lunes, 31 de enero de 2011

Saving Your Career After a Failed IT Project


If you can turn it into something positive, a project gone wrong doesn’t have to damage your career.

The odds aren’t exactly in your favor. The Standish Group reports that more than two-thirds of all IT projects failed or didn’t meet expectations in 2008. With statistics like that, you’re probably going to face the ugly reality at least once.

Here are three tips for making sure your career doesn’t suffer:

Learn to spot failure before it happens.

Although you may not realize it the first time you work on a failing project, the warning signs are always there. If stakeholders aren’t attending meetings, developers are leaving the project or there are a lot of questions about daily expenses or resource allocations, for example, your project might be in trouble. If it happens, take some time to reflect on what those harbingers were and be on the lookout for them the next time.

Project managers should be able to step back from a project to see what’s going wrong and how they can correct the situation, says Emad E. Aziz, PMP, CEO, BRISK Consulting SAE, a project management consulting firm in Cairo, Egypt.

“They should be able to dive into the lowest level of detail and yet maintain a holistic view almost at the same time,” he says. “This allows them to learn from mistakes and measure the impact of decisions at one level or the other.”

Project managers can then transfer these learned skills from project to project, Mr. Aziz says. “This [ability] inevitably allows them to turn the negatives to positives and hence learn and progress in their careers,” he says.

Whether the project failure was completely your fault or not, you have to own up to it.

Instead of pointing fingers at others, admit your mistakes. Also clearly state what you’ll do differently next time, which will help restore your reputation.

In job interviews, failures should be presented as a balance to successful projects, says Justin Honaman, director, customer intelligence, Coca-Cola Customer Business Solutions, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

“Most employers expect an individual to have experienced failures in life — and in projects. Honestly, expect the best leaders to learn from failures and have the strength and tenacity to acknowledge lessons learned and apply those in the future,” says Mr. Honaman, who is also the author of Make It Happen! Live Out Your Personal Brand. “Potential employers will be more concerned if a prospective project manager has never had a failure.”

Clearly, the best option is to avoid failure all together, and there are some ways to improve your odds.

Make sure you scope the project properly from its outset, Mr. Aziz says. Clearly define deliverables, project life cycle and other constraints such as time, quality, requirements and platforms. “It is very important that project managers focus on the expected benefits for which the project was incepted. They should be able to track whether the project will realize those benefits or not,” he says.

Mr. Honaman also encourages project managers to be diligent with their communication. If failure seems likely, communicate with the project’s stakeholders about potential problems long before they happen.

“You need to do meeting notes after meetings, agendas for meetings, tackle issues and define owners of those issues, document the resolution and communicate the results,” he says. “It sounds very simple, but it requires very good organization and attention to detail.

If, despite all of your heroics, the project still fails, use that knowledge to your advantage.

“Identify what was learned from the situation and what steps were taken, to ensure the same errors are not made during the next project,” says Mr. Honaman.

©2011 Project Management Institute, Inc.


Hiring managers are not going to connect the dots for you


Toni Bowers is the Head Blogs Editor for TechRepublic and also writes for IT Leadership and Career Management.

Takeaway: One of the biggest mistakes job hunters make is to throw all of their experience into a resume without any regard to its relevance to the job at hand.

If there is one thing I’ve learned from being married for many, many, many years, it’s that you can never expect another person to know what you’re thinking unless you tell them. Thoughts do not float out of your brain and then magically absorb into the gray matter of another person.

And if those closest to you can’t read your mind, then you can be certain someone looking at your resume won’t be able to. In fact, unlike your loved ones, he or she won’t even try. That’s why you have to take pains to make the purpose of your resume obvious and match it to the position you’re applying for instead of using a generic resume for all job openings.

For example, if you’re applying for a project management position but you don’t list your PM experience until somewhere in the middle of your resume, then you can’t expect a busy hiring manager to slog through a list of your help desk experience until he finds something that is relevant to the job he’s offering.

You may have a deep history in IT and are responsible for almost everything IT-related in your company. However, stating first in your resume that you were in charge of reducing security risk for company data does not speak directly to project management (unless you specifically managed a roll-out of a security tool).

It’s also great if, for example, you have experience training people in Microsoft Windows 7 or a Cisco curriculum, but that does not directly speak to an ability to manage project teams and stakeholders. If you think it does speak to it that in some way, then spell out why. Don’t expect a harried hiring manager to connect the dots for you.

You may need to use a non-chronological format to do this, but you should begin with any migrations, site upgrades, accounting systems, or anything else that you planned and managed the process for. Then you can follow up with all the incidental education and experience you have that makes you an even better job candidate.

© 2011 CBS Interactive.


viernes, 28 de enero de 2011

2 Corinthians 7:10 – Godly sorrow brings repentance

Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. – 2 Corinthians 7:10

One of the great differences between godly sorrow and worldly sorrow is regret. Are we sorry for what we did, but we really wish that we could do that again? If so, you’ve not been gripped by the pain that your sin has brought to the heart of God and those around you. Godly sorrow has no regret of what has to happen in order to walk in a new way. Worldly sorrow is only aware of the pain and consequences of being caught and wants to do the bare minimum to get by. How about us? Are we living more by godly sorrow or worldly sorrow?


martes, 25 de enero de 2011

UNA OBRA MAESTRA PARA LA VIDA!

Autor: GEORGE CARLIN

La paradoja de nuestro tiempo es que tenemos edificios más altos y temperamentos más reducidos, carreteras más anchas y puntos de vista mas estrechos. Gastamos mas pero tenemos menos, compramos mas pero disfrutamos menos. Tenemos casas más grandes y familias más chicas, mayores comodidades y menos tiempo. Tenemos más grados académicos pero menos sentido común, mayor conocimiento pero menor capacidad de juicio, más expertos pero mas problemas, mejor medicina pero menor bienestar.

Bebemos demasiado, fumamos demasiado, despilfarramos demasiado, reímos muy poco, manejamos muy rápido, nos enojamos demasiado, nos desvelamos demasiado, amanecemos cansados, leemos muy poco, vemos demasiado televisión y oramos muy rara vez.

Hemos multiplicado nuestras posesiones pero reducido nuestros valores. Hablamos demasiado, amamos demasiado poco y odiamos muy frecuentemente.

Hemos aprendido a ganarnos la vida, pero no a vivir. Añadimos años a nuestras vidas, no vida a nuestros años. Hemos logrado ir y volver de la luna, pero se nos dificulta cruzar la calle para conocer a un nuevo vecino. Conquistamos el espacio exterior, pero no el interior. Hemos hecho grandes cosas, pero no por ello mejores.

Hemos limpiado el aire, pero contaminamos nuestra alma. Conquistamos el átomo, pero no nuestros prejuicios. Escribimos mas pero aprendemos menos. Planeamos más pero logramos menos. Hemos aprendido a apresurarnos, pero no a esperar. Producimos computadoras que pueden procesar mayor información y difundirla, pero nos comunicamos cada vez menos y menos.

