can not be hopeful that someone do a test or pay attention to it. I have some demons that I have to get afloat, and among them is the poetry. But sometimes I write test, but not much.

literature is also breaking: to break the mold, to seek new forms of expression, new climates, new insights. Not every day I write poetry occasionally. In my narrative there are a lot of poetic power, but I could not speak of poetic prose, I hate using that term. To me poetry is poetry, but is in prose, do not have to be ready in verse to be poetry.

AR: In all his work, where are you located Rarely, the novel prize?

DS: Here I return to the north, is a novel that is located in the forties. It leaked a report that took me 25 years to write this novel, and not true. The was conceived 25 years ago, but the novel took me less than three years to write.

is a story I wanted to tell but I did not dare because some characters are real, and some still live. So, I did not want to see involved in this. Although 70 percent is a matter of fiction, I based myself in many facts to write this novel, so I dared not write or make 25 or 10 years ago. I was a little scary. Now I said: "I no longer have to be scary," there he goes, to see what happens.

AR: How important attributes Herralde Novel Award?

DS: It's a push, a very strong boost after nearly 35 years of writing and publishing. Obviously you want things to arrive much sooner, this award, if he had received 15 years ago, would be nothing, but I also would have reacted very differently.
I am grateful for the award, but also confuses me: I do not feel the best of all, much less. It is simply the recognition of a job, I thank you and pushes me to continue the struggle and creativity.

AR: What lies ahead?

DS: I have a book of short stories that I'm working, but still do not foresee when it will finish, I'll give you all the coming year. I'm giving too much air to a novel, not want to rush, as I've ever done, take things calmly, slowly things are coming. I have several projects and I have work for 15 years: two novels more or less extensive, and I want to write a book of essays. I have ideas but are not yet consolidated.



* interview published in Millennium weekly, no. 581, December 1, 2008. Reprinted with permission from the director.

Wiring Instructions For Baystat 239

OPENING OF AR AREA OF ART ART WEEK

Angelica Rochon and Facundo Cardoso

Mauro Casagrande and Andrew Calabrasa

Beside Roux Liliana

A beautiful encounter Carlos Conti and Mrs (Gallery Picasso)

Pablo and Pilar Potters Miquet

In an emotional meeting and sample space artists opened on November 15, 2008 a place for contemporary art , located in Deer Eye, Santa Fe, Argentina.

Chest X Ray With Vague Density

TUERTO DEER, SANTA FE, ARGENTINA

This field of art, opened its doors in 2002 as a gallery-workshop. Many events were conducted mainly students Angelica Rochon and the artist renews plástica.Hoy place and opens the doors to artists from other places.
There is a clear objective: to promote a new generation of emerging young artists for their outstanding talent, as well as the countless artists with long experience of the generation of 50, left unattended in a strip of art in this country.
The selection of works is responsible for the management of this space.
Like any place for art, not only shown, but that being said, it is felt, heard, shared projects and ideas that make the way of contemporary art. It exhibits paintings, drawings, mixed media, sculpture, photography, printmaking, glass, objects, video and installation.
promote collecting and selling works of art is an interesting purpose and challenge to stimulate creativity and taste for aesthetics.

Director Ms. Angelica Rochon
http://www.angelicarochon.com.ar/
CONTACT
Dante Alighieri 738 / tel: 54 3462 4271 56

arespaciodearte@hotmail.com
Hours: Monday to Friday 18 to 21hs

Saturdays from 10 to 13 hours

an appointment 54 3462 1550 8923
eyed Deer / Santa Fe / Argentina
CP 2600

Cheap Chicken Wings By The Bulk In Order

Rethinking the tele-vision. Interview Heriberto Yepez


Rethinking tele-vision. Heriberto Yepez
* Interview with Ariel Ruiz Mondragón


Recently, within the Versus collection, Deckchair Publishing the book was circulated Heriberto Yepez Against tele-vision, a book in which the author makes an original and critical reflection on the controversy-technology-art equipment in two booklets downright terse. The former deals with the transition from the era in which dualistic, gradually Telefis has replaced a metaphysics, which has brought severe consequences philosophical term which still fail to see.

The second deals with what he calls the co-mass-media, which outlines the state psychohistorical of Mexicans and the formation of popular culture, media, expressing his deep conservatism. This can be enjoyed daily in the comic-programming-especially the television bidictadura governs us.

We had a brief conversation with virtual Yépez presented here, which covered topics such as changes in thinking due to Telefis, the knowledge that occurs, the current status of Mexican psychohistorical, the possibilities for democratization beyond the Mexican television, as well as the conditions to overcome the Telefis and destiny of domination.

Yépez is professor at the Autonomous University of Baja California, author of a dozen books and a contributor to Labyrinth, cultural supplement daily Millennium of Replicante Metapolítica and other publications.

Ariel Ruiz (AR): Why write a book like yours?

Heriberto Yepez (HY) We must create their own concepts. When someone creates an idea, some say that only created a word. In Mexico we have this idiotic philosophy. The writers have dealt only trifles. The Mexican has not dared to redefine reality, is a coward.

TV To think I used concepts that describe what has been happening since the mid-twentieth century: a dualistic paradigm shift.

AR: In the first booklet, treat the transition from metaphysics to Telefis in it, unlike that postulates that reality can be found "far", "beyond", but within this world . What changes have brought this for thought?

HY: Combat metaphysics, as if it had been replaced by another cosmography! The Telefis-to shorten in against Tele-Vision and delve into other place, is a double loss. In metaphysics, we lost the here and now for the benefit of a beyond illusion. Hence, continued loss of the beyond.

We were in limbo on Hollywood metaphorized unwittingly or Televisa, in the sense that nothing is real and reality is something we have to achieve, because it is far, including more immediate. That one day try to know through the information, which brings us news of the Present General beyond reloaded and neo-here-now.

AR: You find on television infotainment and entertainment, there is the industrial amalgamation of these elements: infotainment, "and an obsession for today, giving way to what you call pantopía. Does this have to do with shortsightedness toward the future and the lack of large historical projects designated by postmodernism?

HY: Postmodernism is a continuation of the values \u200b\u200bof modernity. No self Sino-knock-out advocated by himself romanticism. More Disappointment romantic! Nobody wanted to see it. Romantics argued that the world had no meaning. Then, the romance took refuge in the inner world. The only novelty of postmodernism is that the nonsense spread to the inner world. (Another twist Telefis). The postmodern man is deceived. Indeed the universe is an anthropomorphic sense. But there are directions storylines.

it is fashionable to deny all allegations and reduce evolutionary Hegel, as Hegel has no prestige now, then the argument of evolution is discredited. What arrogance to think that evolution is over and that what we are today is all there! What vanity! Stupid. It is looking very little.

The evolution continues, though the writers retrorománticos (and Mexicans) and academics (as Americans) will feel compelled to reduce any allegation of promotion of awareness to the terms of the past, Ironic, because they are a bunch of disabilities, from In the first case, the nihilism of the nineteenth century and in the other, the neo-Marxism imported from France, like it or not evolution continues. And that is life.

AR: There is a remark of yours that seems crucial: the technology is supplementing the function of thinking. In that sense, what epistemological project , Which also mention "a part of television?

HY: The first question here is: what is "thinking"? To think I mean the function that occurs in humans, but that does not belong exclusively to transform the fundamental reality (immaterial) objectual realities (the world as we perceive it). I mean think of as "noein."

Having lost the awareness that we are forming the reality (and that this construction is psychohistorical), we become obsessed with technology, fantasize about them (eg, movies) in charge of creating realities.

This corresponds to a mental law: everything we know of fantasy becomes .

The technology that paranoid (ie, from left) now attribute the "manipulation" of reality, or that (from right) we convince ourselves that we bring the New World, is only projective fantasy created as a result we have lost self. We do not know what is man. Some

because they follow the fantasy of God, and others because not even been able to reach that fantasy. The self no longer exists in millions, not even a symbolic level. Intellectuals are an aggravated case of this lack of gnosis of being.

funny thing is that the theoretical knowledge already exists today. It only remains to put it into practice. That is, the growth of conscience and became inevitable. It's about time.

AR: In the second booklet states it is for you psychohistorical status of Mexicans, the product of a mixture of oppression and submission due to pre-Hispanic era to the colonial conquest and the U.S.. Is that historical experience is endemic, characteristic of the Mexicans, or is shared or similar to those of other countries?

HY: Every culture has its own fantasy. Every culture is a particular fantasy (it's usually called "identity"). So I introduced this particular notion of what psychohistorical : to explain what it is, broadly speaking, the current Mexican is not one, of course, but it does share a psychology. As much as this will put the willies and pronounced dead that the "mass psychology" politically correct reasons.

