domingo, 28 de febrero de 2010

"DRAMÁTICAMENTE CONMOVIDOS POR LO QUE LE OCURRIÓ A CHILE"

Observa.com.uy/Actualidad
28_2_2010
Uruguay
Texto grande Separador Texto normal Separador Texto chico Separador Imprimir esta nota

TERREMOTO EN CHILE

Mujica: "Los que creen en Dios recen por Chile y por la Tierra"

"Estamos dramáticamente conmovidos por lo que le ocurrió a Chile, que nos golpea", dijo el presidente electo



El presidente electo de Uruguay, José Mujica, pidió este domingo a quienes creen en Dios "que recen por Chile y porque la Tierra no siga temblando" en alusión al potente terremoto que sacudió este sábado a ese país.

"Estamos dramáticamente conmovidos por lo que le ocurrió a Chile, que nos golpea", dijo Mujica, que este lunes asumirá la presidencia de Uruguay, en una conferencia de prensa para medios extranjeros acreditados para cubrir los actos de su investidura.

Según los últimos informes en Chile, el fuerte temblor del sábado, de más de 8 grados Richter, causó más de 300 muertos, una quincena de desaparecidos, un millón de viviendas destruidas o dañadas y dos millones de damnificados.

"Lo que ocurrió antes con Haití nos recuerda lo fácil que se puede perder la vida y como debemos recobrar la humildad", agregó el presidente electo, de 74 años.

"A los que creen en Dios les pido que recen por Chile, por la Tierra y porque no sigan estos fenómenos", destacó Mujica, que en otra parte de la conferencia se definió como un "agricultor y campesino".

EL MARIDO DE LUCÍA

12 FOTOS DEL PEPE

LUCÍA TOPOLANSKY SAAVEDRA, SEÑORA DEL PEPE

Lucía Topolansky, la dama de la otra orilla

Esposa de José Pepe Mujica, nuevo presidente de Uruguay, la senadora cuenta su pasado tupamaro y su presente de first lady


LA NACIÓN- Domingo 28 de febrero de 2010 | Publicado en edición impresa

Ver mas fotos FOTO

Lucía Topolansky, la dama de la otra orilla Foto: Martín Lucesole

MONTEVIDEO.- Seguramente, si se habla de Lucía Topolansky, mucha gente no sabrá de quién se trata. Si, en cambio, se alude a ella como Lucía de Mujica, la primera dama de Uruguay, su nombre podrá resultar más familiar. Pero sería injusto. Porque Lucía Topolansky Saavedra, nacida en Montevideo el 25 de septiembre de 1944, es una política uruguaya de larga trayectoria, perteneciente, junto a su hermana melliza, al Movimiento de Liberación Nacional-Tupamaros (MLN-T) desde 1967.

En ese momento conoció a José Mujica, con quien comenzó una relación de pareja. En 1972 fue apresada por la policía y detenida hasta 1985, cuando se firmó la amnistía. En el año 2000 ingresó en la Cámara de Diputados. En las elecciones de 2004 encabezó las listas del Movimiento de Participación Popular (MPP) y su sector político fue el que más votos recibió dentro del Frente Amplio. En 2005, después de varios años de convivencia, se casó con José "Pepe" Mujica. El 25 de octubre de 2009 fue elegida senadora.

Esta mujer, de 65 años, habla de todo en forma muy tranquila, haciendo sentir al otro confortable, incluso cuando se refiere a su salud, ya que parece haber salido airosa de un reciente cáncer de mama. Explica cada paso de su vida de manera amable, fácil, sencilla. Su pensamiento es elaborado, pero no se hace la intelectual: lo es. No se hace la socialista: lo es.

La cita es a las 11.30, en la sede del MPP, en pleno centro de Montevideo, y llegamos en compañía del ex embajador argentino en Uruguay Hernán Patiño Mayer. Se saludan con un abrazo. Tienen una buena amistad. "Lo vamos a extrañar", confiesa luego.

En la sala en la que se apresta para la charla hay una gran foto del Che Guevara, una bandera uruguaya y diversos afiches de la campaña Mujica-Astori.

A las 13.30 nos trasladamos hasta Rincón del Cerro, a 20 km del centro, donde está su chacra, en la que cultiva flores y alfalfa. Una casa muy modesta. Unas plantas de lavanda prácticamente tapan la entrada del alero. Paredes sin pintar y techo de chapa, un aljibe, pasto crecido, perros. Mezcla de casa y taller. Ella, pelo cortito con sus canas, pantalón marrón claro, camisa blanca y zapatos negros muy cómodos.

Todos hablan del Pepe Mujica y de Lucía. Ella va a la farmacia, camina las cuadras necesarias, compra el remedio indicado y nadie la acompaña. Ninguna formalidad.

"Voy a ser durante quince días vicepresidenta de la República, y Tabaré, presidente", dice, orgullosa. Cuenta que la modista le está haciendo un trajecito. Tacos no puede usar porque está operada de la cadera y le han colocado una prótesis. El pelo se lo está dejando más largo para hacerse un corte especial. Mañana tendrá que esperar por Pepe -presidente electo de Uruguay- en la puerta del Palacio Legislativo. "Lo tengo que acompañar hasta la Asamblea General; ahí le tengo que tomar el juramento."

Es muy interesante escucharla comparar la experiencia uruguaya con la argentina. Habla sin rencores. Estuvo trece años presa y no se hace la víctima. Habla con mucho respeto. Nadie la trata de usted.

-Esta pareja tan relajada, sin ningún protocolo, ¿va a poder mantenerse invicta a los ofrecimientos del poder? Hablo del auto oficial, los adulones...

-Sí, bueno..., ahora, a partir del 1° de marzo, vas a ver que eso no se va a dar en Uruguay [se ríe]. Pepe va a tener un auto de Presidencia, pero no te extrañes de que un día salga en el auto de él porque se le antojó ir a tal lado.

-¿No tiene miedo de que Pepe cambie?

-No, no [convencida]. A la edad que tiene y con la vida que tiene, no va a cambiar. En eso, no va a cambiar. El va a pelear por no poner distancia con la gente.

-Dan ganas de apostar. ¿En un año nos volvemos a ver?

-Nos vemos, vas a ver que yo tenía razón [se ríe]. Nosotros, habitualmente, los sábados o los domingos vamos a una feria que hay cerca de casa, una feria que es toda de chacareros donde la gente que produce lleva en forma directa sus productos. Y como en casa se plantan flores y alfalfa, hago compras para la semana. Esa costumbre siempre la tenemos, desde tiempo inmemorial. Después de que lo eligieron a Pepe hemos seguido yendo y la gente ahora grita: "¡Mirá, está Pepe, está Pepe!". Se empiezan a juntar, y entonces se sacan fotos, y piden firmas. Vamos con la perrita.

-Pero, Lucía, la vida no ha sido tan amable con usted. Salvo Nelson Mandela, no conozco a nadie que haya estado tanto tiempo preso por cuestiones políticas.

-En el mundo hay unos cuantos. La dictadura uruguaya, que en esencia pudo haber sido igual a la dictadura argentina, prefirió tener a la gente presa, aun tratándola de enloquecer y no desaparecerla [habla lento y claro, para dar énfasis al concepto que quiere expresar]. Esa fue una opción consciente, porque los militares argentinos venían acá, visitaban las cárceles y decían: "Y estos, ¿por qué están vivos?". En Uruguay hubo muertos, fundamentalmente en enfrentamientos, algunos otros en tortura y algunos desaparecidos, pero comparado con Argentina te diría que nada.

-¿Cómo es tener una hermana melliza?, ¿es vivir en espejo?

-Preguntale a Mirtha Legrand, que tiene una hermana melliza que, además, no se produce... Es tener que aprender desde muy chico a pelear por tu identidad. Y máxime cuando yo era niña, que buscaban vestirte igual; cuanto más igual era como que les parecía mejor. Entonces, tú peleabas por diferenciarte, por tu personalidad. Pero después hay un momento, en esa misma infancia, en que siempre tienes un compañero de juegos, alguien que está en la misma que tú.

-El haber ido al Sacre Coeur, un colegio de monjas dominicas, ¿ayudó a buscar actitudes heroicas?, ¿ayudó a esta idea de la lucha armada?

-Claro, fíjate que yo estuve presa con una monja que había sido profesora mía de francés. Yo les reconozco a la orden de los dominicos que es una orden peculiar, de grandes pensadores, teólogos. Y ellos son predicadores, hacen misión. Dentro de lo que era el ámbito montevideano de aquellos años, eran monjas progresistas, te diría, de avanzada.

-Leí una entrevista de la agencia EFE en la que parecía que usted seguía reivindicando la violencia. Y luego salió a aclarar. ¿Qué pasó?

-Yo percibo que los europeos no conocen a los países pequeños de Latinoamérica. No conocen su historia. Entonces, para que nos ubiquen, nosotros siempre damos como referencia si estamos al lado de Argentina o de Brasil. La periodista me preguntó si yo alguna vez volvería a usar las armas. Yo le contesté: mire lo que le pasó a Obama cuando asumió, hace un año. El dijo: "Voy a cerrar la base de Guantánamo y me voy a retirar de Irak". Y ahora no pudo cerrar Guantánamo y está mandando tropas a Afganistán. En política, nunca digas nunca.

-¿En qué momento se enamoró de Mujica?