Estos son tiempos de comidas rápidas y digestión lenta, de hombres de gran talla y cortedad de carácter, de enormes ganancias económicas y relaciones humanas superficiales. Hoy en día hay dos ingresos pero más divorcios, casas más lujosas pero hogares rotos. Son tiempos de viajes rápidos, pañales desechables, moral descartable, acostones de una noche, cuerpos obesos, y píldoras que hacen todo, desde alegrar y apaciguar, hasta matar. Son tiempos en que hay mucho en el escaparate y muy poco en la bodega. Tiempos en que la tecnología puede hacerte llegar este mensaje, y en que tú puedes elegir compartir estas reflexiones o simplemente borrarlas.
  1. Acuérdate de pasar algún tiempo con tus seres queridos porque ellos no estarán aquí siempre.
  2. Acuérdate de ser amable con quien ahora te admira, porque esa personita crecerá muy pronto y se alejara de ti.
  3. Acuérdate de abrazar a quien tienes cerca porque ese es el único tesoro que puedes dar con el corazón, sin que te cueste ni un centavo.
  4. Acuérdate de decir te amo a tu pareja y a tus seres queridos, pero sobre todo dilo sinceramente. Un beso y un abrazo puedes reparar una herida cuando se dan con toda el alma.
  5. Acuérdate de tomarte de la mano con tu ser querido y atesorar ese momento, porque un día esa persona ya no estará contigo.
  6. Date tiempo para amar y para conversar, y comparte tus mas preciadas ideas.
Y siempre recuerda:
  1. La vida no se mide por el número de veces que tomamos aliento, sino por los extraordinarios momentos que nos lo quitan.


jueves, 20 de enero de 2011

The perfect Enterprise Software Project...myth or reality?


I get called from time to time to assist with large software implementation projects that seem to be struggling. They’re either staring a long delay and cost overruns in the face, or just have a sense of uneasiness amongst the executives that things aren’t quite right.

During some of these engagements, I frequently think back to the early 2000’s when I would read Wall Street Journal articles about botched enterprise projects where companies were brought to their knees because they couldn’t ship or process customer orders for weeks. Sometimes the ensuing chaos had a dramatic impact on the profitability of the organization and other times it severely impacted customer satisfaction, or both!

On one recent engagement, I thought to myself: Does a perfect Enterprise software project actually exist? Are there companies who have undertaken massive transformation projects and nailed it out of the park? Or is all of the hype and marketing by large and small software vendors just that, hype?

Well, the reality of that question may surprise you. According to studies, over 65% of all software projects are seriously challenged in some way (source: Standish Group 2007). Whether they go over budget, take too long, or just don’t yield the expected outcome. So, if you were a gambling person, would you bet that your project would succeed or fail? If you are counting on success, what can you do to avoid the pitfalls that befall so many endeavors?

Well, if you’re an IT project manager or even a member of a large project team, the answer actually lies with how engaged the executives are in the project! The number one reason that Enterprise software projects, big or small, fail, is because the executive sponsor(s) is not actively engaged in the process. They just think that one day the system will go live and all will be well. Miraculously, all benefits will be realized and sunshine and blue sky will reign. That is indeed not the case.

Even when I meet with prospective new Clients, the first thing I tell them is how critical their participation is. How they must make the necessary resources available and how they must themselves be engaged in the process. The majority of them give me “thumbs up” and promise with a big grin that they’re up for the task; I haven’t had one keep that promise yet (well, at least not flawlessly). I always have to make sure that my stake holders are engaged and that their teams are dedicated to a successful outcome. Sometimes this process will repeat itself two or three times during a project until, of course, I threaten to charge them. It’s not intuitive to think that an executive would pay thousands and thousands (or millions) of dollars for something and then take a laissez-faire attitude, but it happens all the time.

Making an Enterprise project successful is as much about actively participating as it is about picking the right Partner and software. Most companies focus on a rigorous vendor selection process with demos and presentations and lots of paperwork. But part of the formula for a successful outcome is to find a Partner that you are comfortable working with and software that is well renowned and has numerous successful installs. If you can work well with your Partner, they’ll keep you on the right track and engaged towards a successful outcome.

So what can you do?

As an IT professional leading a project or even as a member of a larger team, you can keep an eye on a few key points:
  1. How quickly are decisions being made?
  2. Does feedback from executive leaders take a long time or are there very few inquiries from top-execs regarding specifics on the project?
  3. Do the executives attend update meetings religiously?
  4. Overall, do you sense that the executives are fairly “hands-off”?
There are many other factors that I haven’t covered, of course. But if you fundamentally answer the above questions favorably, then things are probably going well. If you scratch your head and wonder if your executives are truly engaged in your project, then beware.

So if you’re looking to make sure that your software project is part of the minority of those that can be called a success, get your top leaders engaged, ask them the tough questions, and turn that myth into reality!

By Andrew King, Senior Partner with WebSan Solutions Inc.

WebSan Solutions Inc. is a Toronto based Microsoft Dynamics Certified Partner with a focus on achieving significant business benefit for Professional Services, Manufacturing and Distribution companies.

© 2011 CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved.


jueves, 13 de enero de 2011

10 workplace rules of engagement


Here’s a thought. What if we all admit to being imperfect? While we strive to be good employees, good coworkers, and good bosses, sometimes we’re not. Sometimes the stresses of the modern world get to us and we’re not proud of our behavior. It doesn’t mean we’re bad people, it just means we’re normal human beings.

Instead of making believe that everyone else is “the problem” and painting a big fat bull’s-eye on the boss, calling each other a**holes, or acting out like spoiled children, how about we all fess up, admit that we can do better, and actually deal with the situation. I mean, wouldn’t that be more productive?

Just to be clear, I’m not just talking about behavior that diminishes organizational effectiveness and makes everyone around us miserable. I’m talking about behavior that actually hurts your career. So even if you’re a selfish, narcissistic SOB — like me — you need to pay attention to these 10 workplace rules of engagement.

Note: This article originally appeared as an entry in BNET’s The Corner Office blog. It’s also available as a PDF download.

1: Instead of covering your ass, put your ass on line
Nobody ever advanced their career by covering their ass, and nobody ever got ahead without taking risks. No pain, no gain. Simple as that.

2: Don’t rip off ideas — riff on them
Instead of co-opting or outright stealing a coworker’s or employee’s idea, do what bloggers do: We’re always riffing on each other’s posts. Everybody benefits and some of the offshoots are better than the original.

3: Tell it straight; don’t sugarcoat or breathe your own fumes
That’s right, grow some cojones, be honest about what’s going on, and accept nothing less from others. Being a yes-man or surrounding yourself with them spells disaster for you and your organization.

4: Instead of protecting your turf, open up the playing field
The more you try to protect your domain, the faster you’ll lose it. Also, turf wars quickly deteriorate into dysfunctional silo behavior and bunker mentality. It’s all bad. Besides, influence without authority or control is the true test of leadership.

5: Don’t bitch about the boss; complement his weaknesses
Workers are constantly whining about their boss without realizing the harm it does to themselves. If you want to do your career some good, learn to identify and minimize your boss’s and coworkers’ issues. That’s what good leaders and effective managers do.

6: Attack the problem, not the person
People are always complaining that conflict stresses them out. When it’s directed at a person, it is bad news. But when it’s directed at solving a real customer or product problem, that’s another story. Workplace conflict is beneficial, as long as it isn’t personal.

7: Don’t place blame; take responsibility
Pointing fingers just creates tension or inflames already tense situations. By identifying and taking responsibility for issues, you bring them to light sooner and get them resolved faster — and you will be recognized for your effort.

8: Instead of making waves, make decisions
Dysfunctional managers love to disrupt things and create turmoil. In reality, they’re only disrupting their own already-tenuous jobs. Instead of making waves, dive in, analyze the problem, and propose a solution.

9: To break analysis paralysis, take a chill pill
One or two chronic debaters can effectively stall any kind of decision-making. I’ve seen entire organizations brought down by this insidious behavior. Instead of beating a dead horse, chill out, then meet back and actually make and document a decision. You can always change it later, but not if you never make the call.

10: Replace strategy du jour with strategic planning
The opposite problem of analysis paralysis is overreacting to a single data point and declaring a new direction, oftentimes without key stakeholders present. An effective strategic planning process will take care of that.