The Mexican is dominated by fear. Fear spreads through verbal and nonverbal, through family and social structures, such as school or the media. The Mexican is a coward. And now hides his fear by playing carnival. Want to be convinced that what happens is not really happening to him, but he is already beyond this situation, for example, through crime, humor, music or gossip .

AR: From this experience I mentioned above, point out that the oppressed people has come to take refuge in the most conservative, the reactionary, which has led to kitsch has its best expression in the Net, the higher truth is supposed to have screwed (not in the strict sense of class). Have there been any, any alternative to this?

HY: Yes, there is. The formation of a true knowledge. Stop thinking that knowledge can only be hegemonic and that the truth will come of the "oppressed." In relation to this book have told me that what I propose is to break down the TV, no, that's an illusion. The technology is here to stay. What I propose is that we convert the television sets in autovisionarios devices.

AR: Much has been made of the process of democratization of the country, from another perspective, you find that we have finished a perfect teledictadura result of the conversion of government and politics itself in a show (up El Universal, in programs internet and television broadcasts the idea of \u200b\u200b"political spectacle") run by the Televisa-TV Azteca bipartisanship, which are those that actually have the power through the signal. Later point out that we live in a mob rule, a government of the populace. In this sense, how can move the country in cultural and political democratization?, Can be a real counterweight to bipartisanship TV?

HY: Democratization, as understood, is not the solution but the problem. We talked about democracy as if democracy that we live does not exist! That we live in, gentlemen, is democracy! Stop thinking that democracy is what real democracy is not. THIS is the "democratization."

We have to decide another way. The path is stop the fantasy of every one and stop the social fantasy. Personal fantasy is the self and social fantasy, "United States", not the nation as it is called, but the state psychohistorical that "America" \u200b\u200bstands.

give an example. We need to reform education, but the root. Form, first, thousands of teachers willing to change paradigms, to educate so therapeutic and peaceful political. Existing books and training methods for these pictures. Already being done in small centers worldwide.

then open special schools for persons elected, from childhood or adolescence, creative and intellectual capacity to give them a deeper education, based on work with self-healing, and creative action, concrete, material and spiritual, that will build the next Mexico.

have to reach an educational system which teaches ancient wisdom properly interpreted, Jungian psychoanalysis, psychogenealogy, critical history, gardening, meditation, architecture, development of green technology.

Those who are not interested or do not show the capacity to understand, give them that embarradita we call education. But those who have more capacity, joining them in special schools, track them throughout the country, ages and social classes, with the best teachers and libraries, to form self-realized beings elites, tens of thousands of them, carefully trained from young to take power and build a world where technology and wisdom are synonymous. Perhaps this sounds like nonsense. I do not care. I'm not talking to the ordinary mind.

AR: At the end of each booklet mention possible solutions to the Telefis, prison of the images and the dematerialization of the world and in the Mexican case, to our destination of domination in the first mention some wisdom and new spirituality. Can you make a sketch of them?

HY: Mexico will end its current leading to its ultimate degradation. This will happen in a few decades or, at most, a couple of centuries. Meanwhile is forming, slowly, a special knowledge, on the one hand, decipher what happened in the past millennia, how it was possible oxident was formed, and how was it possible for us now we are defeated, "because we are. And on the other hand, practical knowledge that will give us the tools to recover the creative forces at the individual and, therefore, collectively, to build another country and another world, to build new cities and new orders loving. The

writers are doing Mexican, European and gringos is bland. Part of a pattern of the past, a neurotic pattern. But there are other ways much more interesting, useful and spiritual.

* Interview published in Replicante , no. 16, August-October 2008. Reprinted with permission of the publisher.

Runtime Error Rollercoaster Tycoon 3

TUERTO

1st WEEK OF ART IN DEER- TUERTO 4SAR/08 Rosarina Fourth Art Week 2008
Organizers: Ministry of Culture of the Municipality of Rosario, next to the Museum Castagnino and Macro and attach the Cultural Department of the Municipality of Venado Tuerto and Visual Arts Career ISPN 7. Is performed simultaneously in Rafaela, Reconquista, Santa Fe, Rosario and Venado Tuerto.
A tour of contemporary art across the street Belgrano
View http://www.semanadelarte.org/

Mac Studio Fix Powder C35

A look at the dark side of the media. Interview with Francisco Vidal Bonifaz


A look at the dark side of media
Interview with Francisco Vidal Bonifaz *


Ariel Ruiz Mondragón today no doubt the great power that large companies accumulate concentrated ownership and control of the media at global, regional and national levels. His power as well as economic, is also clearly evident in the politics and culture, among other areas.

The Mexican case is no exception: a group of large companies, led by an even smaller group of families, are holding the mainstream media makers to produce and disseminate information and entertainment, especially television, radio and the press-with which they get huge profits and extraordinary political influence, which still have many outstanding on legislation.

One of the least known aspects of the media in Mexico is his business, which is maintained in opacity by the companies themselves so to suit their interests. It is still very contradictory that through means such enterprises require transparency while keeping their finances in almost total secrecy.

was recently published one of the few books that have been peer into the backings of the Mexican media economy: The owners of the fourth (Mexico, Planeta, 2008), by Francisco Vidal Bonifaz, who is mapping media and provides data to understand the present and glimpse the future of Mexican consortium of communication in the country and internationally.

on several topics covered in the book spoke with the author: the difficulties of its investigation, the lack of studies on the topic, the economic weight of media groups, the transnationalization of the activity, the media companies' relationships with the power policy and the role of public media. Furthermore, the desirable and possible diversity of content, the situation of democracy to newspapers and media concentration. Vidal Bonifaz

studied Economics at the UNAM, and has worked in various publications: El Financiero, Financial Infosel , Reform, Millennium , Excelsior so and , among others. Currently a private consultant.

Ariel Ruiz (AR): Why write a book like yours?

Francisco Vidal (FV): After working more or less daily 15 years in the media, and teaching, I have the idea that the boys who come to the media do very little objective ideas of what are the media. I studied economics, and I think the opportunity to contribute something to the formation of the boys was talking about the economics of media.

This is actually the fourth owners power: economic power and ownership media, which is the big issue. I want to thank

Replicante the interview, as well as Metro has been encouraged to publish the book, nor is the eighth wonder, always tell them that for me is like taking a map of the media from the point of view economic.

AR: What were the main difficulties faced in conducting this research? At the beginning of the book mentions the lack of data, lack of information, among other things. Did you ask for data to the companies of which you speak?

FV: It is very difficult because no information, it is highly segmented, highly fragmented and piecemeal, then is sometimes unhelpful. Most times, if you see the book, it is supported by hard data in reports. I leaned a lot on information from the companies that by their nature have to be public, especially those traded stocks or securities, which are low: we are talking about Televisa, TV Azteca, Radio Centro, Cablemas, ICD-OCESA and now.

No, not asked for anything. Although sometimes I do: I wanted to have the historical sequence of things, and curiosity to a newspaper circulating in Tijuana, I asked the details of your foundation, and it is time that I return or mail.

worked in the media, where we are still spoiled opacity, and this makes things difficult. But you can do work, much information. In fact, as saying a person I appreciate a lot and taught me how to report a bit, it's more important what is omitted than what it gets. Then there are many things that were omitted, but information is there, it is difficult to systematize.

round off, I think it is necessary that the means to open their information to the public.

AE: Why had so far been little studied this "dark side of the media" as you call it to his business?

FV: I do not know. I think there is one condition: that most studies Media make-or-do journalists. But the numbers do not give us much. At least I have ten years of teaching a subject that speaks volumes about Statistics applied to journalism, and the conclusion I get is that the numbers do not give us much.

economists may not have given much attention.

There is a third factor: I think there is fear. It's really interesting when you take the book to a person who has been in the world of communication in these years, he said, "Well, realize that you no longer have jobs." I said, "In the media? I hope you do have. "

know that there are many ways in which There are high opacity, who do not like giving information, and there are others who, although they have to give the information because they are public, not even given complete.

AR: You mentioned at the beginning of the book the importance of the media industry in the national economy, which is rather modest. Does this happen in other countries, or the Mexican is a particular case? In the American case, what economic weight have their big media groups?

FV: There it is much more developed. What happens is that the U.S. case is separate: it is brutal expansion with entertainment groups, its ramifications, formats, is an awesome thing.