-Lo conocí en la militancia en un local. Y ahí se dio. Yo lo conocía de bastante tiempo atrás.

-¿Era seductor?

-Y, bueno, sí. En la lucha clandestina, el ser humano está bastante solo, porque ha cortado con su familia. Entonces, por eso, tiene lugar el afecto, tiene lugar el amor. Erich Maria Remarque, que cuenta toda la Primera Guerra Mundial, dice: "El ser humano en las trincheras se conoce desnudo". Y es ahí cuando lo quieres más. ¿Sabes por qué? Porque lo ves con todas sus virtudes y todos sus defectos; sin nada, sin maquillaje.

-Hablemos de los 13 años de cárcel: ¿cómo es?, ¿cómo pasan los días?, ¿cómo es el día a día?, ¿cómo se espera?, ¿cómo se hace para soportar?

-Y, uno se tiene que defender, ¿no? Cuando está en una situación así, se tiene que defender. Yo siempre partí de la base de que de algún modo iba a salir. Salí en el año 85, y allá por el año 73 un oficial, que me hostigaba, me decía que había soñado que él vendría dentro de miles de años y yo seguiría estando presa. Entonces le dije: "Mira, ni te preocupes, porque si en doce o trece años no me voy por la puerta grande, me voy a ir por la chica". Y se dejó de embromar.

-¿Cómo se hace para que pasen los días? Pepe decía que hablaba con las hormigas, ¿y usted?

-Pepe y un puñado de compañeros estuvieron en aislamiento total. Esa es una circunstancia que yo no viví y que es durísima. Yo tuve períodos de aislamiento, pero en el grueso de mis años de cárcel estuve con otras mujeres. Entonces, tú tratas de hacer actividades, de llenar esas veinticuatro horas del día. Si no teníamos libros, porque se les había ocurrido a los militares sacarnos los libros, escribíamos y nos leíamos, nos contábamos. Quien sabía una cosa se la enseñaba a la otra; hacíamos cursos de idiomas. Increíblemente, el día se te iba.

-¿Sabía qué pasaba afuera, en la política, en el mundo? ¿Qué les decían? ¿Cómo se informaban?

-Muy, muy poco. Nos enterábamos por las compañeras que caían, que te contaban lo que iba pasando. Ellos tenían una red de parlantes, pero trataban de pasar todas las cosas tétricas. Si mataban a unos compañeros en la Argentina, esa noticia te la pasaban con todos los detalles, para que quedaras bien amargado. Cuando mataron a Salvador Allende, pasaron con lujo de detalles cómo habían bombardeado La Moneda. Todo eso te lo informaban bien. Pasaban todo con marchas militares.

-¿Usted cree que su tema de salud actual es consecuencia de aquellos años?

-No sé... Yo tengo un cáncer maligno del que me he salvado [completa la frase con una risita un tanto irónica]. Yo lo asocio al estrés de la militancia del hoy, que...

-¿En serio?

-Yo me mato por la militancia. Soy una persona adicta a la cuestión militante. Lo asocio más a eso.

-¿Nunca pensó en el suicidio?

-¡No! Creo que hay que tener mucho valor para suicidarse... [en voz más baja]. Pensaba en el futuro, hacía hipótesis.

-¿Cómo se enteró de las elecciones de 1983 en Argentina?

-Más o menos nos enterábamos. Yo estuve presa con dos muchachas que eran argentinas y montoneras. Las habían detenido junto a un grupo de gente en la frontera, en uno de los operativos Cóndor. A algunos se los llevaron para la Argentina y a otros los trajeron para Uruguay. Entre los que vinieron, el más conocido era Miguel Angel Estrella, el pianista.

-¿Pudo entender el fenómeno del peronismo?

-Con las dos muchachas argentinas peleamos muchísimo. Discutíamos de política, y discutíamos el fenómeno del peronismo, porque si no se entiende el peronismo, no se entiende a la Argentina. El día que se iban en libertad les cantamos la marcha peronista para despedirlas.

-Usted sabe que, más allá de la ideología, hay una estética de la izquierda y una peronista. La estética peronista es un poquito de taco aguja, un poquito de pelo arreglado, largo, y maquillaje. En mis años de facultad, las chicas de izquierda usaban taco bajo, nada de pintura, como usted.

-Yo tuve veinte y también me gustaba tener pinta. Tenía el pelo largo y era bastante hincha de la minifalda. Después, probablemente en los largos años de cárcel, que te decantan lo superficial de lo trascendental, aprendes a vivir como dice Machado: liviano de equipaje, casi desnudo. Yo no critico a nadie... Yo lo que pido es libertad. Me parece fantástico que cada uno se empilche de lo que sea... Me parece muy bien que Evo Morales se vista con la tradición boliviana. No critico nada, porque yo lo que pido es libertad.

-Entonces, usted, no tiene una mirada crítica sobre lo que se llama frivolidad...

-No, si la persona se siente mejor. Esto tiene mucho que ver con el estado de ánimo o del alma de la gente y si quiere expresarlo exteriormente, está muy bien que lo haga.

-En los momentos extremos, ¿piensa en Dios?

-Yo no soy creyente en un Dios así, formal, como lo puede formular el catolicismo o los protestantes o quienes sean. Mi familia era un tanto sui géneris, porque mi padre era batllista. Los batllistas eran todos ateos: escribían "dios" con minúscula y los curas eran "los pollerudos". Todo bastante despectivo. Mi abuela paterna era luterana. La familia de mi madre era católica. Entonces, cuando llegaba Navidad, íbamos todos a misa de gallo y mi padre y mi abuelo se quedaban. Y nadie me explicaba nada.

-¿Cómo le impactó la Revolución Cubana?

-Mira, recuerdo haber estado un mediodía en el patio de mi casa escuchando Radio Carve, que transmitía la caída de La Habana, y en mis manos tenía un diario con un juicio de Fidel Castro: "La historia me absolverá". ¡Hay que ver lo que era la dictadura de Batista! Para entender a Fidel hay que entender su contexto.

-¿Llegó a ser su ídolo Fidel?

-Yo no tengo ídolos así, como ahora se usa en la gente joven. Tengo gente que admiro históricamente.

-La guerrilla en Uruguay hizo su autocrítica; la argentina, no. ¿Por qué será?

-Este país parió el Congreso del Pueblo: se juntaron todos los sectores sociales y sindicales, la gente con inquietudes y se discutió un programa de gobierno: cómo debía arreglarse el Uruguay. Como consecuencia de ese Congreso se formó la Central Unica de Trabajadores. Nosotros tenemos una sola central, no tenemos un divague [elige la palabra] de cosas. También una Central Unica de Estudiantes. Y en esos años también nace la guerrilla. Entonces, es el mismo Uruguay que pare distintas cosas. Y nace el Frente Amplio, esa cosa que le cuesta tanto a la gente que no es uruguaya entender, esa unidad en la diversidad.

-Este personaje militante que es usted, viendo el caso Bachelet, el caso Cristina Kirchner, el caso de Dilma Rousseff, ¿se plantea ser presidenta o candidata?

-[En voz más baja] No me planteo nada. Ahora me planteo ser senadora y pelear por este período de gobierno. Este período lo termino con setenta años, y tanto Dilma como Fernández y Michelle Bachelet son mucho más jóvenes que yo.

-Lucía, ¿cómo se toman las decisiones en esta pareja? ¿Cómo es un día de esta pareja?

-Pepe se tiene que levantar a hacer el mate aunque sea presidente; lo va a tener que hacer [se ríe].

-¿Escuchan radio?

-Sí. A Pepe le gusta escuchar el informativo agropecuario. Viste que a esa hora casi todas las radios tienen. Y después, el informativo común lo escuchamos, porque es lo primero que uno tiene.

-¿Y luego del mate?

-El desayuno lo hago yo, porque Pepe es muy torpe para el tema de la cocina. Además, a mí me gusta cocinar, y nosotros somos dos. Lo de mi casa es una papa.

-¿Cocina bien?

-Sí, cocino bien. Me sale bárbara la pizza, sé hacer pascualina, sé hacer pasteles, empanadas... A él le gusta lo que yo le cocine. Le pongo la mesa bien adornada, porque me gusta la estética de la mesa. Nos gusta tomar un poquito de vino con el almuerzo o con la cena. A veces miro el canal Gourmet, porque aprendo cosas y me divierte experimentar.

-Hablemos de su familia y de su idea de una familia.

-Mira, yo vengo de una familia muy grande, sobre todo mi familia materna, que es fundacional de Uruguay: son descendientes de Cornelio Saavedra. Mi segundo apellido es Saavedra. [Se queda pensando] A mí me hubiera gustado tener un familión, pero yo...

-¿Familión significa hijos?

-Sí, hijos.

-¿Nunca pensó en adoptar?

-En el momento en que lo pensé, la ley uruguaya era tan complicada que desmoralizaba al más tenaz. Ahora, por suerte, hace dos años la pudimos modificar.

-¿Con qué se relaja y se divierte esta pareja, aparte de la militancia?

-Nos gusta ir a espectáculos de tango. Nos gusta el tango. Ojalá supiera bailar tango [suspira]. Me gustan Troilo, Piazzolla. Estos días que estuvimos en la Argentina, fuimos a El Viejo Almacén. Me reconforta que haya bandoneonistas de pelo largo, porque quiere decir que la juventud hizo suyo el tango. Mi tango preferido es "Che bandoneón", cantado por Héctor Mauré.

