R O O M S
| | |||||
| | | | |||
| |
Damn, looks like you really have come a long way baby.
Fortunately, there are a few simple things you can do to help ensure the success of your relationship:
Now that I have given you some of my tips for a happy relationship, discuss with your loved one what's already working in your relationship and share that with each other...and all the rest of us! What are your tried-and-true tips for a loving relationship?
Welcome to the sometimes wonderful, often awful, world of dating in the workplace. Whether you have a crush on a higher-up or an inkling for a intern, mixing business and pleasure is almost never a good idea. But, let's face it, sometimes inner office hijinks can be irresistible -- so here's how to make sure you make it through a workplace rendezvous unscathed.
Familiarize yourself with the HR policy. Not all companies have the same stance on inner-office romance. Some companies allow it, others discourage it, and a few even have written policies that ban it. After becoming familiar with your own company's policy on inner-office dating, consider whether or not the relationship is worth the potential risks to your career and reputation.
You're not fooling anyone. If you decide to continue with your office fling, be open with your employers and your coworkers. Nothing is worse than dishonesty in these situations, especially because most people are savvy enough to realize what is really going on. Inform human resources and your employer, and casually let your coworkers know the scoop. Of course, torrid details are not necessary, but make sure that you aren't letting deception ruin your otherwise impeccable reputation.
Avoid naughty email exchanges. Save the romantic words for your sweetie until the bell has rung. Emailing via the company computer is a recipe for disaster, especially if that email recounts personal exchanges that would be humiliating if made public.
Try to keep it professional. Don't let your newfound crush change the way you treat each other. Keep it professional as much as possible when at work, and save the cutesy nicknames and special treatment for when you are at home. Additionally, don't devote all your time to one another. Maintaining a rapport with other coworkers is part of being a savvy businessperson, as you never know when you might need those contacts later in life.
Take the high road. If the relationship should end, coming into work will definitely be stressful and emotionally trying for some time. However, you can keep the office as tension-free as possible if you both agree not to gossip about the relationship with other coworkers. Take the high road and try to maintain a respectful and professional demeanor, especially in front of others.
If you can't resist the lure of a cubicle cutie, go ahead and give dating in the workplace a try. But don't say I didn't warn you!
When you spend as much time huffing, puffing and perfecting the power squat as I do, you're bound to develop some pet-peeves at the gym. For the most part, the people who work out along side me are wonderful people (I'm sure) who just want to live stronger, healthier lives. But there are always those locker-room rejects that make the gym a less than awesome social-sphere. Here is my ode to the nebbishes of the NordicTrak:
1. Cellphone exercisers. That half hour you're spending on the elliptical at level -1 shouldn't come between you and your unlimited nighttime minutes. After all, talking is a good toner for your jaw muscles.
2. Group fitness gossips. I'm so glad that you had a great date with John, really, but do you honestly want a room of 20 strangers to know that he's not the best kisser? Let's give John his dignity back, and me, my ability to get through a spin class without images of Carrie running through my mind.
3. Too cool to clean guy. Loud shallow breathing and hot sweaty bodies can be incredibly sexy, just not in this environment, so if you could mop of the puddle of sweat you've left on the chest press machine that would be great. Thanks!
4. "Can I work in?" Guy. No you may not. This whole thing takes me like two minutes and there are a bajillion other big manly machines in here. I'm not going to change back to my modest 45 lbs. of resistance after you show off your big strong muscles by pulling down more than I weigh after Thanksgiving dinner. Please wait your turn, or work in with that guy over there, he likes in-working as well.
5. Better than thou trainers. Yes you're cool, you get to wear the polo shirt with the gym logo, now can you please go do something besides crowd the water fountain?
Check out the rest of the most annoying gym personalities over at Elastic Waist!
It never fails. Every time I go to the gym, I'm amazed by some people's gym etiquette...or for that matter...the lack there of. Although everyone is entitled to their good days and bad days, there is no excuse for flat out bad behavior. Here is a top ten list of those that are most inexcusable:
10. This isn't American Idol: Keep the singing, grunting and hyperventilating for the shower!
9. Not Putting Equipment Back where it Belongs: No, the 50 lb dumbbell does NOT go back in the 5 lb weight spot. There is a ZERO after the 5.
8. Chatting-Cathy and then Some: Chatty Cathy loudly regails her friend about her shopping spree at Target, her date with her dreamboat, her mani and pedi, her boss who she has a crush on, yada, yada, yada...
7. Exercising while on your Cellphone: Unless a person is expecting some majorly important news, there is no need to hold their cellphone hostage on the treadmill. Further, the last thing anyone needs to hear is the new 'Baby Got Back' ringtone.
6. Hijacking Equipment: Oblivious people who somehow don't see that you are waiting for a machine or in between sets.
5. Stalking other People: 'Heavy Breather' is standing right on top of you waiting for you to finish your set and/or 'Meathead' comes over to talk to you while you are obviously hard at work. No space...bad breath...hovering. Back-off buddy! This isn't a meat market!