We have always believed, we are told that we have a media industry and entertainment very powerful, especially television. At the conclusion I reached is that, yes, but not much, at least on the world stage.

AR: Not at the national level?

FV: No, not so much, to some extent is reasonable. It need not be the oil, or directly. But what has always told us was that we had a very significant level, at least, by English media, but even that, the first English-language media company in the world is not Mexican, but English, is Prisa.

Unfortunately I think it has done so much damage that there is not much competition, no more options, because that has made the media industry in Mexico has rested on its laurels.

AR: It is also a protected industry.

FV: But of course, in every way. I think one of the missing of the book is how the public budget will actually reach the media industry and how these revenues represent.

industry is protected, to some extent maybe it has to be. But that does not mean that, on the other hand, there is no stimulus for development, for diversification, so that more options, so that magazines like replicator or any other has more space, more funding, greater readership. We are too concentrated in too few options of both companies and formats: the queen is here Televisa and TV format is key.

AR: In the first chapter of the book notes that worldwide there are five large media groups, and some others where you call the "division of promotion," including Prisa. What weight estimated to have these international giants in the Mexican media industry? There are outlined some data.

FV: I do not give in the book because it is very difficult. In any case it is not so great for our market ellos, esa es la verdad; no quiere decir que no sea relevante en términos regionales, porque finalmente tenemos la población que habla español más grande en el planeta. Pero para los grandes consorcios los principales mercados no están en América Latina, sino en Estados Unidos, Asia y Europa. Eso está clarísimo.
América Latina es un mercado y una región secundaria. Calculo, en un atrevimiento muy grande, que tal vez tengan el 30 por ciento del mercado de medios nacionales y extranjeros. Pero es muy difícil de estimar; por dar un ejemplo: la televisión abierta, que llega al 98 por ciento de los hogares. Vamos a hablar de los canales nacionales que hay: en el Canal 7, de TV Azteca, prácticamente all content is abroad, is a movie channel and series. Channel 5 is there. Then two of the six major channels are already dominated by foreigners. Only at that level and would be giving an account more or less than 30 percent who gave him.

In radio is much less, because you recently had a brutal expansion of English music. The main radio media product is not news-of any means, of course-but the music. The vast majority of production is of Mexican music, but the producers are EMI, Sony, BMG, etc., which are foreign. Then the braces are Mexican-owned, but the content is from outside.

Where it is clear that most markedly more domestic production is in print.

AR: On the other hand, mentions some data from Mexican firms to invest abroad, especially in cases of Televisa and TV Azteca. Towards the outside, what happened to these companies?

FV: That's very interesting. The investigation had to stop at some point, in 2006 I stopped, but here this year has worsened much the range of the internationalization of the Mexican media. This is inevitable: they have to grow out.

and outlines what is the creation of the U.S. market content in English, which definitely will be Mexico, the United States and Canada, there's no doubt. I tell my students that information has legs and, not knowing when we are already where you do not know, so are the media content. Then

Televisa and TV Azteca will have to break the soul to try to have an important place in this market. Azteca is very clear, trying to boost its production, marketing and channel operation in the community of English speakers in America.

Televisa has the problem of the big fight he had with Univision, but there is still a multiyear contract by the you have to sell their produce to Univision, and this is the must buy. But you can get back, see it difficult for her. This also explains that Televisa is getting to telecommunications.

Internationalization also responds to a process where broadcast television, which has been an endless source of money in this country, when one has met 98 percent of television households, and higher ratings are 30 for percent where there are very good novels, you already encountered.

who have come across the television, and now come the U.S. networks to compete with content in English is an incentive for Mexican companies have to internationalize. Neither more nor less than this year returned to Central TV Azteca, and before I had something in Guatemala, sold and bought back now. Televisa was long in Chile, also TV Azteca, "I think Peru entered sometime. Total, will have to go back, to build partnerships. My big question is the market in Spain, where I think it will be very difficult, although Televisa is already a shareholder of one of the five new channels that were enabled in that country with the opening of the television, which is called La Sexta.
have to grow out there, what will be their fate, do not know.

AR: I recently Emilio Azcarraga Jean said something like that gave him nothing Televisa Mexican politicians, implying that the firm was itself no favors from the government. You mention in the book that had policies to favor that company, and also notes the case of Ricardo Salinas Pliego and his ties to Raul Salinas when it acquired Imevisión. "Roughly, how was the connection between political and media companies in Mexico?

FV: Well, at least in the case of the relation has been television cord. Born as Telesistema Mexican Televisa, and there were three main groups: O'Farril, the Azcarraga and the family of President Miguel German. If Mr. Azcarraga Jean thinks that owes nothing to the government, I think that is fine, but there are historical facts. That is irrefutable.

Mr. Salinas Pliego (to see if he sues us because he loves it) admitted that Raul Salinas de Gortari had lent him money to make the television in a contest that was held under the mandate of the brother who lent him money.
There is nothing worse than denying the facts. If there are other implications, and an investigation is opened to display. I have no more items, I do know is what everyone knows, because it is published constantly: that the public budget is also of some importance to media revenues. Well maybe should be, I do not say no, not about favors, but also to say "I salute the government nor" because it is not true.

may not be absolutely certain that the government would not survive without these companies, but it is true that without the government would survive.
Then the umbilical connection is, bring it from birth. And there is something that has always happened in Mexico, and is a bit complex, which is that there is little clarity in the granting of concessions.

AR: In radio there are large groups that dominate the industry in the country. Given the overwhelming dominance of private television and radio, what sense takes the public sector in the media industry? There are concessions that were granted to state governments, universities, etc.. Should there be a project about to make another kind of television, radio, communication?

FV: First of all, my respect for workers in the public media, because they do wonders with meager budgets. That's a brutal disregard the professional work of those who give their lives for the media, of course, have to regulate it, would be watched, you have decent working conditions. I think it would be best. The

public media are very important, first because it should be the spearhead of a cultural policy of the state as a whole, as an investment. Maybe you can not force Televisa to provide information in Nahuatl, but some public media could do "in the book are mentioned in the indigenous language radio stations.

are also important because they are a necessary counterweight to the excessive commercialization. I'm not saying do not do private companies to do their job well, but sometimes it happens the hand.

Public media should now have very clear plans supported by a strategy and policy at State level for want. They should also have the best technology-for example, public media should be passing a digital television and public radio stations to digital transmitters.

would have to rethink what to do with the print media and public budgets, so there is diversity.

AR: On the contents, the largest audience with the telenovelas and foreign films, and eventually slips a football game. What chance is there for greater thematic diversity, which could be competitive before those traditional niches?

FV: there are always possibilities because there is much room for creativity in the youth, in people. The matter which I'm not so sure that there's the conditions to develop, especially wills.

The next pattern we are going to crown the series. Which we have now 35 years old and upward, we telenovelas, series and soccer. The guys are not going to watch TV, you will be given back because they are not interested in the history of the Cinderella theme in soap operas, because they see other things in your everyday life.

If I want a bit provocative, I bet you do not even try to bring down both the television schedules, but rather to invite the developers to do things outside the scope of the small screen. I think now a huge opportunity is the Internet, even to produce television, there need not grant or permit. There are networks available, we are seeing the phenomenon of the emergence of themes, movies and short films from the network.

will not be easy, but in any case, that in the public media, if you make it to have a global approach to public policy, it will cost us time.
What in any case is worrying is that there consume little news-media accountability should be noted.

Radio, as it is for music. In the book I put the list of news and information services there, and can not be that so many; There is an enormous fragmentation.

What we lack are studying the habits of youth, studies that are public and known, because maybe we are wasting a huge mine, because ultimately they are the future of media. You have to see where they go.

I think television has a point of departure. Television, 98 percent coverage, pay television, and 25 percent do not think I can reach 100 by country income levels. "That brings more audience, or make the one in the open channels to stay there, and allocate their time in pay? I do not think there is a large opening for rehearing, because 98 percent already, preference only moved from one place to another.

regards radio, we know what time it is used, there are many studies. But kids with iPods, with all these wireless systems, with the network, are in a different world, and that's where they could attack with public policies that would lead the public media with information, entertainment, good things to them, without moralizing, trying to understand how are the kids. For there, forget the TV better.

AR: As for newspapers: how to look at the future of newspapers? You give figures for the stagnation in their runs for more than 10 years, during the who has not reached a print run of 1994. Mentioned below free newspapers, which seem to grow. What does the future have in these conditions?

FV: Too complicated, not only in Mexico but that happens all over the world. The big problem for us is coming down the circulation, which was never great. We read a few newspapers, because I believe that journalists will continue to talk to the leaders, decision makers and ordinary people we lost confidence.