Other rules…
Okay, just try to tell me and all your fellow readers that you’ve never ever engaged in a single one of the dysfunctional behaviors that these rules are designed to minimize. Go ahead; but you know we won’t believe you.

In any case, those are my 10 but I can probably come up with more. Any suggestions for new rules to improve the dysfunctional workplace?

© 2011 CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved.


What to do after you've made a mistake


“John, this could be the end for me. I’ve done a lot of good work, but where I work there’s little tolerance for screw-ups - the stakes are too big. I need your advice!”

The person speaking wasn’t a client; I’d actually just met him about 10 minutes before. We were at a party, he’d heard from someone that I help individuals improve their performance; and he came over to meet me. Then I got the download about his screw-up. Actually, screw-ups.

He’d clearly experienced a “rough patch.” This most recent hassle seemed to be just one in a series of problems he’d experienced. He told me his boss was probably ready to get rid of him. He wanted to keep his job but didn’t know what to do next.

Everyone, at some point, screws up. How they react afterward can be the difference between a lonely trip downhill and getting a pass for the ski lift to the big slopes. Here are 6 of my favorite tactics for dealing after you’ve made a mistake:

  1. Recognize that this issue doesn’t mean you are a bad manager or that you’re not doing a good job overall. It means you screwed up this time. Recognize the difference and vow to do better next time. And don’t aim for perfection; you’ll be disappointed every time.
  2. Listen to the criticism. Get past your emotions. Then look at the task at hand. Work through the problem using the same approaches you would if someone asked you to fix a problem caused by someone else.
  3. Don’t get defensive. One way or another, you’ve made a mistake - so make sure you understand the problem or issue. Ask questions to show that you’re open to the feedback. The goal is to get a better grasp on where you went wrong and what needs to be done to rectify the situation.
  4. Expect heat from others. If this is a big deal, or one in a series of smaller hassles, it’s likely that those affected (or your supervisor) are going to be cranky. Let them. Understand that it’s part of a necessary process. Once they’ve “shared” with you, it will be easier for all involved to move forward. At that point, it can be smart to ask what they’d do to improve things.
  5. Be a grownup about it - admit that you messed up. Many, perhaps most, people have difficulty admitting they’ve made a mistake. Those who will admit their mistakes often gain even more respect for their “objectivity.” They may even get a reputation of being more emotionally mature in the face of difficulty, which is a sign of leadership.
  6. Don’t dwell on this for too long. Some individuals spend forever focusing on the past. They review their mistakes over and over, trying to figure out why they did what they did. The smart ones learn from their mistakes. Then they move forward confidently. They know they’re not going to do that again. Beating yourself up has a bad impact on how you regard yourself over time. That, in itself, can be career-limiting behavior.
It’s my opinion that the best managers are those who’ve made mistakes and moved forward afterward. They are the ones who are more likely to be able to guide others effectively as a result of their own learning. When someone says they don’t make mistakes, it makes me wonder if they have taken enough risks.

John M. McKee is the founder and CEO of BusinessSuccessCoach.net, an international consulting and coaching practice with subscribers in 43 countries. One of the founding senior executives of DIRECTV, his hands-on experience includes leading billion dollar organizations and launching start-ups in both the U.S. and Canada. The author of two published books, he is frequently seen providing advice on TV, in magazines, and newspapers.

© 2011 CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved.


Cuatro cosas que sus empleados necesitan de usted


Los líderes tradicionales ven la relación empleado-jefe como una transacción: dinero a cambio de trabajo. Los líderes transformacionales saben y reconocen que los empleados quieren mucho más que eso. A continuación se muestran las cuatro cosas que su gente necesita para tener éxito:
  1. Amor. Esto puede sonar sensiblero, pero el amor implica simplemente una inquietud enfocada que es exclusivamente para el bien de esa persona. Muéstreles a sus empleados que usted se preocupa por ellos y su futuro.
  2. Crecimiento. Nadie quiere estar para siempre en el mismo lugar. Cree una cultura que le permita a su gente crecer y expandirse.
  3. Contribución. Para sentirse realizados, los empleados deben saber que están contribuyendo con el todo. Enfatice las formas en que su trabajo es importante para la organización.
  4. Significado. Somos criaturas que buscamos significado. Comparta una visión que demuestre que todos sus empleados están comprometidos con un objetivo mayor.
Este Tip of the Day fue adaptado de "Four Things Employees Need from Leaders" por Cleve Stevens.


miércoles, 12 de enero de 2011

11 smart career tips for 2011

Tomado de: http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/career/?p=2712
Autor: Kathryn Ullrich

Today we have some advice from Kathryn Ullrich, a Silicon Valley-based executive search consultant and author.

Andy Warhol said, “Being good in business is the most fascinating kind of art.”

As a passionate executive recruiter, I couldn’t agree more, particularly when it comes to professionals being good in managing their careers. Here, for the New Year, are 11 career tips for 2011:
  1. Look out for #1. Take responsibility for your own career development. Many large organizations have scaled back on training and development-a common outcome of the economic downturn-and small companies can rarely provide significant support. Simply put, your career rests in one set of hands: yours.
  2. Be strategic. Have a long-term career strategy or, at the very least, a sense for where you’re headed. Ask yourself, “What do I really want to do?” or “Where do I see myself in five to ten years?” Seek people in similar roles and ask for their advice.
  3. Work in step with your company’s goals. Connect the dots from your role to your company’s vision and key objectives. How does your work align with the organization’s goals? What can you do to maximize your contributions?
  4. Be customer-centric. Whether your customers are internal or external, know their wants and needs, and be fervent about meeting them. Bring the voice of the customer into your day-to-day work and let it enhance your decisions and deliverables.
  5. Collaborate. Working with and through others is requisite to innovating, creating, and producing business results. Adopt a mindset for teaming and collaborating, and put it into daily practice.
  6. Hone your communication skills. Communication skills can make or break careers. Pick one area that needs your attention-considering skills such as listening, presenting, influencing, persuading, or distilling messages-and commit to improvement. Take a class, practice with a trusted friend or colleague, or join a group such as Toastmasters.
  7. Cross over functionally. Many successful executives have risen through the ranks by taking cross-functional roles, such as moving from finance to sales or from marketing to IT. Follow their lead and you can grow your skills, your network, and your political capital.
  8. Expand your experience. Volunteer for special projects or assignments that are outside your everyday role. Discuss your goals with your boss, an HR representative, or a senior leader, and ask for help in finding opportunities to broaden your experience base.
  9. Find a guide. Mentors can serve as influential role models and provide important guidance for your career. Reach out to a potential mentor within your company or industry and see if he or she would be open to mentoring you for a specific purpose and timeframe.
  10. Network-now. The best time to increase your network is today. Starting now, get involved in groups such as professional associations, charitable organizations, or even sports leagues. Step into leadership roles and make your expertise known.
  11. Specialize. Today, companies look for specialists, not generalists. Develop a personal brand, distinguish your skills and strengths, and determine how to best market yourself.