-Hablemos del mundo. ¿Qué significó para usted François Mitterrand?

-El socialismo francés es, antes que socialismo, francés. Es europeo. Ellos no tienen incorporado el concepto de "internacional". Los intereses de Francia están por sobre todo. Entonces, vos no ves demasiada diferencia cuando viene un gobierno de una orientación diferente.

-¿Y le pasa lo mismo con el socialismo español, con Felipe González?

-España me duele de una manera diferente. Yo conocí la España franquista. Estuve en el 63 en España, y vi a esa España doliente pero luchadora. Y ese año lo conocí a Perón en Torremolinos. Después volví a España, a esta España actual. Hay cosas en las que España se europeizó muchísimo. Mi gran discrepancia es la monarquía, porque yo soy republicana. Ahí, ellos tuvieron que transar: un socialismo monárquico. Es raro, ¿no?

-Cuando tenga que saludar al rey, ¿cómo se imagina?

-Bueno, veré lo que hago. Al príncipe ya lo saludé. Mira, yo respeto la cultura de todos, pero no viajaría a Irán si me tengo que poner velo. Pero respeto que ellos quieran el velo.

-¿No le haría una reverencia a la reina de Inglaterra?

-Con la reina de Inglaterra tengo un problema que te lo voy a explicar en dos palabras. Desde que lo vi a [Antonio] Gasalla imitando a la reina de Inglaterra, ya no la puedo mirar con demasiada ceremonia, ¿entiendes? Me pasa eso [risas].

-¿Le dijeron que usted tiene un aire a Michelle Bachelet?

-Michelle Bachelet me parece una mujer estupenda. Qué lástima que en Chile no exista el mecanismo de la reelección, porque irse con un ochenta por ciento de aprobación... Me da pena por Chile. Con Piñera me preocupan los organismos que tenemos en común en Latinoamérica: la Unasur, organismos nuevos que habían empezado, que tenían un promisorio futuro. No sé qué va a pasar, pero desearía que esa magia que conducía hacia la patria grande no se rompiera.

-¿Quién tiene esa magia?, ¿Lula?

-Sí, Lula la tiene, la tiene Morales, la tiene Correa, la tiene Chávez... A su modo, la tiene Alan García. La tiene Lugo, la tiene Fernández.

-¿Cuál es su opinión acerca de Chávez?

-Mira, yo creo que Chávez es víctima de los esquemas de la prensa internacional. ¿Por qué digo esto? Porque los caribeños, los tropicales, son exuberantes, son coloridos. Nosotros, los rioplatenses, somos agrisados; nuestro ritmo es el dos por cuatro, andamos con la pálida al hombro, criticones, todo eso. Pero ellos no, ellos son exuberantes y son floridos en la expresión, y les gusta hablar y mostrarse. Entonces, a mí, que Chávez hable una cantidad de horas, ni me fu, ni me fa, porque Chávez llegó legalmente, no le usurpó el gobierno a nadie; lo han reelegido. Y hay cambios. Hay muchísimos problemas en Venezuela, y hay mucha corrupción. Es un país que tiene mucha corrupción. Pero para la gente común hay un antes y un después de Chávez.

-Para una mujer socialista como usted, ¿cuál es su mirada sobre Punta del Este, lugar que parece la síntesis de la frivolidad?

-Sí. Pero nos deja muchas divisas [se ríe]. Es como si les dijeras a los cubanos: "Cerrá Varadero". Te van a decir que no. En realidad, es más argentina que uruguaya, y ahora hay brasileños y de otras nacionalidades, pero el grueso del turismo es argentino. Para nosotros, económicamente, es muy importante.

-¿Y será por eso que Mujica se reúne con los empresarios en el Hotel Conrad de Punta del Este?

-Yo tengo amigos millonarios y amigos recontrapobres, y puedo ser amiga de los dos, porque en realidad yo soy amiga de la persona, no de la plata que tiene o no tiene. Ahora, mis amigos millonarios saben que a mí no me van a poder usar para influencia política, porque las reglas del juego están claritas.

-¿Y los amigos de la política no van a poder hacerse millonarios?, ¿lo garantiza?

-Mis amigos de la política no se han hecho, por ahora, millonarios [se ríe]. Mira, en este sector al que yo pertenezco, todos los que tenemos cargos políticos tenemos un tope salarial. La organización política nos pone un tope. Lo que está por encima de ese tope hay que entregarlo todos los meses al partido. El tope es de treinta mil pesos [unos 1500 dólares]. El dinero va a un fondo para microcréditos que ayudan a una cantidad de gente que no accede a créditos bancarios. Otro fondo para comprar remedios o cubrir enfermedades y otro para formación política. Cada funcionario viene y entrega el sobrante acá.

Por Any Ventura
revista@lanacion.com.ar

Botnia, la cuenta pendiente

-¿Cuál es su posición sobre Botnia y el corte?

-Hay que conversar. Hay que encontrar una salida. No puede haber vencidos ni vencedores. Tiene que tener dignidad para ambos lados. Eso es lo más difícil.

-¿No está la idea de tirar abajo la fábrica?

-Si la fábrica se tirara abajo, sería la demostración palmaria de que empeoró la situación del río. Esa fábrica, de todos modos, fue concebida para que el día de mañana, si se quiere, en lugar de pasta de celulosa se pueda producir, a partir del chip de madera, energía eléctrica. Pero el río tiene un montón de problemas que no pasan por Botnia. Mucho antes de que entrara a gobernar Tabaré, Pepe mandó a un ingeniero forestal de nuestra confianza, lo mandó calladito la boca a Finlandia, porque en los viajes oficiales te muestran lo que quieren... Tenía que traer todo el relevamiento. El hombre fue, estuvo allá y la verdad es que vino sorprendido porque ellos contaminaron en su momento y se dieron cuenta de que ese no era el camino. Entonces, trabajaron técnicamente y han logrado estándares que nos convencieron. Y es ahí donde tenemos un punto de desencuentro con la gente de Gualeguaychú, en el que ellos manejan una información muy distinta de la nuestra. Ahora se discute más del corte que de la contaminación.



POLLY TOYNBEE: "WHY CAN'T OUR P0LITICIANS ADMIT THE PROBLEMS OF IMMIGRATION?"


Our borders are porous. Why can't our politicians admit the problems of immigration?

Migrant numbers matter. They depress wages and determine where state funds go. This can only be addressed with honesty

What will be the abiding legacies of Labour's era? What will last? Governments list those things that they planned and politicked for, but more enduring may be the shadow of things over which governments seem powerless.

This week the immigration figures were a reminder of that helplessness. How did it happen that the last decade saw the greatest inward migration the country has ever known – whichever estimates you choose? Unplanned, unwilled and only slightly controlled, "it just happened" is all you can get from experts and officials. Labour tried hard to prevent it, setting targets, being tough, angrily denouncing the wretched Home Office as "unfit for purpose". But the truth is more alarming – a lot of things these days seem beyond the power or nerve of government. No wonder trust in politics falls when grandiose promises, targets and "world class" boasting is matched by impotence. How odd that a whole new paranoid fear of the big state springs up during the time it becomes clear that Big Brother is more mouth than trousers.

People want government to do more on most things – controlling immigration, preventing globalisation stealing away jobs to China, banning obscenely high pay. This week a Commons committee warns that the government still can't make absent fathers pay for their children. A Home Office-commissioned report shows no one can stop the damage done to girls, driving them to ­anorexia and depression for not matching airbrushed, breast-implanted perfection, while boys think mobile-phone porn is real life. But the state can't liberate unhappy e-slaves from 24-hour email inboxes, nor stop the bullying blogosphere turning national discourse nastier. Yet governmental incapacity to do many things people care about will not deter electioneering filled with extravagant promises on lesser matters amid bluster on the impossibles.

Controlling the borders is a first duty of government. Sudden and unexpected immigration has abruptly changed the nature of some communities and there is no point pretending it can or will be reversed. With a backlog of 250,000 asylum cases and more building up, the UK Borders Agency can still only process less than half its target applications a month. Even then, sending back failed asylum seekers is often impossible. Applications are slowing – but they ebb and flow with wars, since only extreme conditions eject people from their homelands. Unresolved cases can stay for up to eight years, although how they survive on £42.16 a week while banned from working is a mystery.

They join those other mysteries: how many illegals are there, how many bogus students, or visitors who have overstayed their visas? Travel is cheap, we encourage tourism, and all colleges compete fiercely to attract fee-paying foreign students. So although visas are assiduously denied to many, the uncomfortable truth is that our borders are quite porous and always will be.

There is no sign that politicians are ready to admit that reality, and you can see why not – a case this week aroused public wrath as the European court ordered a Somali mother and her four children to be housed by her local authority. This test case will precipitate many others, says her lawyer, though councils can still tip housing allocations in favour of locals by allowing more points to longest inhabitants in the district. But the case was prime BNP ammunition – a toxic combination of an African family and faceless Brussels bureaucrats. Immigration is what most threatens the popularity of the EU right across Europe.

Did the government will this? Of course not, despite a Tory myth that Labour wanted to encourage multiculturalism or were gerrymandering to import Labour voters. Yet the Treasury and Business department did celebrate it, Brown boasting frequently of "low wage inflation growth" and a "flexible workforce". Foreigners willing to work harder for less do hold down pay, especially in the care and hospitality sectors still not covered by the Gangmasters Act. Not until reaching No 10 did Brown switch to "British jobs for British workers".

