Despite divisions among Democrats over how far to go in revising ethics rules, House leaders plan a major rollout of an ethics reform bill early next year to demonstrate concern about an issue that helped defeat the Republicans in the midterm elections.

But they will do it with a twist: Instead of forwarding one big bill, Democrats will put together an ethics package on the House floor piece by piece, allowing incoming freshmen to take charge of high-profile issues and lengthening the time spent on the debate. The approach will ensure that each proposal — including banning gifts, meals and travel from lobbyists as well as imposing new controls on the budget deficit — is debated on its own and receives its own vote. That should garner far more media attention for the bill’s components before a final vote on the entire package.

The approach may be the first indication of how the Democrats plan to use their ability to control the House agenda as the majority power, setting the terms of debate while lifting the strict rules that Republicans used to curtail dissent.

And Democrats hope to show that they are attentive to issues of corruption that, according to exit polling, proved to be of major concern to voters on Nov. 7. House and Senate GOP leaders pledged early this year to pass major lobbying reforms in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal but never delivered on their promise.

Democratic leaders are still putting the finishing touches on the floor schedule and some of the components of the ethics package, said Jennifer Crider, spokeswoman for incoming House speaker. But other Democratic leadership aides said the proposal to break up the package and reassemble it is virtually a done deal.

While there is broad support for reform, Democrats face divisions on how far to go on some issues, such as whether to establish an independent board to enforce ethics rules. But leaders are eager to show that they are serious about tackling the corrosive influence of lobbyists and money, so much so that they are willing to spend days working on the issue. They may even let the divisions play out in public, with amendments allowed that may or may not pass, on issues from campaign finance to independent oversight.

c/o-: Jonathan Weisman; Washington Post 

The weekend after the statue of Saddam Hussein fell, Kenneth Adelman and a couple of other promoters of the Iraq war gathered at Vice President Cheney’s residence to celebrate. The invasion had been the “cakewalk” Adelman predicted. Cheney and his guests raised their glasses, toasting President Bush and victory. “It was a euphoric moment,” Adelman recalled.

Forty-three months later, the cakewalk looks more like a death march, and Adelman has broken with the Bush team. He had an angry falling-out with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld this fall. He and Cheney are no longer on speaking terms. And he believes that “the president is ultimately responsible” for what Adelman now calls “the debacle that was Iraq.”

Adelman, a former Reagan administration official and onetime member of the Iraq war brain trust, is only the latest voice from inside the Bush circle to speak out against the president or his policies. Heading into the final chapter of his presidency, fresh from the sting of a midterm election defeat, Bush finds himself with fewer and fewer friends. Some of the strongest supporters of the war have grown disenchanted, former insiders are registering public dissent and Republicans on Capitol Hill blame him for losing Congress.

A certain weary crankiness sets in with any administration after six years. By this point in Bill Clinton’s tenure, bitter Democrats were competing to denounce his behavior with an intern even as they were trying to fight off his impeachment. Ronald Reagan was deep in the throes of the Iran-contra scandal. But Bush’s strained relations with erstwhile friends and allies take on an extra edge of bitterness amid the dashed hopes of the Iraq venture.

“There are a lot of lives that are lost,” Adelman said in an interview last week. “A country’s at stake. A region’s at stake. This is a gigantic situation. . . . This didn’t have to be managed this bad. It’s just awful.”

The sense of Bush abandonment accelerated during the final weeks of the campaign with the publication of a former aide’s book accusing the White House of moral hypocrisy and with Vanity Fair quoting Adelman, Richard N. Perle and other neoconservatives assailing White House leadership of the war.

Since the Nov. 7 elections, Republicans have pinned their woes on the president.