Kathryn Ullrich is a Silicon Valley-based executive search consultant and author of the award-winning book Getting to the Top: Strategies for Career Success (Silicon Valley Press, 2010, $19.95). She also leads Alumni Career Services at UCLA Anderson School of Management. Contact her at info@ullrichassociates.com

© 2011 CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved.


jueves, 6 de enero de 2011

El Chocuano



Se cree un papi y es visajoso y es muy feo
Donde vivo no me gusta, (toco trastearse)
Cobro jurídico me busca (oh mi god)
Debo 6 meses de arriendo
Hay me tengo que volar
(karval koko y coronel)

Empaque los bombillos las ollas y los pocillos
Desbarate la cama mijo
Quítele los tornillos
Y pilas con la nevera, no me la valla a rayar

Empaque los bombillos las ollas y los pocillos
Desbarate la cama mijo
Quítele los tornillos
Y pilas con la nevera, no me la valla a rayar

Eche el plasma la estufa y la sala
El colchón la lavadora y las canastas
Ese man quiere que le arranque el inodoro y no arranca… (Y el lavamos también)
Venga ayúdeme a amarrar que voy a arrancar con este viaje
Para que el carro no se me pare
Baja ese chifonier, eso se va a caer
Y donde eso se dañe nos echan es a los tres

Empaque los bombillos las ollas y los pocillos
Desbarate la cama mijo
Quítele los tornillos
Y pilas con la nevera, no me la valla a rayar

Empaque los bombillos las ollas y los pocillos
Desbarate la cama mijo
Quítele los tornillos
Y pilas con la nevera, no me la valla a rayar (que trasteo)

(Dj Otavio y hetor y vitor)
Me fui a vivir donde la tía marina (bienvenido mi amor)
Tiene una pensión y arrienda cuartos (muy bueno)
Yo le pedí que me alquilara uno (con baño privao)
Y resulto que el vecino es chocuano

Mi vecino es un chocuano (puro saca taca taca tumba)
Mi vecino es un chocuano (baila muy bueno; tiene un trasero….. bendito sea mi dios)
Mi vecino es un chocuano

Anda embambao todo bacaniao
24 horas al dia se mantiene emparrandao
Anda embambao todo bacaniao
Se emparranda una semana y deja al barrio trasnochao

Bájele… que tengo que madrugar
Deje de quejarse tanto y venga salgase a gozar (esta muy duro)
Bájele… que tengo que madrugar
Si me echas la policía con gusto le pongo mas (bájale un poquitico)

Anda embambao todo bacaniao
24 horas al dia se mantiene emparrandao
Anda embambao todo bacaniao
Se emparranda una semana y deja al barrio trasnochao

Mi vecino es un chocuano (toco unirnos a la parranda)
Mi vecino es un chocuano

Karval koko y coronel
Y nosotros somos los cantores de chipuco
Toca pues

Mi vecino es un chocuano
Tengo un sueño…


lunes, 3 de enero de 2011

Un juicio a el siguiente programa muchos años después


¿Cayeron Martín de Francisco y Santiago Moure en el sistema que tanto criticaron en La tele y El siguiente programa? ¿Es cierto que terminaron hastiados el uno del otro después de tanto éxito? ¿Cómo se ven hoy, uno como comentarista deportivo y el otro como actor?

Sobre todo tengo esta pregunta: ¿se vendieron al sistema Santiago Moure y Martín de Francisco después de haber juntado todas las pruebas necesarias para condenar a Colombia por arribista, por traidora, por mezquina? ¿Se convirtieron en las personas que más odiaban desde que dejaron atrás la pequeña contracultura que consiguieron montar en programas de televisión tan brillantes como La tele o la comedia animada El siguiente programa? ¿En dónde quedaron las críticas violentas a la farándula criolla, las caricaturas de nuestros líderes más escalofriantes, el adjetivo ‘chibchombiano’? ¿Todo liberal se vuelve conservador cuando reúne el dinero suficiente para hacerlo? Confío plenamente en ellos: en su humor negro, en su fragilidad, en su incorrección política. Sé que no van a eludirme. Tengo claro que su respuesta va a ser sincera: no se satiriza a la sociedad de semejante manera cuando se es uno de esos tipos autocomplacientes, seguros de sí mismos, que sonríen en el espejo cada vez que pueden.

¿Hoy en día, con todo lo que ha cambiado en el país y en sus propias vidas, convertidos en un actor y un comentarista de fútbol en la era uribista, podrían hacer El siguiente programa?, ¿se sienten con la misma libertad para hacerlo?

Santiago Moure: Podríamos hacerlo, claro, porque este país no ha dejado de ser la misma fuente inagotable de ridiculeces y de personajes siniestros. Tendríamos que partir, eso sí, de lo que somos ahora: repetirlo tal cual sería como quedarnos atrapados en la rebeldía de la adolescencia. Supongo que si habláramos de política hoy, si habláramos de los pocos políticos oscuros que se quedaron con todo en estos ochos años, tendríamos muchos más enemigos que antes. A todos se nos olvida que hacer humor en Colombia es tan peligroso como opinar. Y que el patrioterismo se ha exacerbado en los últimos tiempos.

Martín de Francisco: Alguna vez se pensó en arrancar donde quedamos, porque Colombia es todavía este cuerpo lleno de dolor que produce información a borbotones y nosotros aún tenemos esta tendencia a reconocer las derrotas en nuestras vidas cotidianas, pero la verdad es que habría que hacer un programa diferente. A mí me daría mucha pereza hacer lo mismo. Siempre he sido muy cobarde y muy paranoico. Y por esa época, que casábamos tantas guerras porque sí, sentía que me iban a hacer algo. Y esa crítica corrosiva contra todo el mundo me producía una culpa terrible. Querría tener las agallas para joder a la gente del poder, pero temo perder la paz que estoy logrando.

Santiago Moure: Yo me arrepiento de haber atacado al débil pero me pone orgulloso haber jodido al fuerte. Claro que sentíamos culpa. Claro que nos sentíamos ruines cuando veíamos los chistes fáciles que habíamos sido capaces de hacer contra un individuo, pero, como primero que todo nos dábamos durísimo a nosotros mismos, dormíamos algo en la noche. Y nos divertíamos cuando lográbamos desenmascarar a algún arribista o revelar para qué diablos quieren el poder los políticos que tenemos. La noche en la que llegó Poncho Rentería a darle en la jeta a Martín, en Gaira, por todo lo que le decíamos en el programa, es un buen ejemplo de lo que producíamos. Nos odiaba la gente que era. Y de vez en cuando lográbamos algo que me gustaría volver a hacer: convertirnos en adalides contra ese mundo corporativo que ha vuelto títeres hasta a los presidentes.

¿Podría hacerse en la Colombia de estos años, en la que se mira de reojo a la gente crítica, algo semejante a lo que hace Michael Moore en Estados Unidos?

Martín de Francisco: En Estados Unidos se puede tener un programa de crítica violenta como The Awful Truth o filmar un documental tan estremecedor como Sicko porque hay una verdadera cultura de la libertad de expresión. Allá está claro que nadie va a matarlo a uno. Aquí no. E igual, así alguien me garantizara la vida, tendría miedo de caer en el tono de adalid que dice Santiago: esa superioridad moral que comparten los gringos. Desde los presidentes que invaden los países hasta los superhéroes de los cómics, desde los tipos que compran escopetas porque sí hasta el mismo Michael Moore, que se roba el protagonismo de sus documentales. La norteamericana es una cultura de envidiosos con aureola. Y aquí no estamos tan lejos de ello.

Santiago Moure: Moore no está muerto porque no tiene ningún poder: ya no hay que matarlo porque ya está muerto. Estados Unidos deja que de vez en cuando llegue a la Casa Blanca un tipo como Obama, que agite las banderas progresistas, pero en el fondo está gobernado siempre por los mismos personajes: por las mismas “fuerzas oscuras” que nos gobiernan a nosotros. Me preocuparía, de hacer un programa como The Awful Truth, no tener el respaldo periodístico para no salir con chorros de babas. En estos ocho años, por ejemplo, en los que a tantos les faltó la información para dejar de defender a Uribe a ultranza, hubiera sido genial probar en la televisión abierta que un grupito se estaba beneficiando de nuestra ignorancia: demostrar que la frase “por lo pronto, vamos a contribuir al éxito del gobierno Santos” es una amenaza velada.