Has immigration been good for Britain? That depends on who you are. Brown's Treasury boasted that migrants boosted GDP – without counting whether they boosted GDP per capita. Nor does rising GDP show who wins and who loses in so unequal a country. It's wonderful for employers and the affluent wanting cheap nannies, cleaners and plumbers – bad for the unemployed, many of whom would have been skilled-up for the jobs otherwise. Evan Davis's BBC film reporting on layabouts in Wisbech failing to turn up or work hard when offered the migrants' jobs exposed an unmotivated won't-work residue of the long-term unemployed. However, such documentaries often reveal more about the insouciant willingness of the self-selected stupid to be filmed behaving badly.

Migrant numbers matter, as they determine where state funds flow. Newham council is leading a protest against faulty ONS sums, expecting next year's census to miscount. A recent rehearsal in the borough for what will be an all-postal census had only a 26% response to a very long form: how do you count non-English speakers in multi-occupation flats, some of dubious legality? The ONS claims Newham's population is falling: if so, Newham asks, how come the electoral register is rising and they had to add 15 new classrooms this year, while GP registers are bursting?

Research for the London GLA finds maybe a million illegals nationally: they are inevitably exploited and depress wages for others. Newham wants the power to police employers paying under the minimum wage, collecting the £10,000 fines themselves. "We know where to look," they say, this month leading the Border Agency to close down three fried chicken shops paying illegal workers under a pound an hour.

Chasing after this growing limbo of lost people is forlorn work. The only answer is honesty about government powerlessness. The campaign Strangers into Citizens wants an "earned" amnesty for illegals after five years: if two years after emerging to register they are in work and speak English, they would earn citizenship and pay tax. The truth is that immigration will continue, whatever anyone does. Will we hear that spoken on the campaign trail? No, just more airy promising of the impossible.


PARA COMPARTIR ACTUALIZACIONES CON LOS "AMIGOS" VIRTUALES

Facebook patenta los 'feeds' de noticias en las redes sociales

El derecho adquirido por la red social sobre esta propiedad podría abrir la puerta a conflictos legales con sus rivales

27/02/2010 | Actualizada a las 08:12h | Internet y Tecnología

Los Ángeles (EE.UU.). (Efe).- La compañía californiana Facebook, líder mundial en el mercado de las redes sociales de internet, obtuvo la patente de los servicios de distribución de noticias en redes sociales conocidos como feed, informaron hoy los medios estadounidenses.

La patente fue reconocida a esta plataforma digital por "proveer dinámicamente un servicio de noticias sobre un usuario de una red social" y responde a una solicitud presentada por la empresa en 2006.

El sistema de feed, que permite compartir automáticamente con los amigos virtuales las actualizaciones de los miembros de las redes sociales, se ha convertido en una herramienta común en la web y es clave en el funcionamiento de otras redes como Twitter o LinkedIn. El derecho adquirido por Facebook sobre la propiedad del feed podría abrir la puerta a conflictos legales con sus rivales, si bien no ha trascendido si la patente se refiere al sistema especifico empleado por la empresa californiana o es extrapolable al que utilizan otras compañías.

Desde que se pidió la patente, en 2006, hasta ahora el funcionamiento de los feed ha sufrido diversas variaciones. Algunos medios informaron de que la estrategia de Facebook, lejos de perseguir iniciar una batalla judicial para reclamar derechos sobre el uso de esta tecnología en internet, tiene una finalidad defensiva: evitar que en el futuro otros puedan conseguir la propiedad sobre los feed y ser ella la demandada.


ANTES Y DESPUÉS DEL GRAN TERREMOTO CHILENO

"PUES ESTOY SEGURO DE QUE NI LA MUERTE NI LA VIDA

NI LOS ÁNGELES NI LOS PRINCIPADOS NI LO PRESENTE

NI LO FUTURO NI LAS POTESTADES NI LA ALTURA NI LA

PROFUNDIDAD NI OTRA CRIATURA ALGUNA PODRÁ

SEPARARNOS DEL AMOR DE DIOS MANIFESTADO EN

CRISTO JESÚS SEÑOR NUESTRO."


Romanos 8, 38s

SÉGOLÈNE ROYAL, SOBRE BERNARD-HENRI LÉVY

Point de vue
BHL, François Mitterrand, la meute et moi, par Ségolène Royal
LE MONDE | 27.02.10 | 13h42 • Mis à jour le 27.02.10 | 13h57

e lis ce qui s'écrit, tous ces jours-ci, sur Bernard-Henri Lévy. J'observe l'incroyable chasse à l'homme déclenchée contre lui pour une obscure histoire d'auteur sous pseudonyme qui l'aurait prétendument piégé. Et je trouve que le débat intellectuel tombe vraiment, en la circonstance, sous le niveau zéro (le journal Libération n'a-t-il pas été contraint de fermer tous ses forums de discussion "accrochés" aux articles de et sur Bernard-Henri Lévy, tant ils étaient envahis de commentaires antisémites ?).

Je suis plongée, à l'instant où j'écris ces lignes, dans Pièces d'identité (Grasset, 1 340 p., 29 €), qui est le plus gros des deux livres publiés, il y a quelques jours, par lui. J'ai retrouvé la passion et la voix de l'un de ceux qui m'ont soutenue jusqu'au bout, et au-delà, sans jamais douter ni se lasser. J'ai retrouvé ses textes théoriques, souvent polémiques, parfois injustes, mais toujours stimulants, sur la gauche, son avenir, ses valeurs, sa nécessaire reconstruction.

J'ai lu ses analyses prémonitoires, parues pour la plupart dans la presse américaine et inaccessibles à l'essentiel des lecteurs français, sur celui qui n'était encore que le très futur président Barack Obama. Mais j'y ai trouvé tant d'autres richesses sur des sujets qui me sont peut-être moins familiers, mais qui passionnent infiniment et dont je serais consternée qu'ils passent à la trappe de ces polémiques mesquines et injustes qui le poursuivent à chacun de ses livres, mais qui me semblent, cette fois-ci, prendre une importance inédite et se nourrir d'une cruauté nouvelle.

Les pages sur Romain Gary, par exemple, sont bouleversantes de vérité. Le portrait d'Alberto Moravia, ce grand vivant et grand écrivain antifasciste, est saisissant. J'ai énormément appris au fil des 300 pages, qui sont le coeur battant du livre, et qui s'intitulent Le Génie du judaïsme. J'ai aimé ses pages sur Jean Genet à Tanger. J'ai dévoré la série des grands reportages qui ont mené cet infatigable globe-trotteur d'un bout du monde à l'autre. Et tout cela sur quatre ans seulement !

Ces mille trois cents et quelques pages comme témoignage de quatre années, seulement, de travail tous azimuts et frénétique ! Et je ne parle pas de la partie proprement philosophique du livre : ces portraits de Louis Althusser qui fut, dans sa jeunesse, le maître de Bernard-Henri Lévy et des jeunes de sa génération... cette réflexion sur le Mal dont ce serait tellement bien que s'inspirent les politiques... ou bien ces pages sur Spinoza, "le philosophe qui donne de la joie"...

C'est drôle, quand même, tous ces roquets qui lui reprochent une ligne sur le désormais fameux "Botul" et qui, avec ce reproche, tiennent ou croient tenir une bonne raison de "trapper" Spinoza, Althusser, le psychanalyste Jacques Lacan, le charismatique commandant Massoud ou le mystérieux Emmanuel Levinas ! Moi qui connais pourtant bien BHL, j'avoue avoir été toujours entraînée par l'ampleur de son érudition, l'élan de ses curiosités et, à chaque fois, son esprit de nuance. Intellectuel "mondain" ? Ou "médiatique" ? Ce n'est pas le Lévy que je connais. Ce n'est pas non plus celui que je retrouve au fil de ma lecture et que je recommande à celles et ceux qui ont envie d'avancer.

Qu'il me soit permis, pour finir, de citer un texte qui n'est ni de Lévy ni de moi, mais d'un illustre socialiste : "J'ai connu Bernard-Henri Lévy, écrivait-il, dans une page superbe de L'Abeille et l'Architecte, alors qu'il venait d'entrer à Normale supérieure. Je me flatte d'avoir pressenti en ce jeune homme grave le grand écrivain qu'il sera. Un danger le guette : la mode. Mais la souffrance, amie des forts, le sauvera. Tout l'y prépare. Je ne m'inquiète pas de ce goût de plaire qui l'habite et l'entraîne aujourd'hui hors de son territoire. Quand il s'apercevra qu'il possède en lui-même ce qu'il cherche, il reviendra à sa rencontre. Le voudrait-il qu'il n'échapperait pas au feu qui le brûle. Il a déjà dans le regard, ce dandy, de la cendre. Peut-être me trompé-je, peut-être cédera-t-il aux séductions du siècle au-delà du temps qu'il faut leur accorder. J'en serais triste. J'accepte qu'il dépense encore beaucoup d'orgueil avant de l'appeler vanité. J'ai apporté de France avec moi La Barbarie à visage humain que j'annote pour mes chroniques. C'est, à l'image de son auteur, un livre superbe et naïf. Superbe par le verbe, le rythme intérieur, l'amère certitude qu'il n'est qu'incertitude. Naïf par l'objet de sa quête, qui le fuit dès qu'il en approche. Le mouvement dialectique monte haut." L'auteur de ces lignes, c'est François Mitterrand !

