I am still popular on t3h intarw3bz.

Posted by High Priestess Kang as T3h Intarweb, The Think Tank

To enhance Madame Firesnake’s poignant and brilliant post…

As you have noticed, I finally (ok…Dock actually bought it for me) purchased my own domain.  There were several reasons behind this purchase.  Yes.  I wanted my own domain.  My own .com.  *titters*  But the seedy underbelly of cyber popularity was the actual reason.  A few days ago, I had an epiphany.  I don’t, “own” all rights to KangWorld and High Priestess Kang on t3h intarwebs.  This resulted in frenzied mass registration of email addresses through multiple (free) email providers.  Then came the domain.

While I was registering the domain name, I made a fantastic discovery.  All domain names are listed in a “Who Is” directory.  Who Is is the white pages of the internet.  If you own a domain name, your name, address, phone number blah blah blah is listed in this database.  Having been the victim of cyber-stalking (along with Madame Firesnake), I opted to pay the additional $9.00 per year (less than the telephone company charges me for my unlisted telephone number) and keep myself private.  w00t!  Quite a bargain when you consider the ROI (return on investment).

Microcelebreality has a price, as well.  Mind you…I am not complaining.  My ego loves the fact that people will actually read what I have to say.  I’m only human (rather, Rigellian), after all.  However…there is the seedy side of Microcelebreality.  The side that includes hate email, trolling and phucked up calls to my parents’ house.  At first, I was terrified.  Simply terrified.  Who are these people and what, exactly, do they want?  Do they need to validate their own misery?  Are they that pathetic and soulless?  The answer to those questions is simply, “yes.”

There is another detrimental side to Microcelebreality.  The professional implication.  The very thing that keeps food in my belly, the roof over my head and the power running to engage in this behavior.  I have experienced the absolute draconian response to an employer’s dissatisfaction with my off-time behavior.  Enormous tension, hatred, bitterness and the complete inability to accept that my politics do not interfere with my ability to perform my job properly.  This hatred, upon discovering certain facets of my personality and beliefs, tainted a relationship with a former manager.  Note…former.  This should speak volumes.

What people need to consider, when engaging in intarnets activities, is the consequences.  I have only learned these through trial and error.  More over, knowing what I know now, I wouldn’t change a thing, either.  None of the unpleasantries have driven me out of the cyberworld and I cannot imagine they ever will.  I’m far too stubborn.  I do not back down from a fight.  If I have learned anything about myself in dealing with the nonce-cases, the numpties and the nutters, it is that I am a lot stronger than I had thought.  Most view me as an emotional weakling, a fragile lady who hides behind a well crafted alt to keep herself safe.  The trials and tribulations of living out loud have allowed me to realize that I’m one tough broad.  My carriage and demeanor reflects this.  It’s taken me 35 years to realize, “I have cajones.”

Forever the optimist, I cannot envision changing any of my attributes or behaviors.  While the stalkers are out there, that’s basically it…they’re out “there.”  They are not here.  And if they come here, we pack heat, so the joke will be on them.  While the current trend of employers is to cyber snoop to dig up dirt on potential candidates, that behavior is going to wane, as well.  After a while, the employer is going to discover that there are few who don’t have skeletons in their closets and their rigid parameters will need to be revised and relaxed, if not entirely discarded.

I live in my fishbowl by choice.  I accept the good and the bad that goes along with it.  I can offer cautionary tales and advice.  However, I will never discourage anyone from doing the same.  The positives outweigh the negatives.

As for the nutters and nonce-cases, they’re my mental junk food.  95% of them are dickless and harmless.  The other 5%…well…they are unpleasant.  However a large portion of the 5% do possess neither the stamina nor fortitude that I do.  It’s not a challenge.  It’s not an invitation to test me.  It’s a proven fact.  Proven by the fact that I walk on three morons every day the moment I logon.  Their goal wasn’t realized, I’m still here.  And it will never be realized for I do not write for them.  I write for me.  I think for me.  I live for me.  The fuel it takes to feed the drama llamas and stalkers isn’t here.

Microcelebrity

Posted by Ming the Merciless as Guest Author, Ming the Merciless, T3h Intarweb, The Think Tank

or The Cult of Personality on the Internet

I used to post this kind of random screed at the now defunct www.theted.org. Since it’s not the kind of thing that fits so well in my blog, I thought I’d add it to the more diverse Kangworld.

I was thinking, the other day, about what it takes to be popular on the internet.

Now, Ms. K and myself have both been accused of being “popular.” It never occurred to either of us to apply the label to ourselves. It’s become a running joke. It’s not always a funny one.

The internet blurs that line between public figure and private individual. Putting yourself on the internet creates a public record of yourself. Stupid shit you’ve said, embarrassing photos, the whole nine. After we’ve hung it out there, we don’t get to take it back. No matter how much we may want to in the future. Sure, we want to be known for our brilliance, our shining moments of excellence but whatever goes up has an equal chance of being the thing that starts us down the path to popular. The lowest common denominator being what it is, the more personal and embarrassing the more likely it is to become internet sensation.

I’m not talking about the wannabe celebs that think that YouTube or Blogger will catapult them into stardom. I’m talking about the plain old Joes who take up blogging because it seems neat and their friends do it or who want to post some how-tos or make a web site about their model train collection.