Martín de Francisco: Sería genial exponer a “las fuerzas oscuras”, claro, ir mostrando cómo se va pasando Uribe a la oposición con esa pose de frentero con la que pasó una reelección ilegal en vivo y en directo e hizo la llamada de “le voy a dar en la jeta, marica”, pero si me preguntas hoy, aquí y ahora, creo que estamos lejos de desmontar esa obra de teatro. Este país, que no está habitado por ecuatorianos furiosos, sino por colombianos resignados a su suerte, está diseñado para que jamás se sepa la verdad. Nunca se llegarán a saber, por ejemplo, los nombres de los que pensaron el exterminio de la UP. Y que aniquilaron a los interlocutores inteligentes para que no se pueda dar una negociación con la guerrilla.

Santiago Moure: La frase de Hitler, que era tan colombiano, era esta: “Cuanto más grande sea la mentira, más gente la creerá”. Y aquí estamos. Todo el mundo sabe qué pasa, pero muy pocos quieren creerlo. ¿Y quién puede culparnos? Tenemos, como todos los seres humanos, la necesidad de vivir tranquilos. Nos sentimos conformes de estar vivos. Damos las gracias por estar enterrados solo hasta acá. Estoy seguro de que, sin embargo, si nos llegara la verdad nos pasaríamos la vida indignados.

Supongamos todo a favor: que se da lo que tiene que darse para hacer un programa diferente, crítico y documentado, que los deje a los dos con la conciencia tranquila. Vendría entonces el problema de dónde transmitirlo. Los canales no están ya para esos trotes. Y ustedes dos, que reciben sueldos de parte de los grandes grupos económicos del país, ya no son tan libres.

Santiago Moure: Es claro que pudimos hacer los programas que hicimos porque trabajábamos en una programadora independiente. Tratamos de hacer algo como El siguiente programa en los canales privados, pero no duramos ni tres semanas: pisábamos los callos de ese mundo corporativo que se traga todo y está lleno de vasos comunicantes con los políticos y los empresarios. Nuestra sociedad es un eco de sociedades más evolucionadas. Está siempre a la penúltima moda. Y un día, de pronto, la televisión colombiana quedó reducida a telenovelas mexicanizadas que traicionaban los temas diferentes por los que nos habían reconocido en el mundo. Y toda la sátira de la sociedad quedó en manos de las columnas de Daniel Samper Ospina o de los programas que Pirry hace a espaldas de RCN. Toda la crítica a nuestro desastre quedó reducida a lo que se pueda hacer, gratis, en internet. Pronto se darán cuenta de que la gente está accediendo a la verdad por esa vía. Pero, por ahora, internet sería el camino si quisiéramos hacer algo.

Martín de Francisco: El negocio de la televisión, que de entrada subestima al público, está planteado para que la creatividad no sea remunerada. El mensaje es: aquí no me traigan ideas originales que esas no venden y aquí no esperen que los reconozcamos como creadores. Y como los libretistas se dan cuenta de que se persiguen esas tramas mediocres, y a fin de cuentas tienen que vivir de algo, se pliegan a unas fórmulas que nos igualan a las demás televisiones por lo bajo. Se copió lo más malo de afuera cuando ya habíamos alcanzado un lenguaje propio que partía de nosotros mismos. Santiago reivindica la crítica a la colombianidad en A corazón abierto, es el tipo de los papeleos, las leguleyadas y los atajos, pero no hay mucho más que eso hoy en día.

¿Por qué, cómo y cuándo pudieron ustedes dos, que no se sienten orgullosos de ser colombianos, que tienden a un humor de traumatizado y que no están convencidos de nada, colar en nuestra programación semejantes críticas a lo colombiano?

Santiago Moure: Yo era, a los 14 años, un desadaptado de gabardina (para hacer humor hay que ser, en el fondo, un desadaptado) que fumaba pipa para sacudirme del yugo estalinista del bachillerato. Y un día me hice amigo del alumno de mostrar: Carlos Vives. Y eso fue. Quise tocar el clarinete pero no tuve ni el talento ni la entrega. Estudié actuación porque sentí que era lo único que me quedaba. Y un día Carlos, que se reía de mis chistes y ya era un tipo reconocido por sus canciones, me llamó a que hiciera parte del grupo de amigos de un programa de humor que iba a llamarse La tele. O sea que soy todo un paracaidista. Llegué a la televisión porque era la Némesis de Carlos Vives: el de no mostrar.

Martín de Francisco: A Carlos, que había estado casado con mi hermana, le gustaban los desadaptados. A mí me descubrió en una entrega de regalos de Navidad. Tal como suena. Yo, que estaba en el colegio en ese momento, me puse a hacer el reparto oficial de los regalos en chiste. Y él lo grabó todo. Y lo siguiente que supe es que, en 1993, estaba metido de cabeza en un programa de televisión que era una crítica cáustica y agresiva a la televisión. Pronto me di cuenta de que tenía empatía a la hora de escribir con un man que se llamaba Santiago Moure. Lo primero que nos inventamos fue una telenovela escatológica y pueril que se llamaba El HP: el hijo pródigo.

Santiago Moure: Al principio nos llovieron las críticas, y si hubiera sido por mí, por Martín y por mí, ahí mismo nos habríamos adaptado al sistema en busca de éxito, reconocimiento y fiestas, pero Carlos es un tipo empecinado en sus ideas y no nos dejó movernos de donde estábamos. Nosotros no teníamos ni idea de qué hacíamos. Y nos lo tomábamos como una catarsis. Pero él sí. Y nos animó a hacer una parodia de telenovela que se llamaba El paraíso de la guanábana: el personaje de Martín tejía, tenía aficiones femeninas y sufría un embarazo psicológico que terminaba en que daba a luz una guanábana. Puro Monty Python.

Martín de Francisco: Teníamos en común con Carlos, que tiene una videoteca de humor increíble, la afición por Monty Python. Y por una novela corta de Alfredo Iriarte, La bella locutora: esperpento porcino para televisión, que nos gustaba porque era el epítome de la finura cachaca con su lenguaje barroco y sus chistes rimbombantes. Estuvimos a punto de hacer un proyecto con él, que vivía con la mamá y que nos hablaba con su sequedad de un matrimonio que le duró solo la noche de bodas “para que fuera romántico”, pero se murió unos días antes de que firmáramos el contrato.

Santiago Moure: Todo el tiempo nos acordábamos de un programa viejísimo, El juicio, en el que Iriarte había salido a defender el machismo: “Yo golpeo a mi mujer porque me toca —decía—, he mandado a dos damas a la clínica en defensa propia”. Por supuesto, lo decía en broma. Pero era mordaz, agrio, extraño. Como esos bogotanos de Yo y tú, la serie de televisión, que desconfiaban de todo. O como esos comediantes, tipo Peter Sellers, que son imposibles de conocer porque nunca dejan de ser personajes: el humorista es un tipo trágico condenado a verlo todo desde afuera.

Martín de Francisco: Cuando uno ve Man on the Moon, la comedia sobre Andy Kaufman, se da cuenta de que cualquier labor creativa viene del trauma: solo se puede hacer humor desde la marginalidad.

Santiago Moure: Y eso, ese juicio a la colombianidad que hacíamos como si fuéramos extranjeros, esa comodidad que sentíamos en la rareza del otro, fue lo que nos convirtió en un monstruo de dos cabezas. Estuvimos dos años en La tele. Pasamos a un programa de radio que yo odiaba profundamente porque, a pesar de que ese medio tendría que ser lo mío porque nadie me ve, me parecía algo parecido a la esclavitud. Después vino El siguiente programa. Y así, en medio de un éxito que se agrandaba y se agrandaba, se nos fueron diez años de vida sintiéndonos los más famosos del edificio. Si salíamos de nuestro circulito, nadie sabía quiénes éramos. Pero si entrábamos de nuevo, si jugábamos el juego de ser ese ser híbrido que es mucho más fuerte que los dos por separado, no había gente tan conocida en el mundo como nosotros. Había fisuras. Yo a veces pedía que me pusieran un biombo para no verlo en las cabinas en las que nos metían. Pero sabíamos que estamos atrapados en una de esas amistades indestructibles.