Ce texte a trente-deux ans. Mais il n'a pas pris une ride. Le Bernard-Henri Lévy que je connais, dont je sollicite parfois les conseils, l'homme droit et engagé que j'apprécie profondément, c'est exactement, au fond, celui qu'avait pressenti François Mitterrand. Ça vous étonne ? Moi pas.



Article paru dans l'édition du 28.02.10

viernes, 26 de febrero de 2010

ANUNCIO Y AUTOCELEBRACIÓN DE EL PAÍS

Las redes sociales captan ya a tres de cada cuatro internautas

El consumo de cine y música directamente en la web arrebata terreno a las descargas en el disco duro.- ELPAÍS.com se sitúa como segunda marca más citada por los usuarios

ELENA HIDALGO - Madrid - 26/02/2010

Los internautas españoles están enganchados a las redes sociales que, lejos de ser un fenómeno transitorio, se afianzan en sus hábitos de consumo. El 71,3% de los usuarios están registrados en alguna de ellas, según revela la encuesta Navegantes en la red realizada por la AIMC (Asociación para la Investigación de Medios de Comunicación), lo que supone un aumento de 20,5 puntos respecto a 2008. Además, las cifras apuntan hacia el crecimiento del cloud computing o consumo de contenidos directamente en la Red en vez de descargarlos en el ordenador: el consumo de de contenidos audiovisuales en streaming (directamente en la red), se impone sobre las descargas P2P (almacenadas en el disco duro). Esta tendencia hace que la principal preocupación de los usuarios sea ahora la velocidad. Además, entre las marcas más citadas por los internautas se sitúa ELPAÍS.com en segundo lugar entre las últimas visitadas, sólo superada por Google.com.

Facebook y Tuenti son las redes sociales que concentran a la mayoría de los internautas. Si bien, la primera manda: el 61% de los entrevistados están registrados en Facebook. El 20%, lo están en Tuenti. Las demás redes cuentan con registros inferiores al 10%. Las relaciones personales son la principal motivación de los usuarios (79,3%), seguida de compartir hobbies (27%) y las relaciones laborales (23,6%).

Consumir en 'la nube'

Los usuarios cada vez descargan menos contenidos, sino que los visualizan directamente en la red. Seis de cada diez afirman haber escuchado música en streaming el mes previo a la encuesta y cuatro de cada diez ha visto alguna película o serie. Las descargas P2P pierden usuarios. Se consolida así una tendencia a la baja: sólo el 26,6% en 2009 frente al 45,8% de 2006.

ELPAÍS.com es la segunda marca más citada por los internautas entre las cinco últimas webs visitadas, sólo superada por Google.com. La siguen en tercer y cuarto puesto facebook.com y home.live.com de Microsoft . Marca.com y elmundo.es ocupan el quinto y sexto lugar respectivamente.

La conexión a Internet a través de dispositivos móviles, como teléfonos, ordenadores portátiles y PDA, son cada vez más utilizados. El teléfono móvil está a la cabeza con el 33% de los encuestados como usuarios.

© EDICIONES EL PAÍS S.L. - Miguel Yuste 40 - 28037 Madrid [España] - Tel. 91 337 8200

HOW TWITTER WILL CHANGE THE WAY WE LIVE


  • Click here to find out more!

    http://img.timeinc.net/time/i/logo_time_print.gif

    Friday, Jun. 05, 2009

    How Twitter Will Change the Way We Live

    By Steven Johnson

    The one thing you can say for certain about Twitter is that it makes a terrible first impression. You hear about this new service that lets you send 140-character updates to your "followers," and you think, Why does the world need this, exactly? It's not as if we were all sitting around four years ago scratching our heads and saying, "If only there were a technology that would allow me to send a message to my 50 friends, alerting them in real time about my choice of breakfast cereal."

    I, too, was skeptical at first. I had met Evan Williams, Twitter's co-creator, a couple of times in the dotcom '90s when he was launching Blogger.com. Back then, what people worried about was the threat that blogging posed to our attention span, with telegraphic, two-paragraph blog posts replacing long-format articles and books. With Twitter, Williams was launching a communications platform that limited you to a couple of sentences at most. What was next? Software that let you send a single punctuation mark to describe your mood? (See the top 10 ways Twitter will change American business.)

    And yet as millions of devotees have discovered, Twitter turns out to have unsuspected depth. In part this is because hearing about what your friends had for breakfast is actually more interesting than it sounds. The technology writer Clive Thompson calls this "ambient awareness": by following these quick, abbreviated status reports from members of your extended social network, you get a strangely satisfying glimpse of their daily routines. We don't think it at all moronic to start a phone call with a friend by asking how her day is going. Twitter gives you the same information without your even having to ask.

    The social warmth of all those stray details shouldn't be taken lightly. But I think there is something even more profound in what has happened to Twitter over the past two years, something that says more about the culture that has embraced and expanded Twitter at such extraordinary speed. Yes, the breakfast-status updates turned out to be more interesting than we thought. But the key development with Twitter is how we've jury-rigged the system to do things that its creators never dreamed of.

    In short, the most fascinating thing about Twitter is not what it's doing to us. It's what we're doing to it.

    The Open Conversation
    Earlier this year I attended a daylong conference in Manhattan devoted to education reform. Called Hacking Education, it was a small, private affair: 40-odd educators, entrepreneurs, scholars, philanthropists and venture capitalists, all engaged in a sprawling six-hour conversation about the future of schools. Twenty years ago, the ideas exchanged in that conversation would have been confined to the minds of the participants. Ten years ago, a transcript might have been published weeks or months later on the Web. Five years ago, a handful of participants might have blogged about their experiences after the fact. (
    See the top 10 celebrity Twitter feeds.)

    But this event was happening in 2009, so trailing behind the real-time, real-world conversation was an equally real-time conversation on Twitter. At the outset of the conference, our hosts announced that anyone who wanted to post live commentary about the event via Twitter should include the word #hackedu in his 140 characters. In the room, a large display screen showed a running feed of tweets. Then we all started talking, and as we did, a shadow conversation unfolded on the screen: summaries of someone's argument, the occasional joke, suggested links for further reading. At one point, a brief argument flared up between two participants in the room — a tense back-and-forth that transpired silently on the screen as the rest of us conversed in friendly tones.

    At first, all these tweets came from inside the room and were created exclusively by conference participants tapping away on their laptops or BlackBerrys. But within half an hour or so, word began to seep out into the Twittersphere that an interesting conversation about the future of schools was happening at #hackedu. A few tweets appeared on the screen from strangers announcing that they were following the #hackedu thread. Then others joined the conversation, adding their observations or proposing topics for further exploration. A few experts grumbled publicly about how they hadn't been invited to the conference. Back in the room, we pulled interesting ideas and questions from the screen and integrated them into our face-to-face conversation.

    When the conference wrapped up at the end of the day, there was a public record of hundreds of tweets documenting the conversation. And the conversation continued — if you search Twitter for #hackedu, you'll find dozens of new comments posted over the past few weeks, even though the conference happened in early March.

    Injecting Twitter into that conversation fundamentally changed the rules of engagement. It added a second layer of discussion and brought a wider audience into what would have been a private exchange. And it gave the event an afterlife on the Web. Yes, it was built entirely out of 140-character messages, but the sum total of those tweets added up to something truly substantive, like a suspension bridge made of pebbles.

    SI.com: See how Twitter is changing the face of sports.

    See the best social-networking applications.

    The Super-Fresh Web
    The basic mechanics of Twitter are remarkably simple. Users publish tweets — those 140-character messages — from a computer or mobile device. (The character limit allows tweets to be created and circulated via the SMS platform used by most mobile phones.) As a social network, Twitter revolves around the principle of followers. When you choose to follow another Twitter user, that user's tweets appear in reverse chronological order on your main Twitter page. If you follow 20 people, you'll see a mix of tweets scrolling down the page: breakfast-cereal updates, interesting new links, music recommendations, even musings on the future of education. Some celebrity Twitterers — most famously Ashton Kutcher — have crossed the million-follower mark, effectively giving them a broadcast-size audience. The average Twitter profile seems to be somewhere in the dozens: a collage of friends, colleagues and a handful of celebrities. The mix creates a media experience quite unlike anything that has come before it, strangely intimate and at the same time celebrity-obsessed. You glance at your Twitter feed over that first cup of coffee, and in a few seconds you find out that your nephew got into med school and
    Shaquille O'Neal just finished a cardio workout in Phoenix. (See excerpts from the world's most popular Twitterers.)

    In the past month, Twitter has added a search box that gives you a real-time view onto the chatter of just about any topic imaginable. You can see conversations people are having about a presidential debate or the American Idol finale or Tiger Woods — or a conference in New York City on education reform. For as long as we've had the Internet in our homes, critics have bemoaned the demise of shared national experiences, like moon landings and "Who Shot J.R." cliff hangers — the folkloric American living room, all of us signing off in unison with Walter Cronkite, shattered into a million isolation booths. But watch a live mass-media event with Twitter open on your laptop and you'll see that the futurists had it wrong. We still have national events, but now when we have them, we're actually having a genuine, public conversation with a group that extends far beyond our nuclear family and our next-door neighbors. Some of that conversation is juvenile, of course, just as it was in our living room when we heckled Richard Nixon's Checkers speech. But some of it is moving, witty, observant, subversive.