It’s a matter of people being larger than life. It’s an impressionist canvas. A few broad strokes of personality and the brain of the reader, the casual surfer, does the rest. Be engaging, be opinionated, and most of all, produce content. It helps to have a fantastic set of tatas too.

Like anything else, it’s a competition. There are people that want to be popular on the internet. They want a little group of followers around them, idolizing them. Telling them they are great. What is internet popularity though? A hundred people? A thousand? It’s measured in page hits and site visits. And it’s not the kind of numbers that make a Johnny Depp film worth the investment. Microcelebrity.

The element of conversation makes it powerful; it’s different from the popularity of the unapproachable Hollywood star or musician. Some web sites have already seized on that. As usual, porn is on the front line with Suicide Girls and Fatal Beauty adding a new dimension. They bring the ideas and opinions of the girls to life in a way that a centerfold profile never could. They are selling not just the flesh but the personality. A conversation. And people buy.

The unfunny part comes when the obsessives come out of the woodwork. And they do. Even itty bitty communities like Kangworld have the uncomfortable specter of those who, for whatever reason, don’t have the ability to generate that particular cult of personality for themselves. And who have taken bitterly the rejection of being told “please don’t contact me any more.”

In the seedy underbelly of the casual readership are a few who want something more. The reality is that they are strangers, a part of something casual. A nod at the coffee counter, a quick smiley in a blog comment. Pleasantries. In their own heads it becomes more. Proof they own a piece of their own little celeb. That they have been noticed.

It’s a puzzle, the mass of emotion. The entitlement, the mingled admiration and animosity that sometimes emerge. It’s almost Oedipal in some ways. There comes forward a desire to posess, and if that cannot be, to replace.

It’s more common than you think.

I’m still thinking about the phenomena and how it’s changing how we interact with each other. It’s certainly changing how I interact online. How about you?

Stupid Democrats!

Posted by High Priestess Kang as Keith Olbermann, News, Op/Ed, Politics

When the folding of the cards was first announced on Tuesday night, I wasn’t surprised.  Really.  And I do not accept the fact that the Democrats on The Hill had their collective backs to the wall, either. 

If memory serves me correctly, the general message from the elections in November was, “Change!  Now!  Stop the war.”  It just goes to show that the current political party system does not work.  Those serving this country do not care.  Not enough, in my esteemed opinion, to risk their concept of, “political capital” to push for change, demand change, enact change.

I have long toyed with the concept of a viable third party.  My political leanings are not as liberal as they seem.  However, I no longer feel, “Centrism” is the place for me either.  None the less, we cannot have things continue as they are now.  Not when the politicians purposefully disregard the demands of those they serve.  And they did.  Make no mistakes…they did.

Keith Olbermann provided us with special commentary last evening regarding the war funding and I agree entirely.  My biggest hope is that the press will jump on the Democrats, pursuing this issue the way they pursued bl0w-j0b-gate.  I want to hear and see Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and the rest of the lunatic fringe justify this ass-banditry.  I need to hear those that do not support this acquiescence, this capitulation speak out.  And for those candidates who do speak out…a call to the Democrat primary participants…vote for that candidate.  Not those who are going to sign off on this bullshit measure to give Georgie-Porgie-Douchebag-Pie more carte blanche at the expense of our soldiers and national security.

The entire government has failed us on Iraq.
For the president, and the majority leaders and candidates and rank-and-file Congressmen and Senators of either party—there is only blame for this shameful, and bi-partisan, betrayal

This is, in fact, a comment about… betrayal.

Few men or women elected in our history—whether executive or legislative, state or national—have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious, nor instructions more clear:

Get us out of Iraq.

Yet after six months of preparation and execution—half a year gathering the strands of public support; translating into action, the collective will of the nearly 70 percent of Americans who reject this War of Lies, the Democrats have managed only this:

• The Democratic leadership has surrendered to a president—if not the worst president, then easily the most selfish, in our history—who happily blackmails his own people, and uses his own military personnel as hostages to his asinine demand, that the Democrats “give the troops their money”;
• The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans;
• The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted, with the only caveat being, not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government.
• The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised, are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.

You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions—Stop The War—have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you… for a handful of magic beans.
You may trot out every political cliché from the soft-soap, inside-the-beltway dictionary of boilerplate sound bites, about how this is the “beginning of the end” of Mr. Bush’s “carte blanche” in Iraq, about how this is a “first step.”
Well, Senator Reid, the only end at its beginning… is our collective hope that you and your colleagues would do what is right, what is essential, what you were each elected and re-elected to do.
Because this “first step”… is a step right off a cliff.

And this President!
How shameful it would be to watch an adult… hold his breath, and threaten to continue to do so, until he turned blue.
But how horrifying it is… to watch a President hold his breath and threaten to continue to do so, until innocent and patriotic Americans in harm’s way, are bled white.
You lead this country, sir?
You claim to defend it?
And yet when faced with the prospect of someone calling you on your stubbornness—your stubbornness which has cost 3,431 Americans their lives and thousands more their limbs—you, Mr. Bush, imply that if the Democrats don’t give you the money and give it to you entirely on your terms, the troops in Iraq will be stranded, or forced to serve longer, or have to throw bullets at the enemy with their bare hands.
How transcendentally, how historically, pathetic.
Any other president from any other moment in the panorama of our history would have, at the outset of this tawdry game of political chicken, declared that no matter what the other political side did, he would insure personally—first, last and always—that the troops would not suffer.
A President, Mr. Bush, uses the carte blanche he has already, not to manipulate an overlap of arriving and departing Brigades into a ‘second surge,’ but to say in unequivocal terms that if it takes every last dime of the monies already allocated, if it takes reneging on government contracts with Halliburton, he will make sure the troops are safe—even if the only safety to be found, is in getting them the hell out of there.
Well, any true President would have done that, Sir.
You instead, used our troops as political pawns, then blamed the Democrats when you did so.

