Desde su polvoriento escondite, las envalentonadas pelucas  advierten con su habitual pobreza de lenguaje “calmaránse nomás”. En contradicción con su propio alegato, según el cual cuando pierden salen ganando, las patéticas pelucas, acusan de igualado, atrevido e ignorante, a aquél que osó frenar sus merecidas pretensiones. Lo que no queda claro es el origen de tanta “inteligencia”—que no es intelligentsia—pues de esas cosas no enseñan en las escuelas de pelucas.
Y es que nadie cuestiona a las pelucas como ser “bien bacanes”, ellas siempre han dictado cátedra de como hablar gangoso, con gramática corrupta, pero con el swing que solo da la exposición al trago caro y a las buenas farras. Ah—suspiran—si estos ignorantes supieran.
Pero los ignorantes, con cabeza y sin peluca. no saben—ni les interesa. Se han perdido algunos chuchaquis trabajando y estudiando, que es lo que hacen las cabezas cuando no tienes pelucas que los apadrinen. No tanto como las pelucas, claro está, pues las pelucas no trabajan—se rompen el…—uy que guacharnaco, casi se me escapa una palabrota que solo luce en el léxico de una sofisticada peluca.
Pues como decía, ahora todos –menos ellas—son ignorantes, brutos-bestias, fascistas-comunistas, y otras cosas que tampoco entienden. Las pelucas malosas, que en su juventud se jalaban los años, paseaban por mil colegios copiando deberes y comprando exámenes, tienen ahora la sagrada labor de señalar, con el más indigno de sus dedos, a estas cabezas ignorantes que les quieren quitar lo que en “buena ley” les corresponde.

Publicado en 11/10/2006–El país.es

Populismo por aquí, populista por allá. Las bocas se llenan de acusaciones y nunca ha sido más cierto: “Una mentira repetida mil veces, se convierte en verdad”. Los satanizadores del pensamiento han emitido sentencia ¡Que el pánico cunda! Nos ataca el populismo.

No queda tan claro, sin embargo, cómo los tecnócratas que desprecian todo conocimiento que no se traduzca en contante y sonante, han adquirido la prerrogativa de poner apelativos a candidatos e ideologías. No recuerdan cuando el dueño del país llamó “vagos” a todos quiénes se usaran su capacidad intelectual para interpretar la realidad social que los rodea.

Receta fantástica esta, quien no coincida conmigo será llamado elitista intelectualoide o embaucador populista, dependiendo de la moda en el mercadeo político.

Pero que no se engañe nadie, los verdaderos populistas son los que esperan que los ecuatorianos votemos en contra de nuestros propios intereses, que le hagamos barra al TLC para que por arte de magia ingresemos al primer mundo, que prefiramos que la OXY salga vencedora contra de los intereses de nuestro propio país, que aplaudamos las amenazas del FMI y repudiémos a Chávez por cantarle la tabla al dueño del mundo. En definitiva, parafraseando a John Maynard Keynes, que pongamos nuestra fe en un desquiciado sistema que presupone que la avaricia redundará en beneficio de todos.

Tan enfermiza conducta ha sido repetidamente estudiada. La víctima defiende al victimario para ganar su simpatía hasta que un día rompe el ciclo y reconoce quién la ha atemorizado todo el tiempo es el verdadero “populista”.

España le dolía a Unamuno–aquella desquiciada que enfrentó a padres e hijos, hermanos y hermanas. El odio visceral contra aquella república soñadora fue aplacado por las fuerzas reaccionarias y católicas del franquismo. Muerte, destrucción y miseria dejaron los años de guerra. Heridas que hasta aún no sanan. La España republicana y democrática no pudo contra la cruzada apoyada por terratenientes fascistas y nazis. Sí señor Mena Villamar, existe amnesia colectiva en las derechas asesinas que han usado estrategias legales o ilegales para “salvar la patria”.
Mucho se equivocan quienes tachan de masas ignorantes y amnésicas a quienes cambiar el Ecuador.

A la respuesta:

Puso mal hasta el apellido–nada extraño en este tipo de análisis.
Solamente alguien así puede confundir el nacional-socialismo con el socialismo (digamos el de la república de Weimar) pero claro, habría que haber estudiado historia y saber leer bien. Pabón, con B.

El presidente ecuatoriano Rafael Correa–junto a varios de sus homólogos de la región–se ha enfrascado en una activa polémica frente a los medios de comunicación. El más reciente episodio de esta polémica ocurrió cuando el mandatario del Ecuador afirmó que “le tienen sin cuidado” las recientes declaraciones de la Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa (SIP).

Pues sin cuidado le deben tener. Correa, un político, hace política y utiliza su plataforma para promover su posición y su agenda. Tiene mucho de razón al criticar lo que parecen acusaciones premeditadas y seccionadas para atacar aquellos regímenes–que dicho de paso– han obtenido, y siguen obteniendo en América Latina enorme respaldo popular. Pero este respaldo popular no equivale a democracia. Ciertamente no para los opositores del profundo cambio que vive el continente.