    Skeptics might wonder just how much subversion and wit is conveyable via 140-character updates. But in recent months Twitter users have begun to find a route around that limitation by employing Twitter as a pointing device instead of a communications channel: sharing links to longer articles, discussions, posts, videos — anything that lives behind a URL. Websites that once saw their traffic dominated by Google search queries are seeing a growing number of new visitors coming from "passed links" at social networks like Twitter and Facebook. This is what the naysayers fail to understand: it's just as easy to use Twitter to spread the word about a brilliant 10,000-word New Yorker article as it is to spread the word about your Lucky Charms habit.

    Put those three elements together — social networks, live searching and link-sharing — and you have a cocktail that poses what may amount to the most interesting alternative to Google's near monopoly in searching. At its heart, Google's system is built around the slow, anonymous accumulation of authority: pages rise to the top of Google's search results according to, in part, how many links point to them, which tends to favor older pages that have had time to build an audience. That's a fantastic solution for finding high-quality needles in the immense, spam-plagued haystack that is the contemporary Web. But it's not a particularly useful solution for finding out what people are saying right now, the in-the-moment conversation that industry pioneer John Battelle calls the "super fresh" Web. Even in its toddlerhood, Twitter is a more efficient supplier of the super-fresh Web than Google. If you're looking for interesting articles or sites devoted to Kobe Bryant, you search Google. If you're looking for interesting comments from your extended social network about the three-pointer Kobe just made 30 seconds ago, you go to Twitter.

    From Toasters to Microwaves
    Because Twitter's co-founders — Evan Williams, Biz Stone and Jack Dorsey — are such a central-casting vision of start-up savvy (they're quotable and charming and have the extra glamour of using a loft in San Francisco's SoMa district as a headquarters instead of a bland office park in Silicon Valley) much of the media interest in Twitter has focused on the company. Will Ev and Biz sell to Google early or play long ball? (They have already turned down a reported $500 million from Facebook.) It's an interesting question but not exactly a new plotline. Focusing on it makes you lose sight of the much more significant point about the Twitter platform: the fact that many of its core features and applications have been developed by people who are not on the Twitter payroll.

    Watch a video of the 2009 Weblog Awards.

    Read "Twittering in Church, with the Pastor's O.K."

    This is not just a matter of people finding a new use for a tool designed to do something else. In Twitter's case, the users have been redesigning the tool itself. The convention of grouping a topic or event by the "hashtag" — #hackedu or #inauguration — was spontaneously invented by the Twitter user base (as was the convention of replying to another user with the @ symbol). The ability to search a live stream of tweets was developed by another start-up altogether, Summize, which Twitter purchased last year. (Full disclosure: I am an adviser to one of the minority investors in Summize.) Thanks to these innovations, following a live feed of tweets about an event — political debates or Lost episodes — has become a central part of the Twitter experience. But just 12 months ago, that mode of interaction would have been technically impossible using Twitter. It's like inventing a toaster oven and then looking around a year later and seeing that your customers have of their own accord figured out a way to turn it into a microwave. (See the 50 best inventions of 2008.)

    One of the most telling facts about the Twitter platform is that the vast majority of its users interact with the service via software created by third parties. There are dozens of iPhone and BlackBerry applications — all created by enterprising amateur coders or small start-ups — that let you manage Twitter feeds. There are services that help you upload photos and link to them from your tweets, and programs that map other Twitizens who are near you geographically. Ironically, the tools you're offered if you visit Twitter.com have changed very little in the past two years. But there's an entire Home Depot of Twitter tools available everywhere else.

    As the tools have multiplied, we're discovering extraordinary new things to do with them. Last month an anticommunist uprising in Moldova was organized via Twitter. Twitter has become so widely used among political activists in China that the government recently blocked access to it, in an attempt to censor discussion of the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. A service called SickCity scans the Twitter feeds from multiple urban areas, tracking references to flu and fever. Celebrity Twitterers like Kutcher have directed their vast followings toward charitable causes (in Kutcher's case, the Malaria No More organization).

    Social networks are notoriously vulnerable to the fickle tastes of teens and 20-somethings (remember Friendster?), so it's entirely possible that three or four years from now, we'll have moved on to some Twitter successor. But the key elements of the Twitter platform — the follower structure, link-sharing, real-time searching — will persevere regardless of Twitter's fortunes, just as Web conventions like links, posts and feeds have endured over the past decade. In fact, every major channel of information will be Twitterfied in one way or another in the coming years:

    News and opinion. Increasingly, the stories that come across our radar — news about a plane crash, a feisty Op-Ed, a gossip item — will arrive via the passed links of the people we follow. Instead of being built by some kind of artificially intelligent software algorithm, a customized newspaper will be compiled from all the articles being read that morning by your social network. This will lead to more news diversity and polarization at the same time: your networked front page will be more eclectic than any traditional-newspaper front page, but political partisans looking to enhance their own private echo chamber will be able to tune out opposing viewpoints more easily.

    Searching. As the archive of links shared by Twitter users grows, the value of searching for information via your extended social network will start to rival Google's approach to the search. If you're looking for information on Benjamin Franklin, an essay shared by one of your favorite historians might well be more valuable than the top result on Google; if you're looking for advice on sibling rivalry, an article recommended by a friend of a friend might well be the best place to start.

    Advertising. Today the language of advertising is dominated by the notion of impressions: how many times an advertiser can get its brand in front of a potential customer's eyeballs, whether on a billboard, a Web page or a NASCAR hood. But impressions are fleeting things, especially compared with the enduring relationships of followers. Successful businesses will have millions of Twitter followers (and will pay good money to attract them), and a whole new language of tweet-based customer interaction will evolve to keep those followers engaged: early access to new products or deals, live customer service, customer involvement in brainstorming for new products.

    Not all these developments will be entirely positive. Most of us have learned firsthand how addictive the micro-events of our personal e-mail inbox can be. But with the ambient awareness of status updates from Twitter and Facebook, an entire new empire of distraction has opened up. It used to be that you compulsively checked your BlackBerry to see if anything new had happened in your personal life or career: e-mail from the boss, a reply from last night's date. Now you're compulsively checking your BlackBerry for news from other people's lives. And because, on Twitter at least, some of those people happen to be celebrities, the Twitter platform is likely to expand that strangely delusional relationship that we have to fame. When Oprah tweets a question about getting ticks off her dog, as she did recently, anyone can send an @ reply to her, and in that exchange, there is the semblance of a normal, everyday conversation between equals. But of course, Oprah has more than a million followers, and that isolated query probably elicited thousands of responses. Who knows what small fraction of her @ replies she has time to read? But from the fan's perspective, it feels refreshingly intimate: "As I was explaining to Oprah last night, when she asked about dog ticks ..."

    See the 50 best websites of 2008.

    See 10 things to buy during the recession.

    End-User Innovation
    The rapid-fire innovation we're seeing around Twitter is not new, of course. Facebook, whose audience is still several times as large as Twitter's, went from being a way to scope out the most attractive college freshmen to the Social Operating System of the Internet, supporting a vast ecosystem of new applications created by major media companies, individual hackers, game creators, political groups and charities. The Apple iPhone's long-term competitive advantage may well prove to be the more than 15,000 new applications that have been developed for the device, expanding its functionality in countless ingenious ways.

    The history of the Web followed a similar pattern. A platform originally designed to help scholars share academic documents, it now lets you watch television shows, play poker with strangers around the world, publish your own newspaper, rediscover your high school girlfriend — and, yes, tell the world what you had for breakfast. Twitter serves as the best poster child for this new model of social creativity in part because these innovations have flowered at such breathtaking speed and in part because the platform is so simple. It's as if Twitter's creators dared us to do something interesting by giving us a platform with such draconian restrictions. And sure enough, we accepted the dare with relish. Just 140 characters? I wonder if I could use that to start a political uprising. (See the 25 best blogs of 2009.)

    The speed with which users have extended Twitter's platform points to a larger truth about modern innovation. When we talk about innovation and global competitiveness, we tend to fall back on the easy metric of patents and Ph.D.s. It turns out the U.S. share of both has been in steady decline since peaking in the early '70s. (In 1970, more than 50% of the world's graduate degrees in science and engineering were issued by U.S. universities.) Since the mid-'80s, a long progression of doomsayers have warned that our declining market share in the patents-and-Ph.D.s business augurs dark times for American innovation. The specific threats have changed. It was the Japanese who would destroy us in the '80s; now it's China and India.

    But what actually happened to American innovation during that period? We came up with America Online, Netscape, Amazon, Google, Blogger, Wikipedia, Craigslist, TiVo, Netflix, eBay, the iPod and iPhone, Xbox, Facebook and Twitter itself. Sure, we didn't build the Prius or the Wii, but if you measure global innovation in terms of actual lifestyle-changing hit products and not just grad students, the U.S. has been lapping the field for the past 20 years.

    How could the forecasts have been so wrong? The answer is that we've been tracking only part of the innovation story. If I go to grad school and invent a better mousetrap, I've created value, which I can protect with a patent and capitalize on by selling my invention to consumers. But if someone else figures out a way to use my mousetrap to replace his much more expensive washing machine, he's created value as well. We tend to put the emphasis on the first kind of value creation because there are a small number of inventors who earn giant paydays from their mousetraps and thus become celebrities. But there are hundreds of millions of consumers and small businesses that find value in these innovations by figuring out new ways to put them to use.