Not that these Democrats, who had this country’s support and sympathy up until 48 hours ago, have not since earned all the blame they can carry home.

“We seem to be very near the bleak choice between war and shame,” Winston Churchill wrote to Lord Moyne in the days after the British signed the Munich accords with Germany in 1938. “My feeling is that we shall choose shame, and then have war thrown in, a little later…”

That’s what this is for the Democrats, isn’t it?

Their “Neville Chamberlain moment” before the Second World War.
All that’s missing is the landing at the airport, with the blinkered leader waving a piece of paper which he naively thought would guarantee “peace in our time,” but which his opponent would ignore with deceit.
The Democrats have merely streamlined the process.
Their piece of paper already says Mr. Bush can ignore it, with impugnity.

And where are the Democratic presidential hopefuls this evening?
See they not, that to which the Senate and House leadership has blinded itself?

Judging these candidates based on how they voted on the original Iraq authorization, or waiting for apologies for those votes, is ancient history now.

The Democratic nomination is likely to be decided… tomorrow.
The talk of practical politics, the buying into of the President’s dishonest construction “fund-the-troops-or-they-will-be-in-jeopardy,” the promise of tougher action in September, is falling not on deaf ears, but rather falling on Americans who already told you what to do, and now perceive your ears as closed to practical politics.
Those who seek the Democratic nomination need to—for their own political futures and, with a thousand times more solemnity and importance, for the individual futures of our troops—denounce this betrayal, vote against it, and, if need be, unseat Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi if they continue down this path of guilty, fatal acquiescence to the tragically misguided will of a monomaniacal president.

For, ultimately, at this hour, the entire government has failed us.

• Mr. Reid, Mr. Hoyer, and the other Democrats… have failed us.
  They negotiated away that which they did not own, but had only been entrusted by us to protect: our collective will as the citizens of this country, that this brazen War of Lies be ended as rapidly and safely as possible.
• Mr. Bush and his government… have failed us.
  They have behaved venomously and without dignity—of course.
  That is all at which Mr. Bush is gifted.
  We are the ones providing any element of surprise or shock here.

With the exception of Senator Dodd and Senator Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidates have (so far at least) failed us.

They must now speak, and make plain how they view what has been given away to Mr. Bush, and what is yet to be given away tomorrow, and in the thousand tomorrows to come.

Because for the next fourteen months, the Democratic nominating process—indeed the whole of our political discourse until further notice—has, with the stroke of a cursed pen, become about one thing, and one thing alone.
The electorate figured this out, six months ago.
The President and the Republicans have not—doubtless will not.
The Democrats will figure it out, during the Memorial Day recess, when they go home and many of those who elected them will politely suggest they stay there—and  permanently.
Because, on the subject of Iraq…
The people have been ahead of the media….
Ahead of the government…
Ahead of the politicians…
For the last year, or two years, or maybe three.

Our politics… is now about the answer to one briefly-worded question.
Mr. Bush has failed.
Mr. Warner has failed.
Mr. Reid has failed.
So.
Who among us will stop this war—this War of Lies?
To he or she, fall the figurative keys to the nation.
To all the others—presidents and majority leaders and candidates and rank-and-file Congressmen and Senators of either party—there is only blame… for this shameful, and bi-partisan, betrayal.

Falwell’s greatest hits…

Posted by High Priestess Kang as Op/Ed

To add some balance to the eulogizing of Falwell, I should like to present some of his greatest (s)hits.  Just so we know what we will be missing.  Or not missing.

These words, these statements, in my humble opinion, are not words of a true Christian.

Grown men should not be having sex with prostitutes unless they are married to them.

I had a student ask me, “Could the savior you believe in save Osama bin Laden?” Of course, we know the blood of Jesus Christ can save him, and then he must be executed.

AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.

The idea that religion and politics don’t mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.

If you’re not a born-again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being.

It appears that America’s anti-Biblical feminist movement is at last dying, thank God, and is possibly being replaced by a Christ-centered men’s movement which may become the foundation for a desperately needed national spiritual awakening.

The whole (global warming) thing is created to destroy America’s free enterprise system and our economic stability.

Homosexuality is Satan’s diabolical attack upon the family that will not only have a corrupting influence upon our next generation, but it will also bring down the wrath of God upon America.

(re: 9/11 attacks) “…throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad…I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America…I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen.

[homosexuals are] brute beasts…part of a vile and satanic system [that] will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven.

Do you vote with your heart or your mind?

Posted by High Priestess Kang as Op/Ed, Politics

For years, I have tried to maintain a strategic perspective when casting my vote on Election Day…particularly when it comes to the Office of the Presidency.  Yes.  Yes, I have voted for candidates that may not be my preferred choice by what I want…but I have voted for candidates who will best serve our domestic and foreign interests.   