Martín de Francisco: Pasamos diez años en una relación que lo permeaba todo: lo profesional, lo familiar, lo personal. Y al final, agotados de vernos en todas partes, nos tolerábamos pero no nos admitíamos. Hubo un buen tiempo en el que llegamos a ser compañeros de excesos. Salíamos casi todos los días. Y como el rating era cosa seria, y nosotros lo teníamos todo, nos volvimos estrellas: drogas, sexo y rock and roll. Teníamos groupies. Teníamos todo. Yo sospechaba, como decía Santiago, que nuestra fama era “una gris y lugareña nombradía” y que se venía la hecatombe, pero estaba hasta el cuello en la payasada y me dejé llevar hasta el final. Y entonces se nos acabó la era de oro: no hubo más programas. Y todos estos manes se fueron a hacer sus vidas y a mí me tocó volver a donde mis papás con mis muebles de soltero. Fue la peor época de todas: un vicio estuvo a punto de quitarme toda la energía.
Santiago Moure: Yo me demoré un poco más en tocar fondo. Trabajé en teatro. Entré a las series de televisión. Y tuve una época muy dura hace unos cuatro años, pensé, de hecho, que de esa decadencia no volvía, pero la actuación me sirvió para volverme a quedar en el presente.

¿Qué responderían si alguien dijera que Santiago Moure y Martín de Francisco se vendieron al sistema?

Santiago Moure: Que sí fuimos derrotados. En mi caso es, sin duda, una derrota. Pero es que lo contrario era antagonizar para siempre. Ser rebeldes hasta verse patéticos. A veces, cuando me siento peor, pienso que estoy trabajando en telenovelas para tener un colchón económico por si alguna vez quiero hablar con mi propia voz. Me digo: “Estoy ahorrando para eso”. En el último personaje que he hecho en televisión, un médico medio pícaro de la serie A corazón abierto, he logrado meter comentarios sociales. Y he contado con el respaldo del director, Sergio Osorio, que ha sido una gran suerte. Pero soy consciente de que nuestras telenovelas (que eso es lo que es hoy en día nuestra televisión: telenovelas) no son el lugar para dar la batalla: si llegara a ver las telenovelas donde trabajo, no volvería al otro día.

Martín de Francisco: Yo no reconozco esa derrota ni reconozco haberme entregado a cambio de dinero: comentar fútbol es mi pasión. Todo el tiempo pienso en la frase de Nietzsche, “madurar es reencontrar la seriedad con que juega un niño”, para darme cuenta de que este es el momento más liviano de mi vida. Estoy haciendo lo mismo que hacía en mi habitación cuando era chiquito: pensar en caricaturas parecidas a las del Profesor Super O, el programa educativo que me hace tan feliz, y vivir enloquecido por el fútbol (perderme en las jugadas, los colores, el negocio oscuro y la gesta del fútbol) como cuando vivía de muerte porque todo el mundo me decía que era una niña muy linda y yo hacía todo lo que podía para probarles que solo era andrógino. Vivo feliz. Me tomo en serio mi oficio de comentarista, pero no me tomo en serio a mí mismo. Y hago un trabajo que me obliga a pensar solo en el presente.

Santiago Moure: Pero es cierto que somos las personas de las que nos reíamos: un actor de telenovelas y un comentarista deportivo. Contribuimos al adormecimiento de las conciencias por medio de los dos pilares de la manipulación de la sociedad: les damos telenovelas predecibles y partidos de fútbol arreglados mientras se los están enclochando por detrás. Hoy somos sicarios intelectuales. Y, aunque me produce una gran intranquilidad, siempre concluyo que venderse al sistema es pura cuestión de plusvalía. Y que todavía hay muchos márgenes por pisar: que uno va descubriendo las cosas de la vida como va descubriendo los lados B de los discos, que siempre va encontrando, como yo he encontrado en la actuación, caminos que no se imaginaba. Logra, por ejemplo, disfrutar esta entrevista.

Martín de Francisco: Mi problema es que me juzgo muy duro. Vivo arrepentido. Me gusta trabajar en radio porque no se me ve la cara de vergüenza por todas las güevonadas que digo. Y ahorita en un rato, cuando nos despidamos, voy a comenzar a pensar en las locuras que dije. Me ha cobijado mucho la fama de estos manes tan inteligentes, Moure, Noguera y Vives, pero todo el tiempo siento que me van a pillar: que los que compren el DVD de El siguiente programa van a descubrir pronto que soy muy bruto. Siempre le he quedado mal a SoHo. Y estoy seguro de que, en castigo, esta va a ser la entrevista que me va a sacar del clóset de la brutalidad.
Santiago Moure: A mí, en cambio, lo único que me preocupa son las fotos. Yo veré ese Photoshop.

Y eso es todo. Apago la grabadora porque ya me han dado la respuesta sincera que esperaba. Ahí, en el patio del apartamento de De Francisco, que hace cuatro años fue el apartamento de Moure, el primero confiesa que tuvo que limpiar las malas energías que dejó el paso del segundo y el segundo reconoce que en aquella época estuvo apunto de perder el rumbo por completo. “Siempre que vengo espío un poco porque viví aquí un buen tiempo”, dice Moure: “Entre esas matas había una virgen rota que Martín quitó”. “Precisamente por eso —aclara De Francisco—, porque estaba rota”. Entonces, porque siento que no sobra, les pregunto si se caen bien. Y me tomo el atrevimiento de publicar la respuesta porque me dicen ese “sí” que dicen los condenados a ser dos hermanos.

COPYRIGHT© 2010 PUBLICACIONES SEMANA S.A.


Think Again: American Decline. This time it's for real.


Gideon Rachman is chief foreign-affairs commentator for the Financial Times and author of Zero-Sum Future: American Power in an Age of Anxiety.

"We've Heard All This About American Decline Before."

This time it's different. It's certainly true that America has been through cycles of declinism in the past. Campaigning for the presidency in 1960, John F. Kennedy complained, "American strength relative to that of the Soviet Union has been slipping, and communism has been advancing steadily in every area of the world." Ezra Vogel's Japan as Number One was published in 1979, heralding a decade of steadily rising paranoia about Japanese manufacturing techniques and trade policies.

In the end, of course, the Soviet and Japanese threats to American supremacy proved chimerical. So Americans can be forgiven if they greet talk of a new challenge from China as just another case of the boy who cried wolf. But a frequently overlooked fact about that fable is that the boy was eventually proved right. The wolf did arrive -- and China is the wolf.

The Chinese challenge to the United States is more serious for both economic and demographic reasons. The Soviet Union collapsed because its economic system was highly inefficient, a fatal flaw that was disguised for a long time because the USSR never attempted to compete on world markets. China, by contrast, has proved its economic prowess on the global stage. Its economy has been growing at 9 to 10 percent a year, on average, for roughly three decades. It is now the world's leading exporter and its biggest manufacturer, and it is sitting on more than $2.5 trillion of foreign reserves. Chinese goods compete all over the world. This is no Soviet-style economic basket case.