El problema es que la credibilidad de Correa es igual o mayor que aquella de los medios. Correa el político no tiene, ni debe tener, un compromiso con la objetividad y la información independiente. Su compromiso es con el pueblo que lo eligió, el cambio que persigue y la ideología que representa. La declaración de la SIP, cae entonces en un marco de antagonismo político interno que desvirtúa cualquier legítima crítica que originalmente hay podido tener. La SIP junto con los medios, que están representando una postura ideológica, se involucran en política y salen perdiendo, pues se ponen en el mismo nivel que los actores que son deliberadamente ideologizados, escudados en discurso vacío e hipócrita que propone una pseudo-noción de “libertad de prensa” como justificativo de los constantes ataques políticos contra el gobierno.

Correa seguirá siendo un presidente, bueno, malo o regular. El pueblo se alineará o se opondrá a su ideología, conforme a los resultados de su gestión. Pero es muy preocupante que el daño a la credibilidad del cuarto poder –representado no solo por los medios masivos ecuatorianos comprometidos con los grupos de poder, pero ahora también por instituciones continentales como la SIP–es tan profundo que su rol ha asumido, sin vergüenza alguna el papel de desinformador deliberante y politizado.

The so-called “turn to the left” in Latin America, has evidenced a clear ideological polarization and a clash of communicational strategies. Chavism has become the narrative reference for media coverage and Latin American political discourse.
In Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia, the left leaning governments of Correa, Chavez and Morales, have faced great opposition in the traditional mass media. This tension has propitiated the creation of governmental informative counterparts, and arguably, measures against the freedom of speech, like the closing of Radio Caracas Television. In consequence, official and traditional media have been eclipsed by alternative proposals for political discussion that seem to embody the population’s discontent.

Carlos Jijón, en su columna del día jueves 29 de noviembre titulada
“Golpe de Estado,” me invita a una profunda y urgente reflexión la
integridad de la prensa de nuestro país.
No se trata de que simplemente me escandaliza el razonamiento del
escritor y su infortunado uso de términos. No, no es solo una evidente
incompatibilidad ideológica, la cual es soy el primero en admitir que
existe. Lo que para Carlos Jijón es un “Golpe de Estado,” es para mi
un ejercicio magnífico de democracia. Esta contraposición de opiniones
es natural del ejercicio del pensamiento político y fundamental prueba
de la libertad de expresión que en nuestro país existe, y que por
tanto ha de ser celebrada, aunque algunos, incluido el mismo Jijón,
la cuestionen constantemente.

Lo verdaderamente problemático es que el señor Jijón cumple funciones
como “defensor del lector”. Esta importante figura en el ejercicio del
periodismo contemporáneo corre el riesgo de ser desligitimada al ser
ejercida por un individuo con una posición ideológica tan polarizada y
polarizante. Creo que los lectores tenemos el derecho a leer los
exabruptos encolerizados del señor Jijón, pero creo que también
tenemos derecho a un ombudsman válido, y a creer que existe una prensa
independiente de la cual el diario Hoy es parte.

Nota publicada en el diario de Quito, diciembre 8 de 2007.

On her blog: Blogging into the future, Amanda Clark brings back the fear that is forcing journalists re-think and re-invent their craft for the last years. “Will blogs take over the world of reporting and cause readers to turn to them instead of their local newspapers?”
In the mid-nineties, a great professor from University of Navarra, Jose Luis Orihuela, formulated an interesting analogy that still resounds with me. He presented the case of the medieval monks that faced with the revolutionary invention of print, found themselves without their traditional occupation, of handwriting books. Instead of competing with the invention, they prefer re-invent their role becoming brewers.
The question therefore is: what will be our “beer”? What are we going to do different? I do agree that a way to “combat the issue is for newspapers to simply start reporting better.” Yet, I am afraid it will be more complicated than that. I am not sure that as Amanda suggests, “the popularity of blogs will slowly diminish and newspapers will again come out on top.” The journalistic product has to defeat the alternative. It should be appealing enough to remain superior to its blogosphere counterpart.
During the last week’s local elections, I was able to obtain more helpful local information from blogs than from the conventional media. In the other hand, when it comes to global issues, my experience is that blogs mostly repeat information originated by the conventional media.
I have to still discover what will be the twist we may provide to local papers, to produce our “beer,” but I can think in one fundamental difference:  journalist  get paid.