For years, I have tried to maintain a strategic perspective when casting my vote on Election Day…particularly when it comes to the Office of the Presidency.  Yes.  Yes, I have voted for candidates that may not be my preferred choice by what I want…but I have voted for candidates who will best serve our domestic and foreign interests.   No longer.

I think.

Granted, it’s well over a year away but I have already been giving consideration to the next Presidential election.  I started giving consideration to this election back in 2004 when I sat up all night, sobbing into my rum and coke (I had to get drunk.  I had to, I swear!) watching the election returns, cursing the Bush Administration for fear mongering and hating 51% of the voters in the United States.

Logically, from a foreign policy perspective, my gut instinct is to lean towards Joe Biden.  Of all the current candidates, I feel he is the most adept, most skilled and most informed to navigate the waters of the perfect shit storm created by Bush-Cheney-Rove.

Emotionally…it’s an entirely different ball game.  The more I read, the more I research, the more I learn, I find myself wanting, wishing, hoping that Dennis Kucinich will run away with the Democrat Party nomination.   I know there is a snowball’s chance in hell that he will.  However, he is my choice.  Lock, stock and gun-controlled barrel.

If you have half a brain, half a heart, a shred of humanity and concern for our national interests, here is why you need to consider (at least) taking the time to read the dark horse’s positions.

I want to inspire America to take a new path, a different direction.

I envision an America which has the capacity to reconnect with the heart of the world; an America which proceeds in the world optimistically and courageously. An America which understands that the world is interdependent, that it is inter-connected, and that what we do today impacts future generations.

I want to break the shackles of fear which have deprived our citizens of rights. We need to change the way this country values humanity, so that instead of fear and lies, we can live our lives based on principles of peace and hope. We need to regain the trust of the American people and we need to have a government which trusts the American people.

It’s time for America to resume its glorious journey; time to reject shrinking jobs and wages, disappearing savings and rights; time to reject the detour towards fear and greed. It’s time to look out upon the world for friends, not enemies; time to counter the control of corporations over our politics, our economy, our resources, and mass media.

It’s time for those who have much to help those who have little, by maintaining a progressive tax structure. It’s time to tell the world that we wish to be their partner in peace, not their leader in war. Most of all, it is time for America to again be the land where dreams come true, because the government is on the side of its people.

Dennis J. Kucinich

Ten Key Issues

1. Universal Health Care
2. International Cooperation: US out of Iraq, UN in
3. Jobs and Withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO
4. Repeal of the “Patriot Act”
5. Guaranteed Quality Education, Pre-K Through College
6. Full Social Security Benefits at Age 65
7. Right-to-Choose, Privacy and Civil Rights
8. Balance Between Workers and Corporations
9. Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy
10. Restored Rural Communities and Family Farms

I may be currently living on the fringe, wearing my rose-colored glasses and praying for a flaming miracle but this is really about common sense.  Government should take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.  In this day and age, when many of us do not have access to quality healthcare, we need government intervention.  In this day and age, when our government is serving as Big Brother, we need a leader to repeal the invasion of personal privacy known as the Patriot Act.  We need to gain control over the big business machine known as predatory lending via student loan agencies and provide quality education to college students without cranking out generation after generation of young professionals who are in debt.  We need to get out of bullshit skirmishes such as Iraq.  And we need to pull the government out of the legislation of our reproductive organs.

If you consider yourself a marginal conservative, one who desires small government, try to expand your horizons and understand that Liberals do, indeed, agree with you.  Even if we want to pay your medical expenses and tuition.

It’s been proven that there is no such thing as a compassionate conservative.  Let’s try to introduce rational liberal into our political mix and see what happens.  The worst outcome is another four years of intolerable bullshit which is basically what we have been living with for years.

Oh…and let’s take G-d and religion out of government while we’re at it, for phuck’s sake.  It’s only what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created this (once) great Nation.

Thoughts of a Royal Visit

Posted by High Priestess Kang as Observations, Op/Ed

*le sigh*

Most of us Americans expect very little in the way of decorum from our President.  This is a man who has done his best to shun his New England, preparatory school upbringing in favor of acting like a loud mouthed Texan, knuckle dragging, grass chewing, snus spitting ignoramus.  He finds this charming.  I find it grating.  And insulting to anyone who walks upright.

Alas…George Bush inserts his foot in his mouth with reckless aplomb this afternoon, insinuating the dear Queen is well over 200 years old.  Yay us.

Watching Scarborough Country this evening, Joe chats it up with a stuffed shirt British subject who decides to remind the colonial turkeys (former colonial turkeys I hasten to add) exactly how uncouth and void of manners we are.  SSBS also takes the opportunity to remind us of our poor diction and rhetoric, along with the hours of amusement Yanks offer to “subjects.”

*spits chicken bone from mouth*

Now…don’t get me wrong.  I do not lump all of Her Majesty’s subjects in a wooden, barrel bathtub.  Some of her subjects are enchanting and delightful.  That said…I have met some of her subjects who are not fit to lick the piss off a bum’s tattered boots.  I have encountered garish, boorish, bingo-winged sows, snaggle-toothed Carling swilling dole-dwelling deadbeat dads and SOCCER (because I’m American, dammit) hooligans.

It’s cute that the British cling to their monarchy. Rather darling, I must say.  In the United States, those who marry and phuck their cousins and hunt for pleasure are typically…um…of a lower class.  Not in Europe.  These exalted in-breds are featured on currency (ok…those who do not use the Euro).

