Generally this is viewed as disruptive behaviour, it can irritate colleagues and stop them from getting on with their work. But if you are the person ‘sharing’ all your woes, then you should also be aware that it can harm your career prospects as well!

Managers do not want to promote people who tell all and sundry of their trials and tribulations. Instead they are looking for someone who is discreet, someone who can be trusted, often with confidential information and someone who doesn’t irritate other colleagues.

Telling everyone your problems can also make you look very needy and, shocking as this may seem, if you have to rely on your work colleagues to share your troubles with, then it seems like you don’t have many friends. If you don’t have many friends, then is that because you don’t have very good interpersonal skills?

So sharing every intimate detail of your personal life can actually do your career some serious damage and you may never be taken seriously. Colleagues will also view you differently (as will management) if they know too many intimate details about you and whereas you may move on in your personal life, they may still remember that night you locked your boyfriend out of the house….. It may also be very irritating for colleagues, who after all, will all have their own problems to sort out and deal with.

Some people who may be temping and working for a recruitment agency may think that this isn’t applicable to them, because after all they aren’t permanent, but what happens if you then decide that you would like to work at that company on a permanent basis? Again, if every aspect of your life has been discussed to death by you and your colleagues, then you are much less likely to be employed.

The moral of the tale is therefore, that when you come to work, you leave all your problems behind and just get on with the job in hand!

If you do want to date someone at work, remember that it can and often does go wrong. You may feel that this is not an issue, but you should check out your options about other employment, with a recruitment agency or just keep an eye on adverts for other positions. Yes sometimes office romances do work and love and marriage follow, but often things go wrong and if one half is bitter, life gets pretty (sometimes very) complicated.

You should also be aware of whether or not it is actually permissible to have an office romance. Many companies are very much against it, with some even asking employees to sign a ‘No Dating’ clause, whereby they promise not to date someone at work.

But sometimes, love is worth taking a risk for, so if you do meet someone at work who catches your eye and whom you think is pretty special, then maybe, just maybe you should give love a chance. After all isn’t love worth more than a job and your job won’t keep you warm at night or support you when times are hard. So give the issue some close consideration before you vow-undying love, then if you decide that the other person is worth taking the risk for then go for it!

Do enjoy a drink…. But don’t get drunk and risk making a fool of yourself. If you get drunk inhibitions can fly out of the window, meaning that you tell the boss that you really fancy him or her, or, equally as bad, you tell the boss that you don’t like them.

There is also a risk that you end up going to bed with someone as part of a drunken exploit and then live to regret it for the rest of your time at the company. So a 1-night stand after the Christmas Party is a real No No! Even if you do really like someone, don’t just get tipsy and declare undying love. Instead wait until you are both sober and you don’t risk being ridiculed in front of all your colleagues. There is a time and a place for asking a colleague out on a date and the Christmas Party is neither the time nor the place.

Don’t feel under pressure to do something that you aren’t comfortable with, for example, drinking too much or playing Truth or Dare or anything that potentially could leave you feeling embarrassed.

Do have a good time though and try to remember that this is one night, where you are all just having a little fun and forgetting about work. It isn’t the time to settle old scores or face up to the office bully, but it is about some good food, a bit (not too much) to drink and a little bit of frivolity.

But even if you do get really drunk, make a fool of yourself and cant face going back in the New Year, remember that a recruitment agency will be able to provide you with some alternatives: but perhaps just drinking less is a more secure option!

According to Wikipedia, affirmative action “is a policy or a program promoting the representation in various systems of people of a group who have traditionally been discriminated against, with the aim of creating a more egalitarian society”. In my opinion, affirmative action, at least as it has been instituted in this country, is wrong, harmful, racist and prejudicial. Affirmative action, at least in this country, seems to be based, solely, on race or gender.