Japan, of course, also experienced many years of rapid economic growth and is still an export powerhouse. But it was never a plausible candidate to be No. 1. The Japanese population is less than half that of the United States, which means that the average Japanese person would have to be more than twice as rich as the average American before Japan's economy surpassed America's. That was never going to happen. By contrast, China's population is more than four times that of the United States. The famous projection by Goldman Sachs that China's economy will be bigger than that of the United States by 2027 was made before the 2008 economic crash. At the current pace, China could be No. 1 well before then.

China's economic prowess is already allowing Beijing to challenge American influence all over the world. The Chinese are the preferred partners of many African governments and the biggest trading partner of other emerging powers, such as Brazil and South Africa. China is also stepping in to buy the bonds of financially strapped members of the eurozone, such as Greece and Portugal.

And China is only the largest part of a bigger story about the rise of new economic and political players. America's traditional allies in Europe -- Britain, France, Italy, even Germany -- are slipping down the economic ranks. New powers are on the rise: India, Brazil, Turkey. They each have their own foreign-policy preferences, which collectively constrain America's ability to shape the world. Think of how India and Brazil sided with China at the global climate-change talks. Or the votes by Turkey and Brazil against America at the United Nations on sanctions against Iran. That is just a taste of things to come.

"China Will Implode Sooner or Later."

Don't count on it. It is certainly true that when Americans are worrying about national decline, they tend to overlook the weaknesses of their scariest-looking rival. The flaws in the Soviet and Japanese systems became obvious only in retrospect. Those who are confident that American hegemony will be extended long into the future point to the potential liabilities of the Chinese system. In a recent interview with the Times of London, former U.S. President George W. Bush suggested that China's internal problems mean that its economy will be unlikely to rival America's in the foreseeable future. "Do I still think America will remain the sole superpower?" he asked. "I do."

But predictions of the imminent demise of the Chinese miracle have been a regular feature of Western analysis ever since it got rolling in the late 1970s. In 1989, the Communist Party seemed to be staggering after the Tiananmen Square massacre. In the 1990s, economy watchers regularly pointed to the parlous state of Chinese banks and state-owned enterprises. Yet the Chinese economy has kept growing, doubling in size roughly every seven years.

Of course, it would be absurd to pretend that China does not face major challenges. In the short term, there is plenty of evidence that a property bubble is building in big cities like Shanghai, and inflation is on the rise. Over the long term, China has alarming political and economic transitions to navigate. The Communist Party is unlikely to be able to maintain its monopoly on political power forever. And the country's traditional dependence on exports and an undervalued currency are coming under increasing criticism from the United States and other international actors demanding a "rebalancing" of China's export-driven economy. The country also faces major demographic and environmental challenges: The population is aging rapidly as a result of the one-child policy, and China is threatened by water shortages and pollution.

Yet even if you factor in considerable future economic and political turbulence, it would be a big mistake to assume that the Chinese challenge to U.S. power will simply disappear. Once countries get the hang of economic growth, it takes a great deal to throw them off course. The analogy to the rise of Germany from the mid-19th century onward is instructive. Germany went through two catastrophic military defeats, hyperinflation, the Great Depression, the collapse of democracy, and the destruction of its major cities and infrastructure by Allied bombs. And yet by the end of the 1950s, West Germany was once again one of the world's leading economies, albeit shorn of its imperial ambitions.

In a nuclear age, China is unlikely to get sucked into a world war, so it will not face turbulence and disorder on remotely the scale Germany did in the 20th century. And whatever economic and political difficulties it does experience will not be enough to stop the country's rise to great-power status. Sheer size and economic momentum mean that the Chinese juggernaut will keep rolling forward, no matter what obstacles lie in its path.

"America Still Leads Across the Board."

For now. As things stand, America has the world's largest economy, the world's leading universities, and many of its biggest companies. The U.S. military is also incomparably more powerful than any rival. The United States spends almost as much on its military as the rest of the world put together. And let's also add in America's intangible assets. The country's combination of entrepreneurial flair and technological prowess has allowed it to lead the technological revolution. Talented immigrants still flock to U.S. shores. And now that Barack Obama is in the White House, the country's soft power has received a big boost. For all his troubles, polls show Obama is still the most charismatic leader in the world; Hu Jintao doesn't even come close. America also boasts the global allure of its creative industries (Hollywood and all that), its values, the increasing universality of the English language, and the attractiveness of the American Dream.

All true -- but all more vulnerable than you might think. American universities remain a formidable asset. But if the U.S. economy is not generating jobs, then those bright Asian graduate students who fill up the engineering and computer-science departments at Stanford University and MIT will return home in larger numbers. Fortune's latest ranking of the world's largest companies has only two American firms in the top 10 -- Walmart at No. 1 and ExxonMobil at No. 3. There are already three Chinese firms in the top 10: Sinopec, State Grid, and China National Petroleum. America's appeal might also diminish if the country is no longer so closely associated with opportunity, prosperity, and success. And though many foreigners are deeply attracted to the American Dream, there is also a deep well of anti-American sentiment in the world that al Qaeda and others have skillfully exploited, Obama or no Obama.

As for the U.S. military, the lesson of the Iraq and Afghan wars is that America's martial prowess is less useful than former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others imagined. U.S. troops, planes, and missiles can overthrow a government on the other side of the world in weeks, but pacifying and stabilizing a conquered country is another matter. Years after apparent victory, America is still bogged down by an apparently endless insurgency in Afghanistan.

Not only are Americans losing their appetite for foreign adventures, but the U.S. military budget is clearly going to come under pressure in this new age of austerity. The present paralysis in Washington offers little hope that the United States will deal with its budgetary problems swiftly or efficiently. The U.S. government's continuing reliance on foreign lending makes the country vulnerable, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's humbling 2009 request to the Chinese to keep buying U.S. Treasury bills revealed. America is funding its military supremacy through deficit spending, meaning the war in Afghanistan is effectively being paid for with a Chinese credit card. Little wonder that Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has identified the burgeoning national debt as the single largest threat to U.S. national security.

Meanwhile, China's spending on its military continues to grow rapidly. The country will soon announce the construction of its first aircraft carrier and is aiming to build five or six in total. Perhaps more seriously, China's development of new missile and anti-satellite technology threatens the command of the sea and skies on which the United States bases its Pacific supremacy. In a nuclear age, the U.S. and Chinese militaries are unlikely to clash. A common Chinese view is that the United States will instead eventually find it can no longer afford its military position in the Pacific. U.S. allies in the region -- Japan, South Korea, and increasingly India -- may partner more with Washington to try to counter rising Chinese power. But if the United States has to scale back its presence in the Pacific for budgetary reasons, its allies will start to accommodate themselves to a rising China. Beijing's influence will expand, and the Asia-Pacific region -- the emerging center of the global economy -- will become China's backyard.

"Globalization Is Bending the World the Way of the West."

Not really. One reason why the United States was relaxed about China's rise in the years after the end of the Cold War was the deeply ingrained belief that globalization was spreading Western values. Some even thought that globalization and Americanization were virtually synonymous.

Pundit Fareed Zakaria was prescient when he wrote that the "rise of the rest" (i.e., non-American powers) would be one of the major features of a "post-American world." But even Zakaria argued that this trend was essentially beneficial to the United States: "The power shift … is good for America, if approached properly. The world is going America's way. Countries are becoming more open, market-friendly, and democratic."

Both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton took a similar view that globalization and free trade would serve as a vehicle for the export of American values. In 1999, two years before China's accession to the World Trade Organization, Bush argued, "Economic freedom creates habits of liberty. And habits of liberty create expectations of democracy.… Trade freely with China, and time is on our side."

There were two important misunderstandings buried in this theorizing. The first was that economic growth would inevitably -- and fairly swiftly -- lead to democratization. The second was that new democracies would inevitably be more friendly and helpful toward the United States. Neither assumption is working out.