There is one thing Her Majesty’s subjects will fail to understand.  Americans do not care.  Really.  We don’t.  If you think we do, think of that bullshit, mounted Royal Brigade Nixon suggested in the 70s.  We revolted for a reason.  Not only did we loathe your tea tax but we found your wigs to be quite foppish and dandy, as well.

Please do not expect us to roll out the red carpet, lock our jaws, sip tea with our pinkies at an angle and crave dry scones and boiled meat.  This is not our society.  It is yours.  And for phuck’s sake, before laughing at your American cousin, think of your own crass members of society.  I should prefer an obnoxious redneck to a boorish lout who fancies cross dressing (Eddie Izzard excluded) as a main form of amusement. 

*so sayeth the girl with the distinctive Mid-Atlantic, upper-middle class suburban accent.*

Grrrrr…and lastly…at least our men remove their socks before engaging in the deed.

Further proof it’s still a man’s world…

Posted by High Priestess Kang as Op/Ed, Tentacle Wagging

By no means will you see me glued to financial magazines. I do read them.  Rather often, as a matter of fact, but I’m not a fastidious and/or voracious reader like some. 

A Forbes article caught my eye today.  It offers helpful suggestions on how to network without saying a word.  Key techniques in body language, poise and carriage.  As a negotiator by trade, I put a lot of stock into this sort of stuff.  Being able to identify certain postures makes the negotiation process a lot easier. Easier to manage.  Easier to manipulate.

The article written by Janell Nanos (Janelle is a feminine name, yes?) was nothing short of a gross disappointment.  Forbes, appealing to those with three second attention span, also follows up the article with a small slide show.  Of the eleven slides with cartoon art, there is only one slide referencing a female.  Everything else has to do with men.  From what tie one wears, to one’s loafers, cut of suit and fashion etiquette.  Nothing…save the slide with the feminine eyes, addresses women.

Are women supposed to eschew networking?  Does the process of networking not apply to women?  Can women not learn from these valid tools and suggestions?

In a day and age when women have been in the work place for a considerable time, one would think the newer generations, such as Gen X and Gen Y would be paving the way for gender parity.  When lessons such as this highlight those with outdoor plumbing and ignore those with indoor plumbing, it makes me wonder if women will ever have the opportunity to advance to significant positions of power and authority.  Especially if otherwise reliable resources subliminally convey messages that it is still a man’s world.

The most heartbreaking, frustrating thing about this article is the fact that a woman wrote it.  Granted, some writers are driven by editors or other factors with respect to assignments.  I appreciate that.  But this woman should be ashamed for perpetuating a long standing challenge for women. 

Shame on her and shame on Forbes Magazine.  I believe that is the last article I will read from that periodical.  And she, her sources, the animator, along with asshat that ordered the article, approved the article and approved the artwork should have their heads on pikes.

How To Network Without Saying A Word

For some schmoozers, networking is the art of working the room, glad-handling folks while oozing charm. But much of networking depends on what you don’t say. Often, getting ahead in the game means knowing what messages you’re sending before you open your mouth.

The key to networking without words is realizing what you’re communicating at all times. “We tend to forget that silence speaks,” says Patrick Miller, author of Body Language on the Job. “It’s a matter of paying attention and being cognizant of what you’re doing nonverbally. Everything you’re doing is being watched.”

And the watching begins the first second you meet. In Malcolm Gladwell’s best-selling book Blink, he spends 288 pages describing the two-second period in which snap judgments are made. This “rapid cognition” about body language, clothing and appearance can help determine whether someone thinks you’re a competent candidate or a criminal. “In an interview situation, research shows that positive or negative impressions are made very early on,” says Tim Butler, the director of career development programs at Harvard Business School. “Often, the rest of the interview is to confirm the initial impression.”

So when networking, it’s best to err on the side of formality, says Dr. David Givens, the director of the Center for Nonverbal Studies in Spokane, Wash. It may seem like motherly advice, but Givens insists there’s science behind the adage that you should stand up straight and wear a suit. “There are animal vibes [in the business world], and you need to show you’re strong,” he says. “Fortunately, there are certain optical illusions built into a jacket that make you think a person is bigger and stronger than he or she really is.”

A suit’s sleeves make arms appear thicker and more intimidating, and padding in the shoulders masks subconscious shrugging that might make you look weak. “The slightest shrug will be seen and decoded unconsciously that you’re not 100% sure of what you’re doing,” Givens says.

Then there’s the added benefit of the flare of the lapel–up and out–which gives the appearance of puffing out your chest, also conveying strength. “That’s why the suit jacket has survived,” he says. “It has these messages built in.”

And the tie? It serves its animalistic purpose as well, creating a vertical line down the chest, making one appear taller and covering the notch below the Adam’s apple that’s instinctively seen as a weak point (as in “go for the jugular”).

And despite endless analysis of the red “power tie,” it’s actually best to choose one that’s a pastel shade, says Givens, who has found that adding white to a strong color helps to make you seem more approachable on first glance. “You’re more likable in lighter colors, as you let a sense of purity and trust show through,” he says.

Hand gestures are a decisive way to make a nonverbal impression (as anyone who has ever been cut off on the highway will tell you). But there are far better ways to use your hands. “Avoid looking at your watch, rubbing your nose and arranging your hair,” says Miller. “All these unconscious grooming habits collectively paint a picture that you’re uncomfortable.”