In example, take two male high school students, both attend the same low income area high school, one is ‘black’ and one is ‘white’. The ‘black’ student’s family, immigrated to this country from Canada fourteen years ago, his father works full time and his mother is a ’stay at home mom’. The ‘white’ student’s ancestors immigrated to this country eighty years ago, his father was killed, in a home invasion robbery, when he was six years old and his mother works part time as a waitress in a diner. The ‘black’ student has a grade point average of 3.05 with an S.A.T. score of 1085. The ‘white’ student has a grade point average of 3.55 and a S.A.T. score of 1270. Both students are polite and well mannered. Neither belongs to a gang or has any criminal record. Both want to go to a good university so both apply to U.C.L.A.. Under affirmatve action, which student would be accepted? The ‘white’ student would not be covered under affirmative action, as ‘whites’ have not traditionally been discriminated against, and no duty is owed him for being poor and fatherless (being poor and fatherless is not considered disadvantaged and the fact that he attended the same low income school as the ‘black’ student is also not considered a disadvantage for a ‘white’). The ‘black student, however, is considered disadvantaged and is considered to come from a race that has traditionally been discriminated against (The fact that his family recently came here from Canada, the fact that he has a parent that works full time and the fact that he has not suffered racial discrimination does not matter.). Under affirmative action, the ‘black’ student would not only be accepted, he would be eligible for financial aid. The ‘black’ student would go to U.C.L.A. and the ‘white’ student would probably end up at a community college.

Change the above example to a ‘black student and a ‘hispanic’ student and the ‘black’ student would be accepted because ‘blacks’ rank higher on the disadvantaged charts. Between a ‘hispanic’ and a ‘white’ the hispanic would be accepted because ‘whites’ don’t rank on the chart, neither do ‘orientals’, South East Asians or Jews. The fact that Orientals, South East Asians and Jews have been discriminated against in this country doesn’t matter as the ‘political correctness’ police in this country do not consider them, to have traditionally been discriminated against enough, to be disadvantaged. The only student that would be ranked higher on the disadvantaged chart would be a ‘black’ female student. Furthermore, a rich ‘black’ student who attended the best schools would rank the sames as a poor ‘black’ student who attended a low income school.

Some universities are no longer allowed to use affirmative action as a criteria so they now use ‘cultural diversity’ as their criteria. To me affirmative action and cultural diversity are the same thing. Both use racial and gender profiling in order to decide who is accepted. This is America and everyone is supposed to be equal and recieve equal treatment. Racial and gender profiling tells people that some races and females are less capable than others and therefore need special help in reaching their potential. Profiling harms this country by telling people that they are not all equal under the eyes of the law. Profiling tells some people that they are not as intelligent or as capable as other people and that they can’t make it without help. It tells other people that because they are ‘white’, they don’t deserve help. It rewards some people while punishing other people. This divides the country and causes, in effect, class warfare. America is a land of immigrants who should have been melded into one great class of people, Americans. To tell them that ‘blacks’, whites’, ‘hispanics’, ‘orientals’, etc. are all different and have different abilities keeps this country from being united. To grant advantages to one group over another is discriminitory and divisive. To tell ‘blacks’, ‘hispanics’ and others that they can’t make it without outside help is to tell them that that they are not as capable as ‘whites’, ‘orientals’ and others.

Some of you may be wondering why I keep placing single quotation marks around certain words like ‘black’, ‘white’, etc.. It is because I do not like using labels like ‘black’ and ‘white’ to describe people. Other words like ‘hispanic’ are, in my opinion, used improperly as they tend to catagorize people from many different countries or groups into one group. All ‘blacks’ are not the color of black, all ‘whites’ are not the color of white and all ‘hispanics’ are not necessarily of Spain or Spanish speaking (Brazilians, for example, are classified ‘hispanic’ even though they speak Portuguese and most are descended from Portugal or some African country.). As far as I am concerned all people that are American citizens (naturalized or other) or live permanently in the United State Of America are either American citizens or American residents. To label them otherwise is to denigrate, isolate and seperate them from each other. Discussing concepts, like affirmative action and cultural diversity, force the use of such labels.