I do not know if at this point is hopeless. Actually I'm not optimistic in that sense, the trend will continue.

In any case I do not know the extent to which come free to replace those readers who are already reading newspapers. I've been checking the figures for 2007 and so far in 2008, and continue to fall. I think the trend will always be to fall 1 or 2 percent each year.

The free what they will do is say "well, if you do not want to pay 10 pesos no problem, but I'm here." Then only going to make a switch , for example, I know there are free in a very successful Guadalajara, "in Mexico City two and one in Hidalgo. Calculation have to walk the 300 or 400 thousand copies. It's a lot. I think the road is going to go there.

On the other hand, I think the print media is what has always been, as I said sometimes Raymundo Riva Palacio, the conduit through which the powerful speak for themselves and each other.

Now, let us journalists who seek to change that. Why not open the court? No open issues, not people you talk to your concerns, and then beaten up trying to sell the stories that do not work. The public is not stupid, you may miss if you want culture, and that's debatable, criteria or information, but not stupid. I always tell my students: Why sell 750 000 copies of TV Notes every week-that, say, is perhaps the run of the week a national newspaper "? And all everyone says that this information is garbage. I do not know whether it is or not, but to me as an information professional should I be concerned and try to understand what code, what languages, what approaches are reaching the people. You have to understand what is happening in the auditorium.

AR: Internet would not be a way for newspapers?

FV: But it will take, in entering the population. But I think the Internet is the future. In fact, I think newspapers should have read more online than in print.

However, if the information is being handled as in the print media, they're going to leave, because people does not understand, basically do not understand because they are so encoded. By giving an example: I think we're the country that should have more columns in newspapers per square centimeter. The information is usually encoded columnist-not going to say whether good or bad, that is another matter, "because that is their field of work: the codes of communication between a source and another. That is what gives meaning to the columnist. Most are columns that carry strategic information from a sender to a specific receptor, and this is done through codes. That's good for the transmitter and the receiver, and the columnist does its job of moving a message, nothing more that 99.9 percent of the other readers or do not understand or imagine what they read.

While this model forward, ever going to understand unless things: what we read something and then not understand? The media has many problems, and by extension are misspelled. Then our product has gone down in quality, has fallen to level of understanding. If this scheme we reproduce on the internet, will go through exactly the same.

AR: Robert Dahl said that a condition for democracy is that there must be various information sources. As can be seen in the first chapter of his book, there are five big companies-plus a few others that come behind them-that global dominate the world of information and entertainment. At the international level and in Mexico, as you say, the trend is a monopoly. What effect will this economic trend in the future of democracy, particularly in Mexico?

FV: Well, the result is obvious: the interpretations are going to be very few sources, and our interpretive framework will always be governed by it. Moreover, I can assure you that even removing the sources of such companies in Mexico, we have highly concentrated power. If you get to analyze what our sources of information, I assure you the basics of all citizens are twofold. That's dangerous.

Moreover, it seems inevitable because the consortia have to grow, if they do, they die or are killed. That does not turn. I learned in school that competition in a market economy leads to monopoly, not vice versa. It's what I learned and what I'm seeing.

is very difficult to talk about democracy. In contrast, I think all we can do is that citizens and governments to deliver us to organize and share information. There will be a dangerous madman who believes in journalism, open, pluralistic, balanced and providing information to citizens.

should be seen not to be absolutize things, because all too this depends on certain behaviors. For example, it is clear that the information in the United States is concentrated in too few hands. About the war in Iraq, always mention the serious role that the chain was News Corp, which is Rupert Murdoch. But nevertheless, there are certain ethical standards that still serve as a counterweight, and now can be denouncing such abuses. It also happens that in Europe.

I think what we have to think, then, in the ability to access more diverse. I would love to have pay TV, for example, the channel of Cuba. Why not bring the channel of the South American governments, Telesur? Why not promote the possibility of more windows for more views? Finally, the citizen is the one who decides. And so we turn to the media is to provide information for decision making.

going to be inevitable that consortia continue to grow and make mergers that closed the book here has been three or four very great, and will continue. If we put a counter, create options from the point of view of governments, as state policies, not like that happens to every ruler, potential citizens, and open up new youth projects.


* Interview published in Replicante No. 16, August-October 2008. Reproduced with permission of the publisher.

Two Red Wires And Two Black And Red

Living in a virtual society. Interview with Raul Trejo Delarbre


Living in a virtual society
Interview with Raul Trejo Delarbre
Ariel Ruiz Mondragón

product of a formidable scientific and technological revolution, the Internet has become a fundamental part of a phenomenon of gigantic dimensions in the different aspects of the life of mankind: by some called the Information Society, which exists around the vast amount of information and communication facilities with formidable allow us to quickly and easily digital media, especially network networks.

As the Internet has opened many opportunities for development and welfare, has also deepened existing inequalities in the world, to be a resource that is not yet available to large sectors of the global population, mainly the poorest. In this regard, one of the most important challenges and aspirations for the future will generalize and democratize access and its use as a way to reduce social and economic gaps. On these issues

Raul Trejo Delarbre published a couple of years ago his book Living in the Aleph . The Information Society and its labyrinths (Barcelona, \u200b\u200bGedisa, 2006), then take this opportunity to talk with the author on issues like inequality and exclusion in the society, public and educational policies to extend the freedoms, rights and duties of citizens surfer, the choice of valuable information, their use in democracy and main advantages and risks in the future.

Delarbre Trejo is a researcher at the Institute of Social Research and professor den UNAM Faculty of Political and Social Sciences at the university. National System of Researchers, author of 15 books, founded the magazine Etcetera and has worked in newspapers as El Universal, La Jornada , Unomásuno , El Nacional and today's Chronicle, as well as in magazines and Links socket.

Ariel Ruiz (AR): Why write and publish a book like yours? Raul Trejo Delarbre

(RTD): I'll give you an answer in simple principle: first, because it is my job. At the Institute of Social Research of the UNAM, where I work, one of my projects is on the Information Society in Latin America, and this book fulfills part of that project that has many aspects. So it is, of course, part of my obligation.

That is an obligation one is fortunate to have the choice, and I found some time in the Internet, and more broadly in the information society, issues likely to have a look beyond technology and beyond a specific discipline. I was struck how there are economists, historians, sociologists, lawyers, physicists, mathematicians who write and study about the Internet. I want to benefit from input from a large number of authors and an interdisciplinary view, of course with the bias of my own personal training.

has long had a huge amount of data and information resulting from exchange with colleagues from other countries, resulting from my own observation and practice on the Internet, and also because ten years ago, in 1996, I had occasion to publish a book in Madrid called The new carpet. Uses and abuses of the Internet, Red Network, and since then I had answers, suggestions and criticisms of colleagues from many sites, which have benefited me to have a more specialized, I do not know if more analytical, less descriptive perhaps than that which was pioneered very early Internet. This book, incidentally, has the opportunity to appear ten years after that magic carpet, so I wrote and that is circulating.

Hopefully readers of this talk are readers of this book. I sincerely believe that it is a readable book, which is covered by numerous alibis I've searched the literature, particularly in that of Jorge Luis Borges and hence the title, pretentious but wants to be more a tribute to the appropriation of this great author Argentina.

AR: The book is about the information society. You point out that this is typical of a globalized world, a society in which they also reflect social inequalities. In that sense, who, how and why they are excluded from it?

RTD: Varies indicator we use, and depends on what we understand by information society. I assume a broad definition of it, and understand how the context is created by a wide variety of technological resources. The information society is one that is hinged on the Internet, first (I insist on calling the book "backbone of the information society") but also is one to which we connect the satellite TV, radio digital, the huge number of albums that are in music stores, the ability to scan a video and selling it illegally to give to a friend. Residents or citizens of society partners la información son los muchachos que abren un blog en internet, o los que descargan en su Ipod una colección de música para su uso personal, somos lo que utilizamos correo electrónico, o los que participan en los salones de chat.

Podemos decir, con una precisión limitada, que están en la sociedad de la información los que tienen conexión regular a internet; pero quizá no es del todo cierto porque hay gente que no está en internet pero sí tiene televisión satelital.

En todo caso, para darle una respuesta más concreta, hoy en día entre el 80 y 85 por ciento de la humanidad no tiene conexión a internet. Entonces estamos hablando de un 15 por ciento, que son muchos centenares of millions of people, and they are all but missing a lot. In the Mexican case are regular Internet connection 18 or 19 percent this year, we need more than 80 percent, about 83 million Mexicans who do not have this resource, much as for those who live in cities like Mexico we have become so familiar and so indispensable.