Instead, use your hands to your advantage by keeping them on the table, Givens suggests, since it makes you appear more actively engaged in the discussion. The same connection can be made while dropping off a memo by pausing momentarily and placing your hand on the person’s desk. “It shows that you’re confident by getting into their territory in an assertive way,” says Givens. “It sends a subtle message that you’ve been closer to them, and that little gesture can sometimes make a difference and stick in the memory, giving you an edge over someone else.”

When meeting someone for the first time, a good handshake is vital, says Kevin Ferrazzi, professional development consultant and author of Never Eat Alone. He suggests a pair of techniques often used by Bill Clinton that can help you stand out: The two-handed handshake, which shows your enthusiasm, and the quick grab of the elbow, which draws people in. “The ability to extend your hand and pull people in is a powerful way to connect with someone,” he says.

And don’t forget to look them in the eye. “I cannot overemphasize the importance of eye contact,” says Ferrazzi. “There is nothing worse that the smarmy eye-darter who’s consistently looking around the room for someone more important to talk to.”

“In America, the expectation for eye contact is extraordinarily high, somewhere north of 90%,” says Butler. “Looking away and breaking off contact is often interpreted as a lack of self-confidence or uncertainty.” He often has to teach international students to let go of their cultural habits of looking away in deference and allow their eyes to linger.

But it’s also important to share attention when listening in a group setting. “A mistake that people often make is to give excessive eye contact to the dominant individual,” says Butler. “Zeroing in on the power brokers is obvious behavior. It’s not only bad manners, but you’re really ignoring people who are important. You need to sweep [your vision] and ensure that you’re including everybody. Decisions aren’t made just by the boss–they’re made by groups.”

Most of all, the experts stress, it’s important to appear authentic. Actively listen to people while they’re talking to you, and extend an open palm in their direction to show you understand what they’re saying, says Givens. Try to know who you’ll be talking to before you’re introduced, and carry a pen and paper to jot down notes on their family, job and interests that you can use later. And don’t pull out your business card too quickly, Ferrazzi warns, or you risk pushing your credentials onto someone who might actually be more interested in you as a person, thereby ruining the beginning of a beautiful network.

slide show

Corporate Voyeurism III: Getting to know the shit we shouldn’t

Posted by High Priestess Kang as Op/Ed, T3h Intarweb

Madame Firesnake makes several valid points.

An employer assumes liability when making the decision to hire, promote, demote or terminate an employee.  That’s a fact.  In most States in the United States, there are terms called, “Right to Hire.”  This is a sugary way of saying, “Right to Fire.”  Right to fire or overlook competence on the basis of private, personal conduct which do not negatively impact the operations of an organization.

Here’s my biggest fear…

We live in a culture where the right to privacy is being eroded on a daily basis.  Sadly, the erosion is becoming a socially accepted norm.  When your government disregards your basic rights as a citizen for gain, that is wrong.

The same concept needs to be applied with respect to corporations.

A corporate does not necessarily need to know if one’s sambo (erm…for non Swedes, it’s the term for live in partner which fails to exist in English.  Shame.  It’s a neat little package) is unhappy about a prospective transfer/relocation.  Yeah.  The employee may have tension at home.  Yeah.  It may be distracting.  Has the organization thought about the fact that the one being relocated may not put the same priority on his personal relationship as his career?  What happens if he was truly seeking that promotion?  What happens if his relationship was stale and he was looking for an excuse to get out?

Granted, that’s not exactly noble behavior.  But it happens daily.

The CV details the candidate’s accomplishments and qualifications.  Performance reviews certify the candidate’s accomplishments and qualifications.  A personal website should not be factored into the equation.  It is that simple.

Should one make the sad discovery that a prospect and/or employee is a pedo, a thief, a cyber-bully…you know…appropriate action should be take.  Should one make the sad discovery that one’s partner is unhappy, one doesn’t like figs or greenbeans or one is a radical music pirate or likes to grow t3h herb in their basement and none of those behaviors and/or situations negatively impacts conduct in the workplace…I say…slap their noses with a rolled up newspaper.

It’s none of your phucking business.  Seriously.

I don’t want to know what my colleagues, managers, directors and subordinates do in their off time.  I really don’t want to know what their hobbies are.  If the candidate and/or employee is performing to expectations, that is all that matters.  Fretting over the public announcement that one’s sambo is concerned about a relocation…eh…how exactly are you managing your resources as an organization? 

If I were a stock holder, I should be concerned about the waste of time, money and effort.  I should also worry if qualified talent is being dismissed because of the on-line behaviors in private hours.

Privacy is privacy.  What next?  Monitoring employees?  “Oh gee!  Sally went to a bar, got drunk and snogged a stranger.  Now she has the drip.”  The minds that worry about this sort of shit will wonder if the drip is going to raise insurance premiums.  Now look what happens…nothing is safe.  Including Sally’s dignity.  Although…Sally should be sent a condom.

Corporate Voyeurism II: Getting to know you.

Posted by Ming the Merciless as Blogging, Guest Author, Ming the Merciless, Op/Ed, T3h Intarweb

The advantage that Ms. K and I both have over the MySpace generation is that we understand that what we put out on the internet is public. Very much so. I think that, despite our activity here, we are both pretty private people. We enjoy the pseudo anonymity and trust that, much like if we were having lunch in a restaurant or shopping in the mall, other people may wander by but most of them will keep on going, wrapped up in their own lives. Of course those interested enough to participate have an open invitation to join, but most of them won’t.