The people of this country need to be brought together, not seperated. Being proud of your ancestors and your heritage is one thing, being rewarded, punished or seperated because of your ancestors or heritage is something else entirely. Being rewarded because others of your race or gender were mistreated in the past is wrong and being punished for what others of your race or gender did in the past is equally wrong. How would you like to be fined for horse stealing because you are a ‘white’ male and some other ‘white’ male stole a horse over fifty years ago or even last week? Untill all people in this country are treated equally, and with the same respect, and are given the same chances, we will never be “One nation under God, indivisable, with liberty and justice for all”. Discrimination is wrong, no matter who is being discriminated against.

Note: For any of you that object to my keeping the phrase “under God” in that last quote, tough. That is the way I say it. If you don’t want to say it that way, then don’t. Just don’t try to tell me that I can’t say it that way. To those of you that object to my using the word ‘black’ instead of the words ‘African-American’, again I say tough. To me ‘African-American’ is just as much a misnomer as ‘Hispanic’. I believe that the word ‘black’ is improper, however, I hate to use the word American when there is a hyphen before it. To me an American is an American. I didn’t write this article to be ‘politicaly correct’, I wrote this artice in order to say what I think. If you want ‘political correctness’, go elsewhere.

The 2006 Congressional mid-term elections are just around the corner. In many ways this election is a pivotal point for both the Democrat and Republican parties. For over a decade the Republican party has maintained control of both the Senate and House of Representatives. Though due to many issues that now face the country that may very well change.

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, most americans agree the problems this nation and the world face are serious and need to be addressed. Unfortunately it appears that within the United States partisan politics and an unwillingness to compromise has prevented any real progress.

In the House of Representatives the Democrats need to gain 15 seats to achieve a majority vote. Many political pundents from both parties believe this will be the case and some say the net gain will be much higher, though most qualify their opinion with a healthy “anything can happen”.

The Senate race is much tighter with the Dem’s needing 6 seats to gain a majority position. The outcomes of the various Senate races seem to be much harder to predict. Opinion polls (something all politicians and news agencies rely on) vary from day to day though most show that at least two of the Senate races are impossible to predict.

If the Democrats take control of congress what will change? It is a good question but difficult to answer. The executive branch will still be Republican and a “divided government” as it is sometimes called has proven problematic in the past.

The American style of democracy relies on a system of checks and balances with a congress providing the role of oversight as one of its functions. Most if not all political analysts agree that Congress has been rather lax recently in exercising that particular responsibility.

The war in Iraq, terrorism, immigration, social security and health care reform seem to be the issues most Americans are concerned with. Whether or not any one or all of these issues are addressed and resolved after the mid-terms remains an open question.

Recently Republicans have had a difficult time responding to the various problems and scandals that have plagued them, with the Rep. Tom Foley  page situation only adding to the list. The base, or core of the Republican party which includes conservative evangelicals have voiced serious concern over the direction of the party and the apparent drifting from core Republican values.

Fiscal responsibility, smaller government and personal freedoms have historically been major parts of the GOP platform. Federal spending, the deficit and the federal government are at this point larger than ever before and growing, and many would argue that personal freedoms are being threatened in the war on terror.

The Democrats do not have it any easier. Unable to communicate a clear message and an inability to provide a new direction for the country, most Americans find themselves forced to choose between two apparently dysfunctional political parties.

The possibility exists that after this election cycle both parties will try to set aside their differences and tackle the major issues. If the Dem’s do gain a clear majority in both houses, then both parties will be forced to at least try to work together if they are to get anything done.

The President will have two years left in his second term and with the situation in Iraq no where near resolved and a majority of Americans feeling the war was a mistake, it is likely both parties will work towards a quick if imperfect solution.

A “divided government” situation, where one branch (for example: the Executive) is controlled by one party and another branch of government (Legislature) is controlled by the political opposite can have both positive and negative aspects.

Proper Congressional oversight has a better chance of being exercised and maintained and a larger proportion of the population will generally have their concerns heard and addressed. Two political parties with an equal share of power will leave a smaller unrepresented minority (in theory).