    There are several varieties of this kind of innovation, and they go by different technical names. MIT professor Eric von Hippel calls one "end-user innovation," in which consumers actively modify a product to adapt it to their needs. In its short life, Twitter has been a hothouse of end-user innovation: the hashtag; searching; its 11,000 third-party applications; all those creative new uses of Twitter — some of them banal, some of them spam and some of them sublime. Think about the community invention of the @ reply. It took a service that was essentially a series of isolated microbroadcasts, each individual tweet an island, and turned Twitter into a truly conversational medium. All of these adoptions create new kinds of value in the wider economy, and none of them actually originated at Twitter HQ. You don't need patents or Ph.D.s to build on this kind of platform.

    This is what I ultimately find most inspiring about the Twitter phenomenon. We are living through the worst economic crisis in generations, with apocalyptic headlines threatening the end of capitalism as we know it, and yet in the middle of this chaos, the engineers at Twitter headquarters are scrambling to keep the servers up, application developers are releasing their latest builds, and ordinary users are figuring out all the ingenious ways to put these tools to use. There's a kind of resilience here that is worth savoring. The weather reports keep announcing that the sky is falling, but here we are — millions of us — sitting around trying to invent new ways to talk to one another.

    Johnson is the author of six books, most recently The Invention of Air, and a co-founder of the local-news website outside.in

    See TIME's Pictures of the Week.

    See the Cartoons of the Week.

    Copyright © 2009 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

    Privacy Policy|Add TIME Headlines to your Site|Contact Us|Customer Service


  • http://img.timeinc.net/time/i/btn_arrow.gif
  • Back to Article

http://img.timeinc.net/time/i/logo_time_print.gif

Friday, Jun. 05, 2009

How Twitter Will Change the Way We Live

By Steven Johnson

The one thing you can say for certain about Twitter is that it makes a terrible first impression. You hear about this new service that lets you send 140-character updates to your "followers," and you think, Why does the world need this, exactly? It's not as if we were all sitting around four years ago scratching our heads and saying, "If only there were a technology that would allow me to send a message to my 50 friends, alerting them in real time about my choice of breakfast cereal."

I, too, was skeptical at first. I had met Evan Williams, Twitter's co-creator, a couple of times in the dotcom '90s when he was launching Blogger.com. Back then, what people worried about was the threat that blogging posed to our attention span, with telegraphic, two-paragraph blog posts replacing long-format articles and books. With Twitter, Williams was launching a communications platform that limited you to a couple of sentences at most. What was next? Software that let you send a single punctuation mark to describe your mood? (See the top 10 ways Twitter will change American business.)

And yet as millions of devotees have discovered, Twitter turns out to have unsuspected depth. In part this is because hearing about what your friends had for breakfast is actually more interesting than it sounds. The technology writer Clive Thompson calls this "ambient awareness": by following these quick, abbreviated status reports from members of your extended social network, you get a strangely satisfying glimpse of their daily routines. We don't think it at all moronic to start a phone call with a friend by asking how her day is going. Twitter gives you the same information without your even having to ask.

The social warmth of all those stray details shouldn't be taken lightly. But I think there is something even more profound in what has happened to Twitter over the past two years, something that says more about the culture that has embraced and expanded Twitter at such extraordinary speed. Yes, the breakfast-status updates turned out to be more interesting than we thought. But the key development with Twitter is how we've jury-rigged the system to do things that its creators never dreamed of.

In short, the most fascinating thing about Twitter is not what it's doing to us. It's what we're doing to it.

The Open Conversation
Earlier this year I attended a daylong conference in Manhattan devoted to education reform. Called Hacking Education, it was a small, private affair: 40-odd educators, entrepreneurs, scholars, philanthropists and venture capitalists, all engaged in a sprawling six-hour conversation about the future of schools. Twenty years ago, the ideas exchanged in that conversation would have been confined to the minds of the participants. Ten years ago, a transcript might have been published weeks or months later on the Web. Five years ago, a handful of participants might have blogged about their experiences after the fact. (
See the top 10 celebrity Twitter feeds.)

But this event was happening in 2009, so trailing behind the real-time, real-world conversation was an equally real-time conversation on Twitter. At the outset of the conference, our hosts announced that anyone who wanted to post live commentary about the event via Twitter should include the word #hackedu in his 140 characters. In the room, a large display screen showed a running feed of tweets. Then we all started talking, and as we did, a shadow conversation unfolded on the screen: summaries of someone's argument, the occasional joke, suggested links for further reading. At one point, a brief argument flared up between two participants in the room — a tense back-and-forth that transpired silently on the screen as the rest of us conversed in friendly tones.

At first, all these tweets came from inside the room and were created exclusively by conference participants tapping away on their laptops or BlackBerrys. But within half an hour or so, word began to seep out into the Twittersphere that an interesting conversation about the future of schools was happening at #hackedu. A few tweets appeared on the screen from strangers announcing that they were following the #hackedu thread. Then others joined the conversation, adding their observations or proposing topics for further exploration. A few experts grumbled publicly about how they hadn't been invited to the conference. Back in the room, we pulled interesting ideas and questions from the screen and integrated them into our face-to-face conversation.

When the conference wrapped up at the end of the day, there was a public record of hundreds of tweets documenting the conversation. And the conversation continued — if you search Twitter for #hackedu, you'll find dozens of new comments posted over the past few weeks, even though the conference happened in early March.

Injecting Twitter into that conversation fundamentally changed the rules of engagement. It added a second layer of discussion and brought a wider audience into what would have been a private exchange. And it gave the event an afterlife on the Web. Yes, it was built entirely out of 140-character messages, but the sum total of those tweets added up to something truly substantive, like a suspension bridge made of pebbles.

SI.com: See how Twitter is changing the face of sports.

See the best social-networking applications.

The Super-Fresh Web
The basic mechanics of Twitter are remarkably simple. Users publish tweets — those 140-character messages — from a computer or mobile device. (The character limit allows tweets to be created and circulated via the SMS platform used by most mobile phones.) As a social network, Twitter revolves around the principle of followers. When you choose to follow another Twitter user, that user's tweets appear in reverse chronological order on your main Twitter page. If you follow 20 people, you'll see a mix of tweets scrolling down the page: breakfast-cereal updates, interesting new links, music recommendations, even musings on the future of education. Some celebrity Twitterers — most famously Ashton Kutcher — have crossed the million-follower mark, effectively giving them a broadcast-size audience. The average Twitter profile seems to be somewhere in the dozens: a collage of friends, colleagues and a handful of celebrities. The mix creates a media experience quite unlike anything that has come before it, strangely intimate and at the same time celebrity-obsessed. You glance at your Twitter feed over that first cup of coffee, and in a few seconds you find out that your nephew got into med school and
Shaquille O'Neal just finished a cardio workout in Phoenix. (See excerpts from the world's most popular Twitterers.)

In the past month, Twitter has added a search box that gives you a real-time view onto the chatter of just about any topic imaginable. You can see conversations people are having about a presidential debate or the American Idol finale or Tiger Woods — or a conference in New York City on education reform. For as long as we've had the Internet in our homes, critics have bemoaned the demise of shared national experiences, like moon landings and "Who Shot J.R." cliff hangers — the folkloric American living room, all of us signing off in unison with Walter Cronkite, shattered into a million isolation booths. But watch a live mass-media event with Twitter open on your laptop and you'll see that the futurists had it wrong. We still have national events, but now when we have them, we're actually having a genuine, public conversation with a group that extends far beyond our nuclear family and our next-door neighbors. Some of that conversation is juvenile, of course, just as it was in our living room when we heckled Richard Nixon's Checkers speech. But some of it is moving, witty, observant, subversive.

Skeptics might wonder just how much subversion and wit is conveyable via 140-character updates. But in recent months Twitter users have begun to find a route around that limitation by employing Twitter as a pointing device instead of a communications channel: sharing links to longer articles, discussions, posts, videos — anything that lives behind a URL. Websites that once saw their traffic dominated by Google search queries are seeing a growing number of new visitors coming from "passed links" at social networks like Twitter and Facebook. This is what the naysayers fail to understand: it's just as easy to use Twitter to spread the word about a brilliant 10,000-word New Yorker article as it is to spread the word about your Lucky Charms habit.

Put those three elements together — social networks, live searching and link-sharing — and you have a cocktail that poses what may amount to the most interesting alternative to Google's near monopoly in searching. At its heart, Google's system is built around the slow, anonymous accumulation of authority: pages rise to the top of Google's search results according to, in part, how many links point to them, which tends to favor older pages that have had time to build an audience. That's a fantastic solution for finding high-quality needles in the immense, spam-plagued haystack that is the contemporary Web. But it's not a particularly useful solution for finding out what people are saying right now, the in-the-moment conversation that industry pioneer John Battelle calls the "super fresh" Web. Even in its toddlerhood, Twitter is a more efficient supplier of the super-fresh Web than Google. If you're looking for interesting articles or sites devoted to Kobe Bryant, you search Google. If you're looking for interesting comments from your extended social network about the three-pointer Kobe just made 30 seconds ago, you go to Twitter.