On to blogging and corporations… as Ms. K took the position that corporations should be barred from digital snooping on their employee’s personal lives, so I took the position that they are entitled to information about their employees that those employees choose to make available to the entire world via the internet.

First, a company has a legitimate need to perform Google searches related to itself and it’s employees. There are a number of web sites devoted to consumer protection where customers can post reviews and complaints, and with the proliferation of blogs people do share experiences they have had with companies and their employees. If I saw Tina from the Milwaukee Denny’s pick her nose and then serve food without washing her hands, and I blog it, that is pertinent to her employer. (I’ve never been to Milwaukee. You are safe, Tina!) If my cable guy shows up drunk and I blog about it, that information is important to his employer and directly related to his job.

A company also has a legitimate right to information you may make publicly available as it pertains to your job, your work ethic, what you do at work. If someone blogs about stealing from their employer, having sex with a temp in the copy room, how they pretend to be filing but instead take a nap in the 3rd floor conference room every afternoon, I also think that it’s within the employer’s rights to make use of that information. (Stupid, right? But people do…)

An aside: Ms. K mentioned blogging from work, though not necessarily about. I personally don’t think it’s a good idea since an employer may seize on that use of resources as their excuse to dismiss an employee rather than admitting it wasn’t the act of blogging but what was written. Also, it’s a good idea to know the information systems policy. I’ve worked for companies that absolutely forbid any personal use (yeah, right) of their resources and companies who specifically allowed for personal use as long as it didn’t impact job performance or consume excessive amounts of resources.

As Ms. K has pointed out (was it in her post or our conversation?), previously your boss would have to move in the same circles as you to be privy to information about your personal life. That’s over. Companies understand, even if most people don’t, that your clients and coworkers are also privy to that information. If one of the Google hits when someone searches your name is a picture of you doing blow off a dead hooker in Mexico City during a college road trip fifteen years ago, odds are that one of your coworkers (or customers!) will see it. Should your employer be able to fire you for that? I don’t have an easy answer. It’s something that occurred off the clock before you were even hired, but at the same time you could be responsible for undermining millions of dollars spent on marketing in one fell swoop, branding XYZ Corporation “the place where their stock analysts do blow off dead Mexican hookers.”

And what about personal information like that in the article cited? What about normal, every day domestic problems made public not by the potential employee, but by family or friends? What should employers do when faced with “I think my husband is an alcoholic,” “I don’t want to move,” “I think she’s having an affair,” or any of the multitude of personal issues that may be raised?

Those things do have an effect on someone’s job performance.

However, I’m nothing if not fair. The burden should not remain entirely on the employee, to be handed a rejection letter or pink slip with no recourse for something that may or may not have any impact on their professional life.

When an employer chooses to make use of the internet to research current or potential employees, those employees and candidates should be made aware. In my opinion, it falls under the heading of performing periodic background checks on employees. The difference is that with so many of us putting so much of our lives online, the insight into who we are is much greater than an employer was ever privy to before, when receiving vetted personal references and having access primarily to legal records and credit histories. Most employers didn’t have the recourse to find out whether we have substance abuse problems, medical problems, personal problems, what our personal beliefs and ideologies are. Now they do, if we choose to put that information out there.

The employer also needs to accept some responsibility for what they find. If they find blogs detailing sexual harassment in the workplace, personal problems due to long hours spent working, financial problems due to low wages, the need for better benefits, they need to step up and do what they can to correct those work related issues. Again, previously, the employer would only be aware of those problems if the employee raised the concerns or they moved in the same circles. Now, if they are doing internet searches on employees, they don’t have that excuse.

That is partly why I do find the article that Ms. K has quoted so interesting. It’s concrete proof that the employer did take into account information about the domestic situation of the employee found via the internet. What is missing is what, exactly, concerned Noss. Certainly, Mr. Pihlström is not the only person in their employ to have a partner less than thrilled at the prospect of relocation. Do they ask in the interview how domestic partners feel about the potential relocation and he lied? Why does the potential employee’s home situation matter to them?

From a business perspective, an employee with an unhappy home life often brings that with them to work. Performance issues based on that information are a valid concern, as are worries that if they go to the expense of relocating and training Mr. Pihlström, he may abandon the position under pressure from his girlfriend.

People are not just the nine to five cogs in the corporate machine that companies wish they were and if those companies choose to make decisions based on the very human aspects of their employee’s lives that occur outside of working hours, they forfeit the right to ask those same employees to check their personal lives, beliefs, and opinions at the door.

Employers need to open a dialog about what they find, not least of all because there is no guarantee that the blog they are reading definitively to the John Doe in their employ. An employer that is going to make decisions based on a person’s life outside of working hours first needs to make sure that they are reading about the right person. And the person in question deserves the opportunity to explain themselves and to be made aware of any concerns the employer might have.

Ultimately, the burden falls on the person who makes that information available. Blogging is something you do on your own, from the privacy of your own home, but the information you put out there is available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. It’s not private. When you discuss your domestic situation, your politics, your sexual preferences, you are not talking only among friends. The real world analogy is not sitting around your kitchen table having coffee with the girls (or a beer with the guys). It’s not even really like the crowded restaurant or the mall, because there you don’t wear a name tag. When you blog there are privacy controls, you have the ability to restrict who can read what you write. If you leave it open to everyone, the expectation should be that anyone may read it.