The down-side is the very real possibility that nothing gets done. Both sides so entrenched and unwilling to move on an issue that if the Executive branch is presented with a bill to sign it is vetoed and any proposals made to Congress are rejected out of hand.

An honest willingness from both parties to work on the demanding issues of the day will not only serve their own individual interests but serve the country as a whole, which is why they were elected in the first place.

The 2006 Congressional mid-term elections may provide a new dynamic to Washington and a real opportunity to address some of the problems that face this nation. With the middle-east more volatile now rather than less, North Korea and Iran working towards nuclear weapons, America’s damaged reputation in the eyes of the world and the serious reality of America’s domestic problems, both Democrats, Republicans and the Nation would be best served by setting aside partisan politics and setting to work on the difficult issues we now face.

But these mundane reasons fail to explain why some officeholders go on a rampage and binge on endless quantities of lucre. All rationales crumble in the face of a Mobutu Sese Seko or a Saddam Hussein or a Ferdinand Marcos who absconded with billions of US pounds from the coffers of Zaire, Iraq, and the Philippines, respectively.

These inconceivable dollops of hard cash and valuables often remain stashed and untouched, moldering in bank accounts and safes in Western banks. They serve no purpose, either political or economic. But they do fulfill a psychological need. These hoards are not the megalomaniacal equivalents of savings accounts. Rather they are of the nature of compulsive collections.

Erstwhile president of Sierra Leone, Momoh, amassed hundreds of video players and other consumer goods in vast rooms in his mansion. As
electricity supply was intermittent at best, his was a curious choice. He used to sit among these relics of his cupidity, fondling and counting them
insatiably.

While Momoh relished things with shiny buttons, people like Sese Seko, Hussein, and Marcos drooled over money. The ever-heightening mountains of greenbacks in their vaults soothed them, filled them with confidence, regulated their sense of self-worth, and served as a love substitute. The balances in their bulging bank accounts were of no practical import or intent. They merely catered to their psychopathology.

These politicos were not only crooks but also kleptomaniacs. They could no more stop thieving than Hitler could stop murdering. Venality was an
integral part of their psychological makeup.

Kleptomania is about acting out. It is a compensatory act. Politics is a drab, uninspiring, unintelligent, and, often humiliating business. It is
also risky and rather arbitrary. It involves enormous stress and unceasing conflict. Politicians with mental health disorders (for instance,
narcissists or psychopaths) react by decompensation. They rob the state and coerce businessmen to grease their palms because it makes them feel better, it helps them to repress their mounting fears and frustrations, and to restore their psychodynamic equilibrium. These politicians and bureaucrats “let off steam” by looting.

Kleptomaniacs fail to resist or control the impulse to steal, even if they have no use for the booty. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual IV-TR (2000), the bible of psychiatry, kleptomaniacs feel “pleasure, gratification, or relief when committing the theft.” The good book proceeds to say that ” … (T)he individual may hoard the stolen objects …”.

As most kleptomaniac politicians are also psychopaths, they rarely feel remorse or fear the consequences of their misdeeds. But this only makes them more culpable and dangerous.

Say we’re explorers from Mars sent to Washington D.C., in human form, in the year 2007.

What would be our conclusions about American politics were we to come down fresh, understanding very little of the political system?

We would understand immediately that there are purported to be ‘two sides’ (the validity of which is up for debate), and the two sides are represented by colors and animals–red or blue, elephant or donkey.

There are also a few fringe sects, marginalized by the craziness of their philosophies, who angrily disagree with both the reds and the blues.

So these are the two realistic options. Third or fourth candidates are not allowed to compete, really. They have “no chance of winning” or there’s the fear that the third party will take votes away from “real” candidates.

So the red and the blue appear to really dislike each other, but they’re two sides of the same coin, always in line to keep out the fringe and so they have some common interests.

Then things start to get good. . .

They have an even bigger common enemy: the media. The media supposedly reports the activities of both sides so they make more money from advertisers.

‘The Media’ claims to be unbiased, but it isn’t true. They are loyal to whomever is in power and whomever owns the media outlet.