On her blog: Feeding Blackmail, Marcie Barnes makes an insightful analysis of the problematic of labeling done by the very same companies that sell us the food products. The ubiquitous conflict of interests in this practice implies also a big of government to set clear and effective guidelines.
I am positive that underneath this issue lays the philosophical principles that have lead government for the last years. Government power has now being replaced by corporate agents that have concentrate the favor of political actors.
I do fully agree with the solutions proposed by Marcie. I would like to add the dimension, that although impractical, underlines the need to change our lifestyle, since is evident that both government and companies lack the will to make a significant change.
“More consumer education about eating organically (and locally). The use of the term “conventional” in description of what I call “mainstream” food forces consumers to believe that organic is the odd way to eat. When in fact, humans evolved eating off of the land: free of pesticides, preservatives, artificial colors, additives, scientifically derived ingredients (ex: corn syrup), extra hormones, and possible genetic mutations, just to name a few.”
I couldn’t agree more. Furthermore, if we really become conscious about what we eat, we may not even require things to be labeled. Haven’t we been able to fed our specie until now without labels? But of course, we haven’t had to face massive markets and busy lives that make impossible for us to provide adequate care to what we eat day by day. Our constant rush and our need to eat on different locations through the day, have forced us to de-sacralize the ritual of eating. A good example for a philosophical change is Slow Food Movement, is based on the: “believe that everyone has a fundamental right to pleasure and consequently the responsibility to protect the heritage of food, tradition and culture that make this pleasure possible.”
The challenge arises when we try to fit such principles with our economical expectations and time requirements, building a vicious circle hard to break.

Let me first express my profound admiration to Lisa Bistreich’s sensitivity at choosing her research topic for her blog Lisa’s blog at global communication. It is an undeniable reality on the digital divide that few have dared to tackle. With that very common sense, Lisa has provoked in me a couple of initial reactions.
As dramatic as the digital divide results for seniors, we run the risk of imposing – perhaps with a little of condescension–our own set of values and priorities, to an specific population segment. Unlike other examples of the technological divide, where economical factors determine the access to technology, the challenges that seniors face, are of an even more complicated nature. In addition to Lisa’s very well argue reasons, some seniors may be just unwilling to adopt mainstream technology.
“More and more information on current and world events is shared on the Internet, seniors are excluded from access to that information, leaving them without access to topics of their interest.” I know this is true, but may also deserve to be consider that the production of knowledge, precedes and surpasses the technological advances.
When my grandfather died in the year 2000, the only inheritance we received, were his books. For years, my grandfather devotion to collect and treasure them, produced what is my favorite library in the world. Volumes and volumes about History, Philosophy and Physics –his passions in life—became for me the most illustrative testimony of his ended existence. The family committed to preserve the library as left, and although we are encouraged to spend time there, we do not remove any book from the premises.
Every time we have a chance, we explore the books he left. Sometimes for fun and sometimes for legitimate research, we always return to this space created by him.
So far, we have found numerous notes and observations, made in all kinds of media. Surprisingly, we discover a series of tape recordings where he formulates his own philosophical theory. Needless to say, those are now digitalized, and I can listen to them in my ipod, when I crave the wisdom of the old man.
We also find the notes he took when each of his sixteen grandchildren explain him how to use the Internet. He, a physicist, was never able to use it comfortably.
I wonder what would have happened if what we received instead, were password protected files on a Pentium III, that by now would have been discarded, adding to that other issue of pollution.

On her Blog Global Criss Cross, Amanda Toler approaches to an issue very close to my heart. For several years, I was a high school teacher in a charter school, here in North Carolina. A charter school, is a publically funded school which have been freed from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools, in exchange of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each school’s charter. In North Carolina there is a minimal difference in terms of the expectations that a charter school must meet, vis-à-vis, a conventional public school. The founding, however, is significantly smaller.
This particular charter school is a college preparatory. Our students are expected to attend a four-year college after graduating. Therefore, the school is expected to provide a comprehensive academic formation.
Technology, of course, is a fundamental part of this academic spectrum. A couple of years ago, a significant effort was made, to equip the school with plenty Mac ibooks for use of students.
Ever since, we have faced endless challenges.
The first level of resistance was the Mac platform. Many students, parents and even faculty, found “useless” to learn to operate on Mac OS in a “Windows world.”
The second big issue was security and maintenance. There was a natural concern for securing a wireless network for academic work and appropriate contents. With too many filters, speed decreased almost to non-functional levels. I suspect that a bigger maintenance investment could have significantly altered these results. But once the laptops were acquired there was very little budget left.
In consequence, faculty and students ended under utilizing a very valuable resource.
Although I am a big technology fan and a Mac enthusiast, I was not alarmed. I was aware that our students were technologically literate, and able to get the most of the resources in hand. I find the crisis to be an opportunity to fight the seduction of new technologies and discuss with the students the reorganization of discourses and how affect our ways of reading and writing. Comics, videogames, TV and Internet are to be equated with the “old notion” of book. Perhaps accidentally we ended educating to be served by, and not to depend on technology.