“People expect a level of performance they are not getting,” former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said in a speech. Many were livid that Bush waited until after the elections to oust Rumsfeld.

c/o-: Peter Baker; Washington Post

Americans voted for divided government. Now they want to know how it will work in practice. Will the incoming Democratic majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate hold the executive to account, or merely obstruct it? Will President George Bush veto every bill the Democrats send his way, or only the bad ones? Will moderate Democrats and Republicans co-operate, or will party discipline trump good sense? None of these questions can be fully answered before January 3rd, when the Democrats formally take control of Congress. But the world will not stop just because America has a lame-duck legislature—this week, for example, saw alarming new revelations about Iran’s nuclear programme and the brazen mass kidnapping of education officials in Baghdad.

Both sides say they will work together. You might have thought, during the campaign, that they did not much like each other: Nancy Pelosi, the top House Democrat, called Mr Bush ignorant, incompetent and shallow and Mr Bush described the Democrats’ strategy for Iraq as “the terrorists win and America loses.” But as Mr Bush noted last week, people often say unfortunate things during campaigns, and “if you hold grudges in this line of work, you’re never going to get anything done.” He called for a “new era of co-operation”.

A whiff of bipartisanship would be nothing new in the Senate, where the minority party can thwart the majority by filibustering (blocking) legislation. But in the House, where a simple majority is enough to pass any bill, the Republicans have ruthlessly excluded Democrats from the law-making process. Dennis Hastert, the outgoing Speaker, brought bills to the floor for a vote only if they had the support of a majority of Republicans. The Democrats might perhaps like to do the same, but since their bills must be signed by Mr Bush, they cannot expect to get far if they do.

c/o-: The Economist

When Harry Truman was president of the United States, he famously displayed on his desk in the Oval Office a sign that read: ‘The buck stops here’. He understood the need to take responsibility not only for his own actions but also for those of his administration, and that this applied even to the toughest of decisions — such as dropping nuclear bombs.

Personal accountability has gone out of fashion since Truman’s day, replaced by a culture of blame that seeks to excuse individuals from the consequences of their choices. The surge in the number of people walking away from their debts, not because they have suffered an accident or lost their jobs, but merely because they cannot be bothered to pay back the money they borrowed, is the latest manifestation of this corrosive attitude.

c/o-: Alister Heath, The Spectator 

The end of the midterm election marks the official start of a 2008 presidential campaign that promises to be the most unpredictable and wide open White House contest in modern politics.

The campaign is tempting a diverse mix of ambitious leaders with the unique chance to pursue the White House without a sitting president or vice president in the way of their dreams. That hasn’t happened since President Calvin Coolidge and Vice President Charles Dawes sat out the 1928 campaign.

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and John McCain, R-Ariz., widely considered the front-runners in their respective parties, dominate the early positioning. An intriguing wild card is freshman Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., the only black in the Senate, who says he is seriously considering a presidential run.

Among the other alternatives are Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, and former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani could change the dynamics of the race if he decides to run.

All the potential candidates were reluctant to appear too personally ambitious with Senate control hanging in the balance in the midterm.

McCain’s top advisers planned a Wednesday meeting to examine the 2008 landscape. Clinton, the only serious potential presidential candidate on the ballot Tuesday, made a victory tour of New York state Wednesday.Clinton brushed aside questions about 2008.

“We have some unfinished business. I’m hoping that starting next week, we’ll have a more receptive Congress,” she said, adding, “All I’m doing is thinking about going back to work next week in Washington. I’m going to relish this victory.”

In an NBC interview, McCain cautioned against reading Democrats’ near sweep of closely-contested midterm races as a portent for 2008.

“I’m a student of history,” McCain said. “We lost badly in 1976. Ronald Reagan charted our course in 1977. We came back in 1980 and gained the presidency and majority in the United States Senate.

“Look, these things are temporary. … We’ll get back on track.”

Edwards was preparing a 16-city tour to promote his feel-good new book, “Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives.” Not coincidentally, the book was scheduled for release exactly one week after Election Day, and the tour goes through Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Hopefuls from both parties already have been campaigning in those early presidential primary voting states.

“This is going to be a donnybrook like we haven’t seen in Iowa,” said Democratic strategist Jeff Link, who is working for home state Gov. Tom Vilsack’s underdog campaign. Link said the state’s voters have been wrapped up in the midterm races, but he expects they will turn to presidential politics “pretty quickly, because the caucuses are 13 months away.”

Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, who has been an impressive fundraiser, said Wednesday he would wait until Christmas before deciding on a presidential bid, and told The Associated Press in an interview: “I think the public is ready for a break from politics.”

c/o-: Reuters

As one who receives criticism quite frequently, both in person and in a virtual forum such as on this blog, it might be helpful to talk briefly about the difference between online and offline critcisms.

As an indvidual, a friend, and a leader, I strive very hard to never blog or write anything that I wouldn’t say to the person sitting next to me. Granted, I’m an incredibly blunt individual and don’t leave much on the table. But I try to speak my mind appropriately.

Blogging seems to have raised the criticisms and bluntness of things to an entirely new level.

Want to slam someone? Write it on your blog.

Want to attack someone’s idea? Write it on your blog.

Want to make baseless accusations against someone? Write it on your blog.

Sometimes, I think we all forget that this is a business – and it’s not about emotion or personal feelings, but about what makes money.. and those attacks and baseless accusations – instead of upfront, honest dealing with each other, will eventually catch up with you.

For the people who have not had the chance to work in a proper office setting, getting used to the environment of such work places may come as a shock, especially for people who are wet behind the ears and have no background on proper business ethics. For one, the office place is a totally new place, and it is something that will need adjusting for people to be able to adopt towards the manner and practices inside the office and the protocols that need to be followed as laid out in the company’s policies and procedures.

A business is something that needs strategy, and while some sectors may find some business practices unethical, it entirely depends on the purpose and the actual belief of the people behind the organization and its business development goals. In most cases, new people will not appreciate nor grasp the purpose of the business; hence a united mission and vision from the labor force must be put into retrospect.

Business ethics is truly something that is misunderstood. A company would stand for something, practice the professional way of business to the best of their abilities for the sake of identity and awareness. Internal or external practices will truly be crucial and the best way for any employee to understand and get into the groove of things, is to initially grasp the purpose of the organization. Only till this time will the company be able to work like a well-oiled machine with complements coming from the staffing and work force and the various assets and strategies of the company.

In the current world of global giants, it’s easy to get scared at the idea of starting your own business.

When you see a giant company, we often take them as a natural part of the business landscape, rather like time or gravity.

However, when you look at the companies that have come before you, remember that Apple started in someone’s garage, Wal-Mart started with one store, and every other business started small as well. Some businesses grow explosively, and others have grown slowly but over a matter of decades.

Just look at other businesses as an example of what’s possible rather than a discouraging piece of evidence proving what you can’t do.

Office politics will always be present in any organization that most of us work for. The choice? Well, you can either avoid it or play along. In such working environments, being in this bind is really frustrating and can really get on your nerves. Most of the time, these contribute in bringing the morale of any person down. Something like locating for a need to be able push them to work hard or finding ways to fit in so that they can grow with the company as well.

No question about it, people cannot avoid this. Culture, nature, clans, you name it; there will always be some type of politics in the work place. This is to be expected at any moment, and while the duties for any employee to undertake is very much just the tip of the iceberg. Trying to co-exist to an extent and earn a decent living with these factors around, will truly make life miserable and stressful for any person caught up in this scenario.

Culture shock may be the best way to call it, especially for people who are entering a company for the very first time. However, it has been said that most companies count the working experience as well. Maybe along with these outside the professional aspect, human relationships and ability to work with the peers are among the things that are expected for a person to be cost-effective and considered an asset for any company.

Ever since the mobile phones invaded the consumer needs and wants in 1995, its evolution and reliability has been implanted in the minds of most cellular phone users anywhere in the world. Known for being at the forefront of spearheading all innovations and new mobile phone enhancements, it had totally left behind other current competitors eating their dust such as Motorola, Siemens and Ericsson. The mobile phone leadership that Nokia had for the cellular phone industry has been proven, and Nokia even experienced problems with regards to serving the large demand for their manufactured mobile phones.