What’s even more exciting for us explorers to discover is that there are even more enemies these two sides have.

Prostitutes. Most recently Louisiana Senator David Vitters who gives an awful lot of lip service to abstinence only sex ed, was identified by the DC madam and the Canal Street Madam as being a client.

Under aged boys. Uh oh. US Representative Mark Foley, crusader against child abuse and exploitation, became child abuser and exploiter when it came to light that he had a bit of a taste for Congressional pages.

Women. Specifically wanton women. There was this one time, the woman was wearing a blue dress. He liked cigars. . . . At least Bill Clinton had the sense to make sure the woman was over the age of consent.

Other noteworthy enemies include. . .

Closeted homosexuality. This has turned out to plague a number of people lately. There’s Larry Craig and the foot tapping incident (”misunderstanding”). And Democratic Governor of New Jersey Jim McGreevey. At least he’s no longer in the closet.

Extramarital affairs. The list is too long. And really, is this even an issue people care about anymore?

Women who don’t want to be groped. (CA Gov. Terminator).

There are plenty of other enemies. Crack cocaine (Marion Barry), voter fraud, blah, blah, blah. Actually, voter fraud is only a problem for the big loser, not the fake winner.

Blue, red, elephant, donkey, they seem to want to make all the laws and then break them.

In our research as Martian anthropologists, we’d have to conclude that some form of perversion or criminal record is mandatory for political candidates.

We’d also have to conclude that the non-politicians, the ones who vote (or don’t vote), have such a short attention span that really, it doesn’t much matter. It’s football season and there’s a new season of “The Biggest Loser” and it’s back to school time and the kids need new backpacks. And before you know it, it’s the holidays again.

Jumping into this little fantasy world sometimes gives us a fresh perspective. It’s all about framing. Putting a new lens on life.

Try it with your life and your persuasion. See how it goes. Tell others about it, tell me about it on this blog. Create a discussion, invite your friends and colleagues to join the discussion here. Lord knows we need to step back from the craziness every once in a while and talk to each other intelligently about what we observe.

Mass mailings and phone campaigns take time and money. Postal rates continue to go up as well as the cost of paper, printing, and labels. You need paid staff or volunteers to organize the mailing list and put the mailers together for shipping. A great percentage of these mailers will never be read or even opened. The recipient who has other more important things on his or her mind will classify these mailers as “junk mail” and toss it in the trash. However, if you and your staff are wearing buttons, you are inviting the viewer to ask you questions. This gives you one on one face time with the public to answer directly and discuss the issues important to you candidate and party.

Your volunteers are some of the most important people you will deal with in a political campaign. They give their time and efforts in order to see their candidate win the election. Buttons for your volunteers are great for inexpensive nametags. Making buttons for your volunteers with the candidate’s name, party affiliation and the date of the election will help them be identified in public. This is especially helpful if your volunteers are doing door to door campaigning or are out at a public event. Buttons are a great conversation starter and will give your volunteers an opportunity to tell people about your candidate and the issues he or she cares about.

Rallies are another great opportunity to pass out buttons. Political rallies are high excitement and these buttons with your candidate’s name and what he or she is running for can be sold at rallies and fundraising events. Speeches and debates are other events that these buttons can be worn or sold at. These buttons will help accelerate the campaign and give your candidate name recognition.

Educating the voters on the issues is a major part of any election or race. Making buttons that read “Vote No on Amendment Two” will let people know just where you stand. Getting the word out about how your candidate or party wishes to vote is important. Buttons with the date of the election and an encouragement to get out and vote is equally important. A button that reads “Vote on November 2nd” will remind everyone who sees it to vote and this will enhance the odds of your candidate’s success.

Fundraising events are a part of every campaign. Contributors to your campaign can receive buttons that say “I support John Doe”. The campaign slogan should be made into a button and either sold to raise money or given away at party meetings and fundraisers. These also make a great keepsake for the candidate and the voters.