In 1989, after the Tiananmen Square massacre, few Western analysts would have believed that 20 years later China would still be a one-party state -- and that its economy would also still be growing at phenomenal rates. The common (and comforting) Western assumption was that China would have to choose between political liberalization and economic failure. Surely a tightly controlled one-party state could not succeed in the era of cell phones and the World Wide Web? As Clinton put it during a visit to China in 1998, "In this global information age, when economic success is built on ideas, personal freedom is … essential to the greatness of any modern nation."

In fact, China managed to combine censorship and one-party rule with continuing economic success over the following decade. The confrontation between the Chinese government and Google in 2010 was instructive. Google, that icon of the digital era, threatened to withdraw from China in protest at censorship, but it eventually backed down in return for token concessions. It is now entirely conceivable that when China becomes the world's largest economy -- let us say in 2027 -- it will still be a one-party state run by the Communist Party.

And even if China does democratize, there is absolutely no guarantee that this will make life easier for the United States, let alone prolong America's global hegemony. The idea that democracies are liable to agree on the big global issues is now being undermined on a regular basis. India does not agree with the United States on climate change or the Doha round of trade talks. Brazil does not agree with the United States on how to handle Venezuela or Iran. A more democratic Turkey is today also a more Islamist Turkey, which is now refusing to take the American line on either Israel or Iran. In a similar vein, a more democratic China might also be a more prickly China, if the popularity of nationalist books and Internet sites in the Middle Kingdom is any guide.

"Globalization Is Not a Zero-Sum Game."

Don't be too sure. Successive U.S. presidents, from the first Bush to Obama, have explicitly welcomed China's rise. Just before his first visit to China, Obama summarized the traditional approach when he said, "Power does not need to be a zero-sum game, and nations need not fear the success of another.… We welcome China's efforts to play a greater role on the world stage."

But whatever they say in formal speeches, America's leaders are clearly beginning to have their doubts, and rightly so. It is a central tenet of modern economics that trade is mutually beneficial for both partners, a win-win rather than a zero-sum. But that implies the rules of the game aren't rigged. Speaking before the 2010 World Economic Forum, Larry Summers, then Obama's chief economic advisor, remarked pointedly that the normal rules about the mutual benefits of trade do not necessarily apply when one trading partner is practicing mercantilist or protectionist policies. The U.S. government clearly thinks that China's undervaluation of its currency is a form of protectionism that has led to global economic imbalances and job losses in the United States. Leading economists, such as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and the Peterson Institute's C. Fred Bergsten, have taken a similar line, arguing that tariffs or other retaliatory measures would be a legitimate response. So much for the win-win world.

And when it comes to the broader geopolitical picture, the world of the future looks even more like a zero-sum game, despite the gauzy rhetoric of globalization that comforted the last generation of American politicians. For the United States has been acting as if the mutual interests created by globalization have repealed one of the oldest laws of international politics: the notion that rising players eventually clash with established powers.

In fact, rivalry between a rising China and a weakened America is now apparent across a whole range of issues, from territorial disputes in Asia to human rights. It is mercifully unlikely that the United States and China would ever actually go to war, but that is because both sides have nuclear weapons, not because globalization has magically dissolved their differences.

At the G-20 summit in November, the U.S. drive to deal with "global economic imbalances" was essentially thwarted by China's obdurate refusal to change its currency policy. The 2009 climate-change talks in Copenhagen ended in disarray after another U.S.-China standoff. Growing Chinese economic and military clout clearly poses a long-term threat to American hegemony in the Pacific. The Chinese reluctantly agreed to a new package of U.N. sanctions on Iran, but the cost of securing Chinese agreement was a weak deal that is unlikely to derail the Iranian nuclear program. Both sides have taken part in the talks with North Korea, but a barely submerged rivalry prevents truly effective Sino-American cooperation. China does not like Kim Jong Il's regime, but it is also very wary of a reunified Korea on its borders, particularly if the new Korea still played host to U.S. troops. China is also competing fiercely for access to resources, in particular oil, which is driving up global prices.

American leaders are right to reject zero-sum logic in public. To do anything else would needlessly antagonize the Chinese. But that shouldn't obscure this unavoidable fact: As economic and political power moves from West to East, new international rivalries are inevitably emerging.

The United States still has formidable strengths. Its economy will eventually recover. Its military has a global presence and a technological edge that no other country can yet match. But America will never again experience the global dominance it enjoyed in the 17 years between the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991 and the financial crisis of 2008. Those days are over.

©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.


Some Familiar Virtues


As the year begins, perhaps it would be good to cultivate some attitudes, for example:

Politeness (or tact). It is the fine instinct, the correct tact to know what love is asking for at each moment. The person who possesses this virtue does not go through the world arrogantly, self-centered and without being concerned for the interests of others.
The polite person always tries to do everything well; therefore, his/her conduct appears very clear and loyal. He/she knows when to be quiet and when to speak or to do something.
St. Francis de Sales, a great friend of these small virtues, explains it correctly: “Discreet silence is always better than truth without love.”

That politeness presupposes a constant battle against superficiality, vanity and selfishness. On the contrary, the conduct of a person with little tact is usually like that of an elephant entering a porcelain shop.

A famous example of this fraternal politeness is the Virgin at the wedding feast at Cana (Jn 2,1). She foresees the needs of the bride and groom by sparing them the bother and humiliation of having to ask for help. This “thoughtfulness of foreseeing the needs of others” forms part of fraternal politeness.

Another form of politeness is being able to listen attentively to others – also to those who are annoying and boring – without showing irritation or impatience.

That attitude can, at other times, be demonstrated in knowing how to instruct or teach those who are ignorant without embarrassing them or humiliating them. Do we have that politeness, that tact in our dealing with others?

Respect. It is about “respect for the originality of the other” – basis for our living together. We have to surrender to the fact that we are a mystery to each other. And to respect the other person, I have to discover him/her and admire him/her in his/her profound originality.

Respect in dealing with others also means to leave the other freedom of thinking and acting as he/she seems fit to do so. The ideal of our communities is to become one heart and one soul, but without each brother/sister losing his/her originality.

This respect of freedom is important not only in relationship with others, but also in relationship with other groups: each group is autonomous, has rights to its own life, forms and styles.

Moderation. Moderation is the happy medium of things… self-control in any circumstance… not being swept away by excesses but doing the right thing with balance in the complicated hustle and bustle of life. We are persons of extremes: everything or nothing; enthusiasm or desperation; success or failure. We go through life tumbling from one side to the other, making serene and tranquil advancement difficult. There will always be fluctuations, but they should be moderate, controlled and integrated into the rhythm of life in order to arrive at a safe port.

Equilibrium (balance). The ups and downs of life hinder us from seeing clearly. They shake the horizon and disturb the vision. Most important in life is to see clearly at the crossroads in order to be able to follow the way correctly. And it is not easy to see clearly in the confusion which surrounds us on the outside with the attacks of the instincts and feelings which choke us on the inside. The equilibrium or balance fails as well as the certainty and the independent point of view. Easily the wrong decision is taken. The worst option is chosen. The way is erroneous. To see clearly and choose better, one must recover serenity and return to the happy medium.

Questions for reflection
  1. How can I practice moderation?
  2. Are we respectful with each brother and sister even though we may know each other too well?
  3. Do we allow the other freedom to think and act?

If you wish to subscribe, comment on the text or give your testimony, write to: pn.reflexiones@gmail.com

Translation: Carlos Cantú Schoenstatt Family Federation La Feria, Texas USA 121110.
http://cmsms.schoenstatt.de/en/resources/periodicals/virtual-retreat.htm

© 2011 Schoenstatt-Movement, PressOffice Schönstatt, all rights reserved