That is, the information society is so malleable, so elusive at times, with a single definition and a single statistical indicator, which depends on the criteria used to assess the amount of people in that society.

AR: The discussion of the first chapter, but is present in several other parts the book is about how public policies may be appropriate to promote information technology and communication. I was struck by the case of Uruguay, which you mention, which has achieved a coverage of 37 percent online. What policies can be suitable for this?

RTD: First, the worst public policy is one that does not exist. The great problem of Mexico has been the absence of policies specifically designed to extend internet coverage and ownership of Mexican society of these resources.

We had specific policies to allow more computers in government or to have electronic whiteboards in schools, partial and questionable policies. In this administration, President Vicente Fox pushed some measures to community centers have internet access, but with such poor planning, with so few resources and with such a propaganda effort (above all), which occurred in many municipalities computers already in schools or in hospitals of the Ministry of Health, joined the network and the system of Mexico, it is great that the links which mean to say that this is something new, they were and are as old computers, with processors such obsolete, not used to surf the internet.

A policy should national resources, will the government have a multidisciplinary orientation that had not only the desire to promote the ruling in turn. Should have a flexible and comprehensive technological development does not occur, as in the case of Enciclomedia, that technology is used only for a company (the company Microsoft, which happens to be a company that while it did from very important donation of some private institutions, including the founding of the wife of the President). This is not part of a national policy, but an enrichment program and more successful on some individuals.

A national policy could be like Brazil, where eight years ago the government called many different sectors to create a council of Internet in Brazil, consisting of about 100 people secondments political, technological and civil varied. That is a national policy; the other, not yet.

AR: There are other elements that you also consider necessary for integration into the information society. You mention that there is information, but we must strive to become knowledge: we can discern the information they give us points, but having some experience and some intellectual preparation. On the education, what must be done to fully exploit the Internet?

RTD: I think the internet deserves a specific education, first to master the technical basics, not a thing of another world, but we need to know, that people like you or like me nobody taught us, and that almost all have had to learn on the fly by means of trial and error. Why not spare the students entering high school today or emerging from the Primary, the hardships they have endured some of us?

should have introductory courses in using these rudiments of information, as well as a literacy course, as we are taught to read and write, would enseñársenos to surf the internet. This is difficult but not impossible, even today in many elementary teachers are asking students to research online because they know that anyway they will do, and it is better to anticipate that possibility.

should also be part of our civic education to learn to distinguish between useful information and not to learn to deliberate on the Internet. All this is going to be achieved by way of the inertia to which this compels us to use there anyway. But it would be worth then that was not the inertia of events but the result of an education policy specifically planned for it to be used online.

In other countries, regardless of any computer in the classroom (about this there is an interesting discussion in the United States, for example) to children and the children are led to use the internet. In Mexico, many of the boys use the Internet for chatting and downloading music (which is not bad), but are taught to use creative, cultural, educational, more specific information. That's what we still lack, and has been very difficult, among other things, because children have the internet as part of their school education is needed The teachers know, do a course to know to use. Here in Mexico the teachers would not arrive in time ten years ago to use the Internet.

AR: The use of internet and computer resources have expressed the inequality in the world, but there are (as you stated in the book) an aspiration that can help build a fairer, more equitable. After 13 years of open and wider use of internet, has been used to increase that to reduce this inequality to date?

RTD: I think the two things every new technological resources becomes an additional factor to inequality already exist in contemporary societies. When you see the plasma TV (which is in any way and is very expensive) then suddenly we do not have money or do not want to spend on it we become unequal, we become marginalized in terms of those who do choose to keep the money.

The same applies to internet, but in the case of the network of networks, this factor is intrinsic inequality by lowering the passing years: today, buy a computer much less difficult than it was 10 or 15 years, because it has become cheaper. The fact is that anyone who is connected, which has passed the barrier of disengagement, or anyone with your computer with its connection and can place the content you want, you can recover and take over the content you want from those in the network, just as in Manhattan Oaxaca, Chiapas than in Paris. The fact that the Internet can access the same information, although some do better computers and faster speeds than others, involves a factor of democratization not only in gathering information but the ability of expression.

If you ask me to choose, I would say that in these years have been many more, without doubt, the advantages that the Internet has imposed disparities.

AR: In this sense, does the digital divide you mention, and not just adheres to most have the technological resources, has been closing in 13 years to popularize the Internet?

RTD: It has been closing because 12 years ago in Mexico had almost 200 thousand Internet users, and now we are almost 20 million. In the world there were 25 million, and today is passing, perhaps, the barrier of one million. Obviously more people have access to these resources, and this recognition should not lead us to say that all is well. I think (that's what I tried in this type of work) you need to have a vision or integrated, which is the one that says that all is well, or apocalyptic, which is the one that says that everything is wrong, citing Umberto Eco

AR: You mentioned as one of the characteristics of the information society area of \u200b\u200bfreedom, but also mentions that it is necessary to protect individual rights and social networking. Both can get hit. Today was how these rights are protected?

RTD: There are many lawyers and jurists who say that much to regulate the Internet. I personally think that no, what to do (and already has in many cases, even in Mexico) some adjustments to the legal codes that already exist to criminalize those abuses committed in the network and that would be crimes in the offline world. If I were assaulted in person when I take money from a teller at the bank, is a crime, as it must be absolutely no doubt that if I take money from my bank account via the Internet, it is criminal conduct. If someone corrupts a child and forces him to have sex, it is a crime, and the most terrible, "and must be punished with the utmost severity, and if anyone takes advantage of the internet to do the same, to make an appointment with a minor and abuse it, because obviously it is a crime with or without the internet.

Otherwise, I think a great virtue of the Net lies in that there is great freedom for expression. On the Internet can spread thoughts, concepts and data noble, virtuous and uplifting, but too many lies, full content of hatred and animosity. I think it should be free to say whatever, the biggest nonsense, but also to rectify should have resources to amend the libel and to prevent fraud. But beyond that, I think people have the right to enter content sites of any kind. Putting aside the issue of children (who must be protected), I think the most outrageous sexual content, if he wants to place and some people want to watch or consume, in the case of adults, should be in the right order do so. Parents will need to have resources to prevent your children to content that pop out they do not want to contemplate. Here the only prescription, in addition to using software to block certain pages, is to assist children and young people when surfing the Internet. There's no way.

AR: You say that the information society is the most watched in history. There also might be some dangerous connotations for freedom. What could be the role of Internet on social control, taking into account the issue of cookies or projects like Echelon-I do not know if it's true or not?

RTD: Not true. I think there are two risks limiting the freedoms on the Internet: first-ignorant belief but became very entrenched, that the Internet was a nest of criminals and therefore had to suppress and censor, that ranged from 2001 but since 1996 there were projects of censure part of the United States government, which were stopped by groups of civil rights on the Internet. Here is a task of explanation and pedagogy that interested in defending these freedoms have to do to convince the judges and rulers that Internet is everything, and as in reality, on any street in our societies, There are good people and bad, there are people who help others, which is very supportive, and offenders and bandits, as there are on the Internet. This, I said later, is a sort of collection of mirrors of reality: if in reality there is evil and solidarity, as will the network.

The other issue to be taken into account is the fact that, being available for all, which put on the Internet or whatever it is recorded there may be accessed by all. If someone opens a blog and has their own life very private matters, it should not be surprised by the fact that someone, anyone who has access to the network, you can read that content. If someone sends an email with a personal matter that did not want it to be known, is wrong: need to recognize and remember that all Internet content browsing is likely to be known by others. Though I send a personal email to you, it's easy for someone interested in interfering with my mail or you do it, or I can be wrong and itching to another recipient. Well, if you have secrets you want to remain as such, do not air them on the Internet, or convert them to digital format, which is very likely to be reproduced and returned easily.

Sometimes we forget these things, we forget that there are resources online that could cause others to know what we do on the network, such as cookies, which are files that track our online activities. I insist: if someone do not want something known, do not do it on the internet because this is a public place first.

What is missing is more information and obligations of business in an ethical manner to warn us that when, for example, bought a book on Amazon, our preferences as consumers of books are recorded and may be known and shared by others.

The use of digital devices opens our personal affairs to the scrutiny of others. That is a reality. Should be regulated, and it is, but inadequately, traffic should be prohibited personal data (unless authorized people). It is part of the new rules put in place, and by Mexican consumers do not always care. Admittedly often neglected to look at the small print of contracts, which tell us that our data can be used to sell our homes or electronic data.