From Toasters to Microwaves
Because Twitter's co-founders — Evan Williams, Biz Stone and Jack Dorsey — are such a central-casting vision of start-up savvy (they're quotable and charming and have the extra glamour of using a loft in San Francisco's SoMa district as a headquarters instead of a bland office park in Silicon Valley) much of the media interest in Twitter has focused on the company. Will Ev and Biz sell to Google early or play long ball? (They have already turned down a reported $500 million from Facebook.) It's an interesting question but not exactly a new plotline. Focusing on it makes you lose sight of the much more significant point about the Twitter platform: the fact that many of its core features and applications have been developed by people who are not on the Twitter payroll.

Watch a video of the 2009 Weblog Awards.

Read "Twittering in Church, with the Pastor's O.K."

This is not just a matter of people finding a new use for a tool designed to do something else. In Twitter's case, the users have been redesigning the tool itself. The convention of grouping a topic or event by the "hashtag" — #hackedu or #inauguration — was spontaneously invented by the Twitter user base (as was the convention of replying to another user with the @ symbol). The ability to search a live stream of tweets was developed by another start-up altogether, Summize, which Twitter purchased last year. (Full disclosure: I am an adviser to one of the minority investors in Summize.) Thanks to these innovations, following a live feed of tweets about an event — political debates or Lost episodes — has become a central part of the Twitter experience. But just 12 months ago, that mode of interaction would have been technically impossible using Twitter. It's like inventing a toaster oven and then looking around a year later and seeing that your customers have of their own accord figured out a way to turn it into a microwave. (See the 50 best inventions of 2008.)

One of the most telling facts about the Twitter platform is that the vast majority of its users interact with the service via software created by third parties. There are dozens of iPhone and BlackBerry applications — all created by enterprising amateur coders or small start-ups — that let you manage Twitter feeds. There are services that help you upload photos and link to them from your tweets, and programs that map other Twitizens who are near you geographically. Ironically, the tools you're offered if you visit Twitter.com have changed very little in the past two years. But there's an entire Home Depot of Twitter tools available everywhere else.

As the tools have multiplied, we're discovering extraordinary new things to do with them. Last month an anticommunist uprising in Moldova was organized via Twitter. Twitter has become so widely used among political activists in China that the government recently blocked access to it, in an attempt to censor discussion of the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. A service called SickCity scans the Twitter feeds from multiple urban areas, tracking references to flu and fever. Celebrity Twitterers like Kutcher have directed their vast followings toward charitable causes (in Kutcher's case, the Malaria No More organization).

Social networks are notoriously vulnerable to the fickle tastes of teens and 20-somethings (remember Friendster?), so it's entirely possible that three or four years from now, we'll have moved on to some Twitter successor. But the key elements of the Twitter platform — the follower structure, link-sharing, real-time searching — will persevere regardless of Twitter's fortunes, just as Web conventions like links, posts and feeds have endured over the past decade. In fact, every major channel of information will be Twitterfied in one way or another in the coming years:

News and opinion. Increasingly, the stories that come across our radar — news about a plane crash, a feisty Op-Ed, a gossip item — will arrive via the passed links of the people we follow. Instead of being built by some kind of artificially intelligent software algorithm, a customized newspaper will be compiled from all the articles being read that morning by your social network. This will lead to more news diversity and polarization at the same time: your networked front page will be more eclectic than any traditional-newspaper front page, but political partisans looking to enhance their own private echo chamber will be able to tune out opposing viewpoints more easily.

Searching. As the archive of links shared by Twitter users grows, the value of searching for information via your extended social network will start to rival Google's approach to the search. If you're looking for information on Benjamin Franklin, an essay shared by one of your favorite historians might well be more valuable than the top result on Google; if you're looking for advice on sibling rivalry, an article recommended by a friend of a friend might well be the best place to start.

Advertising. Today the language of advertising is dominated by the notion of impressions: how many times an advertiser can get its brand in front of a potential customer's eyeballs, whether on a billboard, a Web page or a NASCAR hood. But impressions are fleeting things, especially compared with the enduring relationships of followers. Successful businesses will have millions of Twitter followers (and will pay good money to attract them), and a whole new language of tweet-based customer interaction will evolve to keep those followers engaged: early access to new products or deals, live customer service, customer involvement in brainstorming for new products.

Not all these developments will be entirely positive. Most of us have learned firsthand how addictive the micro-events of our personal e-mail inbox can be. But with the ambient awareness of status updates from Twitter and Facebook, an entire new empire of distraction has opened up. It used to be that you compulsively checked your BlackBerry to see if anything new had happened in your personal life or career: e-mail from the boss, a reply from last night's date. Now you're compulsively checking your BlackBerry for news from other people's lives. And because, on Twitter at least, some of those people happen to be celebrities, the Twitter platform is likely to expand that strangely delusional relationship that we have to fame. When Oprah tweets a question about getting ticks off her dog, as she did recently, anyone can send an @ reply to her, and in that exchange, there is the semblance of a normal, everyday conversation between equals. But of course, Oprah has more than a million followers, and that isolated query probably elicited thousands of responses. Who knows what small fraction of her @ replies she has time to read? But from the fan's perspective, it feels refreshingly intimate: "As I was explaining to Oprah last night, when she asked about dog ticks ..."

See the 50 best websites of 2008.

See 10 things to buy during the recession.

End-User Innovation
The rapid-fire innovation we're seeing around Twitter is not new, of course. Facebook, whose audience is still several times as large as Twitter's, went from being a way to scope out the most attractive college freshmen to the Social Operating System of the Internet, supporting a vast ecosystem of new applications created by major media companies, individual hackers, game creators, political groups and charities. The Apple iPhone's long-term competitive advantage may well prove to be the more than 15,000 new applications that have been developed for the device, expanding its functionality in countless ingenious ways.

The history of the Web followed a similar pattern. A platform originally designed to help scholars share academic documents, it now lets you watch television shows, play poker with strangers around the world, publish your own newspaper, rediscover your high school girlfriend — and, yes, tell the world what you had for breakfast. Twitter serves as the best poster child for this new model of social creativity in part because these innovations have flowered at such breathtaking speed and in part because the platform is so simple. It's as if Twitter's creators dared us to do something interesting by giving us a platform with such draconian restrictions. And sure enough, we accepted the dare with relish. Just 140 characters? I wonder if I could use that to start a political uprising. (See the 25 best blogs of 2009.)

The speed with which users have extended Twitter's platform points to a larger truth about modern innovation. When we talk about innovation and global competitiveness, we tend to fall back on the easy metric of patents and Ph.D.s. It turns out the U.S. share of both has been in steady decline since peaking in the early '70s. (In 1970, more than 50% of the world's graduate degrees in science and engineering were issued by U.S. universities.) Since the mid-'80s, a long progression of doomsayers have warned that our declining market share in the patents-and-Ph.D.s business augurs dark times for American innovation. The specific threats have changed. It was the Japanese who would destroy us in the '80s; now it's China and India.

But what actually happened to American innovation during that period? We came up with America Online, Netscape, Amazon, Google, Blogger, Wikipedia, Craigslist, TiVo, Netflix, eBay, the iPod and iPhone, Xbox, Facebook and Twitter itself. Sure, we didn't build the Prius or the Wii, but if you measure global innovation in terms of actual lifestyle-changing hit products and not just grad students, the U.S. has been lapping the field for the past 20 years.

How could the forecasts have been so wrong? The answer is that we've been tracking only part of the innovation story. If I go to grad school and invent a better mousetrap, I've created value, which I can protect with a patent and capitalize on by selling my invention to consumers. But if someone else figures out a way to use my mousetrap to replace his much more expensive washing machine, he's created value as well. We tend to put the emphasis on the first kind of value creation because there are a small number of inventors who earn giant paydays from their mousetraps and thus become celebrities. But there are hundreds of millions of consumers and small businesses that find value in these innovations by figuring out new ways to put them to use.

There are several varieties of this kind of innovation, and they go by different technical names. MIT professor Eric von Hippel calls one "end-user innovation," in which consumers actively modify a product to adapt it to their needs. In its short life, Twitter has been a hothouse of end-user innovation: the hashtag; searching; its 11,000 third-party applications; all those creative new uses of Twitter — some of them banal, some of them spam and some of them sublime. Think about the community invention of the @ reply. It took a service that was essentially a series of isolated microbroadcasts, each individual tweet an island, and turned Twitter into a truly conversational medium. All of these adoptions create new kinds of value in the wider economy, and none of them actually originated at Twitter HQ. You don't need patents or Ph.D.s to build on this kind of platform.

This is what I ultimately find most inspiring about the Twitter phenomenon. We are living through the worst economic crisis in generations, with apocalyptic headlines threatening the end of capitalism as we know it, and yet in the middle of this chaos, the engineers at Twitter headquarters are scrambling to keep the servers up, application developers are releasing their latest builds, and ordinary users are figuring out all the ingenious ways to put these tools to use. There's a kind of resilience here that is worth savoring. The weather reports keep announcing that the sky is falling, but here we are — millions of us — sitting around trying to invent new ways to talk to one another.

Johnson is the author of six books, most recently The Invention of Air, and a co-founder of the local-news website outside.in

See TIME's Pictures of the Week.

See the Cartoons of the Week.

Copyright © 2009 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Privacy Policy|Add TIME Headlines to your Site|Contact Us|Customer Service