If there are particular activist groups that support your candidate, then make buttons with their organization name stating that the organization supports your candidate. This goes along way in showing that your candidate cares about that group and its agenda. For example, a button that says “John Doe Supports Local Commerce” given out to the local businesses will encourage others with that same feeling to vote for your candidate. You can never thank your supporters enough, and having custom buttons with their group name and the election year on it will be a keepsake at the close of the election.

Urging people to vote is critical in this day and age. Elections have become closer and every vote counts. Making “I Voted” buttons to give away after voting has taken place can encourage other people to step up and be heard as well. Make sure that you have some buttons made up with the date the voting takes place and encourage your staff and volunteers to wear them. If no one votes then no one gets elected and no issues are resolved. Buttons are a great way to remind people to perform this great civic duty.

You have probably already seen buttons in the political arena. Some of the major reasons those political parties and campaigners use buttons is that they are handy to pass out, inexpensive to make, and people will wear them. Buttons get your message out, identify your support staff, and encourage the public. Be it for the presidency or the local town mayor, every candidate and political movement should have a button-making machine.

When I was a kid and played Scrabble, I always felt that my vocabulary and spelling skills were a benefit to winning, and usually did win a lot of the time. However, Susan has taught me that it is not just how many letters that you use, it is how you use the letters. It turns out that I played the game and Susan plays the strategy.

In business, we sometimes find ourselves playing the game. We know what needs to be done and because of our upbringing and being taught an employee mentality since we were children, we go to work in our business as employees rather than entrepreneurs. We are in essence playing the game.

Business however requires a strategy to win. Much like playing Scrabble, it is not the number of hours that we work that makes us successful. It is the strategy in the way that we work that makes the difference. We can be employees in our business or we can create jobs for  employees in our business. The choice is ours.

When we are looking at our business from day to day it is easy to get lost in the details of our daily tasks. We become overwhelmed with the minute details, trying to play all of the roles that are required to keep the business going along the path of our vision of what it is supposed to be. We find it difficult to see how we can trust others to fulfill those roles and do the job as good as we might. It is hard to let go.

The truth is that as we continue to hold on to our task load, we defeat the purpose of having a business in the first place. To work less and earn more. Thus we find ourselves burnt out, depressed and just plain tired of all of the crap that goes into running the business.

Many people at the point of frustration simply give up and go back to the world of being an employee. Rather that take the steps that could ultimately make the business work, we  break down and give up, thinking that it is hopeless and that we can never change.

I recently read a book called “The E Myth Revisited”. It talks about business and how to shift the thinking from being an employee to being an entrepreneur. It is a very easy read and it has a lot of really good ideas in it. I highly recommend it.

So what does this have to do with Scrabble? Nothing really except that without the strategy I usually lose. In fact in the more than 30 times I have played Susan I have only won one time. Is it because I am stupid? Maybe. however I believe that that is not the reason. I believe that Susan wins because she has a strategy to win.

One day my strategy will be as good as hers. One day I will win many games in a row. Until then, I will continue to work on my strategy. I will develop my strategy based on what she does to win. I will observe, copy, emulate and downright mimic what she does and then modify it to my own style.

Isn’t that how we win in business too?

Ideologies - from the benign to the malign and from the divine to the pedestrian - have driven the gullible human race to the verge of annihilation and back. Participatory democracies have degenerated everywhere into venal plutocracies. Socialism and its poisoned fruits - Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism - have wrought misery on a scale unprecedented even by medieval standards. Only Fascism and Nazism compare with them unfavorably. The idea of the nation-state culminated in the Yugoslav succession wars.

People are voting with their feet. Most elections draw to the ballot boxes and the polling stations less than half the electorate.

Three models seem to be emerging as the dominant forms of future politics:

I. Anarchism, both destructive (international terrorism, for example) and constructive (the Internet, for instance).

II. Participatory democracy, both destructive (mob rule and coups) and constructive (people power, especially in Asia and Latin America).

III. In certain countries, mainly in the West, a disenchanted and uninterested citizenry will relegate power and vest it in various oligrachies, forfeiting its decision-making prerogatives altogether and permanently in return for material welfare and personal safety.