AR: In the book are shocking figures about the information flowing, the existing number of pages exceeds the amazing thing. Making a comparison, Ortega y Gasset said that should have librarians that will guide readers through the books that really are worth it. In several parts of the book do you pronounce "charts" so that the Internet may not go lost. Already have made these "letters" that allow us to reach the information that is worth, or how would you do?

RTD: Yes On one hand there are people with some expertise in any field who knows him, knows what is on the Internet, and there are specialized sites for those who want to access a specific field of knowledge.

other hand, more and more a feeling of mutual support that is maintained on the internet and is spreading the tendency to label the contents, place the tags that users or visitors of a site lists a few favorite sites people, and are useful for those who share the tastes and interests of that person knows that there is something interesting.

are guides initial, but have the risk that can popularize the culture more commercial or more linked to what is popular at the time, to the detriment of other content. But this is part of the opening of internet to the society, like books and movies.

AR: On the speed with which changes the page, in the amount of lies that circulate in Internet, is, to some extent, also an obstacle to knowledge?

RTD: I see that on one hand the proliferation of quackery, lies and intolerance is not the fault of the Internet, which is an instrument. The deception and ignorance and there, and inevitably find a mechanism natural spread via the Internet, especially if there are intolerant and ignorant to those who like to spread their prejudice and ignorance.

When people believe that there is information of any kind, which by virtue of being online is true, it is wrong. It is as if we believe it's true what they say in the magazines sold at newsstands, or what we hear in a conversation in a cafe or subway. People say the same rumor from person to person online.

Then you have to do is learn to distinguish the real from what is not, like the Internet than life offline. The big advantage is that online occurs as in the case of Wikipedia: an encyclopedia created by people who are on the internet and he wants to contribute, because it has the desire to put a definition here. You can brew many lies and mistakes, but there is a mechanism for the same people, when you find a mistake, we can amend.

Did I believe the data that is in the Wikipedia? Well, you have to compare it with another source, online or at the nearest library. But in general is a formidable tool, never before has there been as many definitions of the most varied in any encyclopedia in the history of the world.

AR: In Internet also noteworthy that facilitated the interaction. "This has increased the political and social participation of citizens in real life, which has more voters and more associations, for example? RTD

I have no data to say if more people in the parties or the NGOs. What I can say without doubt is that society organizations and policies that already existed on the Internet have a space to spread, to link its members with an efficiency not previously had, and is also a space for link between them. The international presence of Ong's now has a resource not previously available.

The possibility that people know what they say these groups today is higher. In fact, sites of political parties rather than to convince someone to vote for a candidate, is for those who want information (journalists, for example) have it easily.

There may be forms of participation that did not exist, and are a kind of substitute (not always full) of old forms of participation. Before-and my own touch me, "when you sympathize with a political party and wanted to support, doing graffiti on a wall, handing out leaflets in the street, and sometimes the police chasing us. Today there are who resign themselves to their form of activism is the reproduction of emails, or the hacking of a page we do not like. Sometimes some people get to have forms of participation as bounded to the Internet, and especially so limited to speak in front of and become aware that forms very cathartic and perhaps politically ineffective.

AR: The book also speaks of democratic political use of the network, there are projects in Europe that could become a transnational democracy. In this direction there are also people who think that people can vote on all matters, so that representative democracy would be dissolved. Is it possible to make this happen with the Internet?, Is that it seems desirable? RTD

I do not know if desirable, is possible, yes, but not today. Is it useful? Partly yes, mostly because the internet can serve to distance people from voting at some distant time. But I must say that so far there is no secure mechanism for voting electronically, there are many companies, in the U.S. and Britain, especially that are committed to it as a paradigm of participation. But today there is no single system to ensure full reliability.

There are two: one through the Internet, which are more vulnerable to interference, and other electronic devices that are linked to networks that have nothing to do with internet, but even in them there is no full mechanism of verification of the identity of the voter. The most advanced being investigated is the identification through the eye iris, this will soon prosper not because of anything related to elections, but by the need to identify people and monitor their activities to the spread of terrorism. Just a European Union program to facilitate the investigation and identification through the iris of eye-and fingerprints, but they are falsifiable, and security when it prospers will link to vote.

Internet not only serves to distance express an opinion on anything; also serves to discuss. The big risk is that we make Internet a place where only express our feelings or our aversion to any issue. Online and in real life there is a huge amount of nuances between the Yes and No, and just the discussion of these nuances is what can lead to the recognition that society is a very rich, very versatile and not plural is only those who are white or black. For that would have to serve, but we run the risk that the information society through the internet is a concise message environment, elaborate opinions, popular or unpopular characters, from people who say Yes or No. It depends on us , users of the information society make it a very rich environment, able to rescue that is really colorful and off-line.

AR: You talk about the citizenship of the information society. Citizenship implies rights and duties, what are the citizens of the network?

RTD: First and foremost the right to fully utilize the resources. For example, if your connection is only directly, we have a very poor connection, if you have a broadband connection, then we have ability to go fast music, watch movies with higher quality. This is an initial right that we are not recognized; Mexico today in the quality of internet connection is much more expensive than in European countries, Japan, the United States or Canada. We are at a disadvantage. People who want to have a quality connection to us is very expensive in a country where wages are much lower.

Secondly, the rights have to do with the possibility to express themselves whether the right to expression as I have vetoed, for example if I lived in China, could not put everything online that I can freely put in Mexico Argentina or Brazil.

A third duty is to interact with others and have access to all sites.

About obligations: more beyond what the laws say, my obligation is the recognition of others, and respect for the contents, ideas, points of view of others, with no possibility of intolerance that allows us to disagree when we lie or data that we believe we can compare or verify.

rights standards and the Internet finally reduced to the same society that is in offline.

AR: In conclusion, I ask you this: what are the two great opportunities that lie ahead to open the information society and its backbone-internet-and what are the two main risks also bring with them?

RTD: Two great opportunities: knowledge and interaction. On the Internet we can find a lot of information that only going to count for something when we know appropriate it and produce it as well as a foundation to design a new mathematical paradigm for knowing how to prepare a good coffee. We can appropriate it in our context, our needs and our capabilities.

The other big advantage is the possibility of recognizing a meeting internet. Like you and I are talking here, we can do in a chat, email or by phone, we are the same as talking in person, but it is a useful substitute in many cases. The

two disadvantages: the possibility of getting lost in the vast ocean of information, and believe that all information is useful to us, or not knowing what to choose, not having an orientation to discriminate within it, to saturate both information that we believe animosity towards it. Is to draw.

The other risk is the reproduction of digital exclusion, as we do not have this resource available to everyone or to most people, and privileged that we can navigate at high speeds more easily appropriated this content and creating own, and being marginalized many of them have the opportunities and inequalities already suffering, increase that results from this technological exclusion.

Can You Buy A Claddagh Ring For A Best Friend

science to understand everyday life. Interview with Diego Golombek


Science to understand everyday life
Diego Golombek Interview with Ariel Ruiz Mondragón



From the beginning, man has sought to understand the world and explain the phenomena around him, from his experiences most mundane to the workings of the universe. For this intellect was refined to result in more complete tool that has allowed to satisfy their curiosity in the most serious and stronger: science.

Science tries to explain not only the great mysteries of life and the cosmos, but also is used to know and understand routine aspects that some may seem trivial because of its lack or anything extraordinary. But even in that aspect its products are highly appreciated.

On some of these topics (sex, love, cooking and culinary derivatives) Diego Golombek published last year in Buenos Aires a couple of fun volumes: Sex, drugs and biology (and a bit of rock and roll) , and, in tandem with Paul Schwarzbaum, third edition, revised and augmented scientific Cook. When science gets in the kitchen , both books published by Siglo XXI Editores Argentina and Editorial Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. About

issues on which both books deal chatted with the author: the state of the popularization of science in Latin America, the relationship of science and large industries, the contribution of science in the fight against discrimination, the effects of love on scientists, the possible manipulation of human reproductive performance, culinary transformations caused by synthetic chemicals and changes in matters of sex, love and cooking has led to the scientific-technological revolution. Golombek

a Ph.D. in Biological Sciences at the University of Buenos Aires and professor at the Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. Is a major American popularizers of science, for which she has won awards including the Nobel Konex, National Science Award B. Houssay Award, best book of Education 2005 (awarded by the Foundation Book) and the Ig Nobel Prize (awarded by Harvard University). He is currently director of the library books "that barks Science, published by Siglo XXI Editores.

Ariel Ruiz (AR): Why publish these books?, Why edit the collection "Science barking?