Corporate Voyeurism

Posted by High Priestess Kang as Op/Ed, T3h Intarweb

Job prospects undone by girlfriend’s blog

After four a half years of intensive studies, civil engineer Jonas Pihlström thought he had found a job for which he was perfectly suited - but his girlfriend’s blog may have put paid to his ambitions as the company instead opted for a candidate with fewer qualifications.

Pihlström and his girlfriend recently moved to a new apartment in Gothenburg.

She was keen to stay in their new home and displayed little enthusiasm when he put in an application for a job with Noss, a company specializing in fibre development systems for the paper industry. The company is located in Norrköping, over three hundred kilometres from Gothenburg.

At first, Pihlström did not think too much about the rejection when it arrived in the post. But then he took a closer look at the enclosed documents.

Inside the envelope he found a print-out from his girlfriend’s anonymous blog. He read the relevant excerpt: “This week he is going to find out about the job in Norrköping. Hope he doesn’t get it. As I’ve said before, I don’t want to move”.

On the printed sheet was a post-it note with the question: “What to do?”

Even now Pihlström does not know how the company found his girlfriend’s blog. He also questions the significance of such investigations for a prospective employer.

“It could be friends writing or whatever. This is completely irrelevant information for the employer,” he told news agency TT.

He added that most of the print-out focused on his girlfriend’s guinea pig.

Despite his girlfriend’s preference for Gothenburg, the couple are currently in the process of moving. Since being turned down by Noss, Pihlström has been offered work at a paper mill in Vänersborg, 100 kilometres from Gothenburg.

Noss has conceded that it was a mistake to send Pihlström the print-out. But the company does not think it did anything wrong when searching online for information about the applicant.

Personnel manager Tommy Jersenius would not say whether the blog entry was a deciding factor.

“When you hire somebody, there are a number of circumstances you evaluate. Other than that I have no further comment,” Jersenius told The Local.

This is disconcerting.  Disconcerting on multiple levels. 

Madame Firesnake and I had a very spirited debate regarding this topic after we read the story.  Given that we have decidedly different positions on the issue, we thought it would be interesting to share them. 

A little personal background, if you will indulge me.  My former manager caught wind of my blog from a signature on my personal email.  My personal, non-work, e-mail used to dispatch a message about my taking a leave of absence.  His curiosity could not be contained.  He clicked the link.  He wasn’t happy.  He wasn’t happy about many reasons.

In all fairness, I did make posts during work.  Yes.  I was wrong.  I should not have used the company computer to make personal posts.  However, not one to flutter around the office and gossip, I figured the five minutes I made the post easily offset the half an hour some would spend jabbering away.  But, I was still wrong.

My former manager never cared for my politics.  He leaned toward the Right.  He supports George Bush.  I have never been quiet about my opinions of this administration.  I have never been shy about educating, clarifying and demonstrating that facts have been skewed to such a point that there is little truthiness emanating from the White House these days.  This further angered the manager.

The problem boiled down to the manager’s inability to stay away from my website.  My website.  My website operated in another country, on different computers and hosted on servers far, far away.  My website contributed to a lot of unnecessary, contentious moments in the workplace.  Basically, I was being punished for behaviors that were completely unrelated to work, had no bearing on my job and would not jeopardize my career.  Or so I thought.

As you can read in the article above, a man was deprived an opportunity because his organization researched his girlfriend’s blog.  Note…not his blog.  It was the blog of his girlfriend.

How far are corporations going to go in pursuit of data regarding an employee or perspective employee?  When is privacy actually privacy?  When do people cease being employees and start being human beings, positive contributors to society without the id tag displaying who owns them during business hours?  When is enough…enough.

There are corporations who try to legislate and limit certain behaviors of employees.  Yes…employees should not be using smack.  On company time or off.  Yes…employees should not be engaging in destructive, detrimental behaviors as the company will be forced to absorb the cost through intensely high insurance premiums.  I can respect, although disagree, those organizations who demand employees cease smoking.  Smoking does make you sick, smoking does raise insurance premiums.  It’s a fact.

But what about other behaviors?  What about behaviors that have no negative implication on an employee’s productivity?  How far are corporations willing to go to vet, confirm, audit and monitor their staff?  When do we, as a workforce, draw a line in the sand and say, “this must not be crossed?”

As the electronic age exposes more of us, as it becomes a lot easier to compile data on an individual, how far do we allow corporations to dig into our private lives?  A dangerous precedent is being set. 

People who use the internet for a variety of reasons for their own, personal amusement should not be monitored by a corporation.  If the person is utilizing the internet for amusement and not breaking the law, violating any corporate code of ethics, why should an employer be able to use these tools and wares to render decisions they otherwise would not?

My thoughts and my time are exactly that.  Mine.  My leisure time that I earn, cherish and own because I am an autonomous adult.  There should be absolutely no reason why any corporation should be looking at this website to render judgement on my qualifications to properly do a position.  Especially if the position has nothing to do with website administration and/or writing.

At the risk of sounding like chicken little, the sky is falling.  Big brother is officially watching us in our off time.  The issue remains…what do we do about it?  How far do we let this go?  What happened to civil liberties.

Regardless of nation of domicile.