Diego Golombek (DG): The belief that science is science when communicating, when account is made, and consider the dissemination of science as a part of the profession. One such scientist has to do experiments, find results, reports, publications, training students, but also has to have this for many reasons.

One simple reason is that scientists are in the public system: we pay with taxes, and is as accountable. Some vaccines are accountable inventing or making issues that go directly to the public, others can be accountable by counting the kitchen of science: how things are handled in science, in accessible language without losing the rigor.

Another reason is quite hedonistic, me and the authors of the collection will cause much pleasure to write and fun to have (I hope readers in the fun). It's a slightly more selfish reason, but no less valid: we like it and cause us pleasure.

AR: Yes, and besides, as you say, science can become a useless knowledge if not disclosed.

DG: Exactly.

AR: You know enough of popularization of science not only in Argentina but also in Latin America. When you make the metaphor with Don Quixote, say that science barks does not bite but rides. In this regard, and in general terms, how he rides today the release of science in Latin America, both in academic circles and in the media?

DG: In absolute terms, more or less, the poor see and we lack a lot. In relative terms, given to think and be optimistic, because it really has changed much in recent years in our countries. I think Argentina and Mexico are good examples.

For various reasons the situation has changed, because scientists have changed their stance on disclosure and no longer considered just a waste of time, but they think it's important to have what they do, especially the younger generation scientists.

On the other hand, the media see that there is interest in this disclosure, including commercial interest, for there can make a supplement or a TV show, and people see it.

The third point is that the public has realized that it interests you. There was a hidden demand, unknown, both for those who could produce the information to those who receive it. Then the offer was growing while demand. That's pretty interesting.

Either way there is much to do, many outstanding efforts to make scientists more interested in this, to professionalize the popularization of science. This is quite important in Mexico, because here are professional communicators, while in other parts of Latin America do not exist. Also there are in Brazil, in Argentina there are science journalists, not necessarily professional communicators.

Then I see two things: we need much, but today there is much about what was a few years ago, which provides for optimism.

AR: Now the conversation approaches to the books. Science applies to everyday issues very, such as sex, love and cooking. Sex has a lot to do with beauty, of course. Does science have helped in some way, to shape and forge the tastes of the people?

DG: I do not know if you model, but to understand them, which is fascinating because it is finally understand ourselves, we understand why something is attractive, pleasant or unpleasant. We tend to think that this is a matter almost purely cultural or social, there are fashions, which we model clothes or gateway, and pictorial models, art and even in the kitchen, in which science has little to say.

Admittedly, there is much social and cultural about it, but the interesting thing is that there is plenty of vaccine, much can explain another kind of science. For example, the theme of the attraction of a man and a woman one might think: "I like it because it looks like an actress I like." But there are other issues that support strictly biological attraction, and has to do with evolution. The phenomena that are sexually attractive are the phenomena that ultimately lead to evolutionary mandate to partner with someone and make a couple to have children, which is what you want any bugs that crawl walk or fly, including humans. Then

signals certain proportions in the body, certain features of the face, symmetry, signs of physical force in the male, etc., are signals that the brain unconsciously sees and interprets as beautiful, because they are signals that increase likely to have a couple and have healthy children. This is what occurs in the common of all nature, what's fascinating is that humans bring a bit of that and we can have an attraction beyond reproductive purposes, which does not occur in nature. We get to fall in love, and you will know what good is love in evolutionary terms, because people fall in love and not having children goes around and following long.

There are many hypotheses, one can speculate that you fall in love and is a partner in a stable manner, so that children will grow healthier and more secure, and therefore are more likely to, in turn, reproduced and have children, that's what he wants evolution. Then it

different perspective on things every day, one that we are not accustomed to. I think there science can give us great satisfaction because of the possibility of knowing, to better interpret and even entertain me with these questions ourselves with things that happen to us all the time.

AR: In that sense I also interested to see how science has cooperated closely with the industry only indirectly, as in the case you mention: Pasteur, Kellog, Sawyer. Something very interesting is the matter of pheromones. How has the relationship of science with major industries?

DG: Very complicated. If you're going to examples of pharmaceutical industry, the relationship is very complicated and there are serious conflicts. There are conflicts in which certain common standards in public science are not in corporate science, where there are secrets, and pursued a commercial purpose, may pursue heal humanity, but they want to sell remedies. Public science should have no secrets, no permanent conflicts with this, but at the same time and in the right direction, one can feed the other and vice versa. Then

good science policy is one that promotes genuine collaboration within an ethical framework, including basic science and applied science (I'm speaking particularly of pharmaceutical examples.)

On the other hand, is also the human engine of development, not just knowledge per se . In our countries is very important and very valid that there is what is known as basic science, which is know: I have questions because I know the world, I want to rock the world with questions and see what he says. That needs to be supported because the possibilities that arise and applications development.

At the same time to encourage research in specific areas of regional problems such as diseases, energy and food issues, to respond to the quality of life of people.

So it's a delicate balance is not always true in the best way. Finally is a matter of science policy, to allocate resources, to decide priorities without ignoring other things to do. But we must establish some priorities for each government and scientific societies should work together to be the best for each country.

AR: In Sex, drugs and biology address the controversial nature versus culture, that is the question that runs through the book. I like the story of the director of an English university who said that men were more suitable for mathematics and science, and women to the kitchen ...

DG: The president of Harvard, Lawrence H. Summers.

AR: And recently a Nobel laureate said that blacks are less intelligent ...

DG: Yes, James Watson. Look, luckily they both had to resign, which he still speaks well of the scientific society. All the people who say such silly things, such stupidities, has to resign.

AR: Do you think science is working to combat these trends discriminatory?

DG: Yeah, no doubt. Science is a rational activity that should not be mixed with issues of discrimination, for the reason you do not agree with it. If we consider science as an adventure of thinking and asking questions, anyone who wants to undertake it, is welcome to train.

discrimination on any basis other than the genuine work of smart people who want to strive and advance the science, it is quackery. While science is a human activity, which is not exempt from all human sins of jealousy, competition, careerism, even fraud, these are exceptions. What motivates scientists is still increasing knowledge, with all those condiments inherent in any human activity.

Thus, the discrimination is on its side, and the one that says "blacks are less intelligent", the next day has to give, since it does not how to argue, that to talk about race directly, you have to give up, because the human genome project has shown that there are no races, those who speak of genetic differences between women and men who make few are suitable for one thing and another to another, has to leave because this is not true: they are different and complementary women and men, and fortunately the world is like.

AR: From what you say I was very interested in fighting the myths that you do in your books (but also some that seem to point out that myths are not, as in the example of water that explodes in the microwave). I think that's one of the key battles that have to give the popularization of science: the struggle against the myths and pseudoscience. How can you distinguish a scientific truth of quackery, which is presented to us many times as a result of scientific work?

DG: Science is based on evidence, and based on quackery quacks, in other words. So the important thing is knowing how to find and interpret such evidence supporting certain statements. It seems very rich popular culture has myths, some are true and others not. I find it amusing that science gets in some of them to try to prove or disprove, as an example is that of overheating that can occur from water in the microwave, and indeed it can give a very sharp exothermic reaction which springing up and people can burn.

Other myths: our grandmothers probably did the merengue, the whites whipped in copper pots, because they are better. This has been demonstrated by the chemical, a reaction between copper and albumin makes the meringue more stable.

Some other myths are completely fictitious, and one who loves to cook is that for the meat is juicy in the oven, seal (ie sudden warming in a skillet or on a griddle, supposedly to to close the pores of the meat surface and the water is inside.) This is a lie, it is not true because the meat does not have pores, so there is nothing to close, and then the water will escape the same way. What happens is that the meat will be tastier, and therefore to put in your mouth you to salivate over and you'll seem more juicy.

Then this role of science as "myth collapses or supports, myths, it is crucial, it is very entertaining. That's one way to demonstrate what we want to do with the collection: that science have not only in laboratories, in academia, not only draws on scientific cranks to which nobody understands anything, but the questions you you do in what happens to you in everyday life constantly, either in the kitchen, bath, bed, in the Metro. That's what we want achieve with this collection.

AR: Addressing another issue: Do not you think it has negative effects on scientific love, about people who engage in thought? I say this as one of the books talk about the reactions of the neurochemistry of the brain and you say that inhibit certain brain regions, including one dedicated to critical thinking.

DG: Of course, in the state of love, which is the initial state, when really you're a different person, those first weeks when you are madly in love with someone, you will become another person, one who loses his reasoning ability, it loses some of its capacity care, can not choose correctly. This is supported by laboratory tests in which subjects carried who claims to be in love, as proven because they present a picture of the person they are in love, and something comes on in the brain differently than if they present a picture of anyone else.

To those people who are in state of love, indeed fare poorly when they do tests of cognition, memory-making. But at the same time, scientists are human and hopefully fall in love and it lasts the state of love as well as any other. In that state they will very well the experiments, but are perks the trade.

AR: In the book about sex make several comparisons between human beings and many animals, from the spider to the bonobo. In matters of sex and love, is there some characteristic that distinguishes human beings from other animals?

DG: The truth of all, being absolute, the most important thing is to consider that humans are animals like any other. If we start to spin finer culture, apparently, is a human phenomenon: we could not talk about animal culture (although it is very difficult to define the concept of culture), although animal communication, there is language, there are some very complex behaviors someone might interpret as a culture. Within

reproductive behavior, it seems that humans have certain characteristics that make them unique. For example, it's what we talked about earlier: attraction rather than a reproductive phenomenon that does not exist or does not tend to exist in nature. Monogamy, though not universal among humans (we know not), is quite specific among humans. There are also examples in nature, but are a minority.

Another feature that distinguishes humans from other species is that their reproductive behavior escapes the rules of fertility. Can not be attracted to the female to a male or beyond a reproductive purpose. For example, the human female has a menstrual cycle of 28 days, three of which are fertile. But we do not get together with human only in those days: we have attraction and sex at other times of the cycle, and even outside the ring. May even prove attractive a woman is past menopause. That's pretty unique to humans.

Similarly, speaking of women's menstrual cycle, something we share with other animals, many animals show female sexual receptivity, show that they are fertile, change color, they emit certain smells, put in certain positions. The human, no, you do not walk down the street saying "This woman must be ovulating, that menstruating, those other so and so." One does not realize if they are fertile, but unaware of the time there are signs of ovulation, such as "unconscious odors" (as quotes, as they are not smell because they are not so aware), as called pheromones . A very interesting experiment is that if one measures, using methods very precise and small, left and right sides of women, is little more symmetrical at the time of ovulation, and the symmetry is subconsciously understood as something more attractive. Therefore, if it is beyond the mandate of the appeal of pure play, there are also signs that the attraction is greatest in reproductive times.

AR: Near the end this book where you talk about rock stars, explain that the book seeks to understand some of the most basic issues that shape us, such as love and sex. But what dangers can get to run with a full understanding of reproductive performance and even their possible manipulation? We also ask the question even in terms of bioethics.

DG: In principle I absolutely none because I understand that never finished. Subjectivity is what more we represent, and if science is getting into the subjectivity in the study of consciousness, the biological basis of morality, the study of thought (that is messing with our subjectivity), there is something there that is beyond science, and fortunately so. There is a mystery that I believe will remain so because we will continue to be subjective and entities in constant change.

On the other hand, is a matter of orders of organization, hierarchical orders: we are trying to understand a very complex command like us, for ourselves. Our brain is the tool to understand our brain. Something makes a noise there, because to understand a need microscopes microscopic cell, we have no brain Macroscope to understand, but every time we know better.

should be noted that there is a position that has never been lost in the history and present: a position, perhaps somewhat conservative, fear of progress. There was a group in England, the Luddites, named after Ned Ludd, who was a guy who was afraid to progress because it would completely dehumanize. This attitude is perfectly normal and quite common in society. In surveys of public perception of science in general are questions of how much to support science, if science is used to help (say it is wonderful), and immediately makes another: no is that science also has its risks, is to dehumanize us and we will become machines? Then, the same people who said science was wonderful, says yes. We have very clear about the role of science.

However, science as the adventure of knowing, of which we are speaking, is wonderful. Some people think that knowing poetic phenomena, knowledge of nature, knowing a sunset, knowing the stars, take away poetry, take away beauty. I think it's quite the opposite: the knowledge adds beauty, knowing how the world, we know ourselves adds beauty and also adds it to the world. Back to a phenomenon known universe, and not a phenomenon that we are distressed because it is unknown.

the beginning (and this is not mine, but Marcelino Cereijido) the evolutionary force of anguish against the unknown is great because it makes us invent things to know: inventing light to know the dark. That takes you to learn more and more, it can not frighten us because that would stop the progress, which is impossible. In this sense I am quite positivist positivism but is a bit dated at this point, besides that great wars have ended relativists, although they still exist, especially from certain schools of social sciences to discuss reality itself. There are things that if you do science, you can not put into question: there is actually no data. If you ask you data to nature's given you, these data are unique. Obviously the science as human activity is an activity of interpretation, and there we have to fight among themselves and discuss, and meanwhile, the phenomena of postmodernism and relativism ends have nothing to do with science.

AR: It seems very complete description of the provision of food science Cook, and very funny. Have you thought about delving beyond the preparation of food, that food effects have on health? There is also the issue of eating habits, I think.

DG: The question is perfect, and that is purposely not in the book because we are specialists in scientific cooking but nothing in nutrition. This is an established discipline and good literature. We did not want to get into that because I do not know about that.

's basically reinterpreting existing texts, and we're not involved with nutrition. Also, get the nutrition and health topics of food in the style we want the library has, the more solemn again. So we wanted to chemistry, physics, biology and everyday cooking. Maybe at some time in the library has a book on nutrition for someone who can handle the subject well. But education needs to be done on this subject I have no doubt.

AR: There is a part of the book where you talk about sweeteners, synthetic substances, sodium cyclamate, for example. You could also mention to GM. Do you think these new substances and cultures to change the kitchen?

DG: It's not the same to talk about issues synthetic sweeteners such as certain that GM food. These are exactly alike, and could not recognize nutritionally non-GM food. Basically this is an impressive advance of biotechnology, with some care should be encouraged and valued for what it is, is allowing relatively poor regions of the planet may have crops as they had never dreamed, in addition to pest control. You can not distinguish them from non-transgenic, unless the object of what you add to a plant or animal that is something nutritional, for example, you want to have more vitamins, or you want to milk a cow produces a hormone growth, and there you are going to distinguish itself for the better. Welcome be the GM.

In the case of foods, condiments or more synthetic, the situation is different: yes change the way to cook, how to approach a culinary phenomenon. The issue of sweetening is complicated, because social influences: the look that we have about ourselves and our body also influences an evolutionary question. Why is there an obesity epidemic in the world? Because we are not prepared for the diet we have. We are all prepared to live in the forest, the jungle, in caves, so that cost us long to find an energy source rich in carbohydrates, sugar. We are ready to have every so often we catch a mammoth and this month we gorge, and then not knowing when we can have another type of food. For this possibility we waste now, to open the fridge and eat ice cream with lots of sugar, our bodies are not evolutionarily adapted and do not know driving. The result of this is obesity. Then
sweeteners
respond a bit to it: a getting used to certain tastes that historically did not exist, so that now have serious nutritional problems that can lead to very serious illness such as obesity, then had to make some replacements synthetic way that was not so serious. And then the sweeteners, which have their own problems and have bad press. But to have problems with them you should eat very high doses of saccharin, aspartame and cyclamate, would need take you one hundred cans of Coca Cola light .

AR: Finally, how have changed sex, love, cooking, which has brought us the scientific-technological revolution?

DG: There are definitely changes. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, centuries of technological advance (rather than scientific) enormous, unprecedented and far greater than all the preceding centuries. This influenced the comfort, quality of life, influenced reduce social inequality (though not resolved, we have particular problems in our countries) has helped increase life expectancy, improve food and so on.

Possibly the greatest impact of technology on everyday life that has changed is the sense of time. Everything happens faster, we are in a hurry (especially in city life, but also in the field occurs) in the media that bombard us constantly, and so on. All that has changed the time we dedicate to various activities, from the interpersonal to professional work, leisure, sleep and wakefulness. This has the result in tasks such as cooking or passionate relationships, partner relationships, the time we dedicate to the love and affection, which is complicated by other issues that demand our attention.

Again: we are not developmentally ready for that so many stimuli bombarding us constantly. We are prepared to care that we do not eat, set up something to eat, ride a partner with whom to be happy and have kids. Suddenly the technology forces us to deal with a huge amount of stimulation that did not exist. That changes the direction of time, which changes throughout the rest of our lives: cooking, love, sex, communications, language, sleep, work, leisure.

So yes, definitely science and technology are probably inevitable that side effect. I think in the balance, the benefits of science and technology so greatly outweigh their risks and their problems, there is no question of saying "we must stop a little with the scientific and technological advance" because there are still many problems to solve.