4. Hogging Equipment: 'Camping-out' on equipment or running on the treadmill for 3 hours when there is a sign clearly stating that there is a 30 minute time limit on equipment. Let's learn to share...
3. Romper Room Fitness: It is so much fun when there are children running throughout the gym, hopping on and off equipment, screaming and yelling during your yoga class. Ohmmm!!!
2. Sliming up the equipment: Leaving behind sweat, dead skin cells and/or dandruff all over the equipment. This is not a forensics lab people!
1. Stinking up the Joint: Lack of deoderant, a bath in cologne or major gastrointestanal disorders are never really that aromatic...no matter how great you think any of it may smell.
What behaviors have you been subjected to?
Doctors who waited just 75 seconds after the final heartbeat before removing the hearts of dying newborns for transplants said on Wednesday they improved their odds of success but have also raised ethical questions about organ harvesting.
The cases of two children who died between May 2004 and May 2007, and a third in which doctors waited three minutes, are detailed in a report and a series of commentaries in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The technique is controversial because the waiting time recommended by the
But the doctors who performed the transplants said moving quickly helped save the lives of three infant recipients.
The matter is particularly critical for infants who desperately need a heart transplant. "Each year, as many as 50 infants are placed on the waiting list for cardiac transplantation but die while waiting, owing to the lack of a suitable donor heart," the journal's executive editor Dr. Gregory Curfman and others wrote.
Historically, death was defined by a stopped heart. But the longer an oxygen-starved heart sits in a warm chest cavity, the lower the likelihood it can be successfully transplanted.
So doctors are struggling to define "circulatory death," to determine when the heart has beaten for the last time once life support has been withdrawn.
WAITING FOR DEATH
In the first case, the
Dr. Mark Boucek, who led the
In the case of the three newborn infants, death took as long as 27.5 minutes.
"Adding an additional two, three or five minutes, or even 75 seconds, does add some additional injury. It could be 10 percent," he said in a telephone interview.
"The 6-month survival rate was 100 percent for the 3 transplant recipients and 84 percent for 17 control infants who received transplants procured through standard organ donation," Boucek's team wrote.
All three dying infants, each just a few days old, had severe brain damage, were given painkillers and an anti-anxiety drug before life support was removed.
"As a result of their investigational protocol, three babies are now alive; had the procedures not been performed, it is virtually certain that all six babies would be dead," Curfman and the other editors wrote.
Dr. James Bernat of
"Removing organs from a patient whose heart not only can be restarted, but also has been or will be restarted in another body, is ending a life by organ removal," Dr. Robert Veatch of
Gene Emery, Alan Elsner and Maggie Fox
Infant Transplant Procedure Ignites Debate
Ethicists Question Strategy in Which Hearts Are Removed Minutes After They Stop Beating
Surgeons in
A detailed description of the transplants in today's issue of the New England Journal of Medicine has ignited an intense debate about whether the first-of-their-kind procedures are pushing an already controversial organ-retrieval strategy beyond acceptable legal, moral and ethical bounds.
The doctors who performed the operations as part of a federally funded research project defended the practice, and some advocates for organ donation praised the operations as offering the first clear evidence that the procedures could provide desperately needed hearts for terminally ill babies.
Critics, however, are questioning the propriety of removing hearts from patients, especially babies, who are not brain-dead and are asking whether the
"This bold experiment is pushing the boundaries and raising many questions," said James L. Bernat, a
"This clearly shows the feasibility of doing this," Bernat said. "The question is: Should this be done?"
The operations are occurring as transplant advocates have become increasingly aggressive in trying to bridge the gap between the number of available livers, kidneys, hearts and other organs and the number of Americans on the waiting list for transplants.
Since the 1970s, most organs have been removed only after doctors declared a patient brain-dead. But in the hopes of obtaining more organs, federal health officials, transplant surgeons and organ banks have been intensely promoting "donation after cardiac death," or DCD. DCD usually involves patients who have devastating and irreversible brain damage but are not actually brain-dead. Their families consent to removing life support, and their organs are removed minutes after the patients' hearts stop beating.
While DCD has become increasingly common, it remains highly controversial. Critics say it endangers the care of dying patients -- a
To address such concerns, hospitals follow strict guidelines, including requiring a clear division between doctors caring for the patients and those removing and transplanting the organs. Most also require surgeons to wait at least two minutes -- and usually five -- after a heart stops to make sure it does not spontaneously start beating again on its own, which has occurred in rare cases.
The Washington Post reported last year that doctors at the Denver Children's Hospital had started removing hearts from babies, sometimes waiting only 75 seconds to increase the chances that the organs would be viable. The new report marks the first time the doctors have described their efforts in a medical journal.
The report details three cases between 2004 and 2007 involving babies who experienced severe brain damage from oxygen deprivation during birth. Their parents decided to discontinue life support several days following their birth after doctors told them there was no hope. The surgeons waited three minutes before removing the first baby's heart, but just 75 seconds for the second and third after an ethics panel monitoring the research decided that would be sufficient.
Surgeons transplanted the hearts into three babies 1 to 4 months old who were dying of heart problems. Six months later, all three recipients were alive, compared with 84 percent of 17 babies who received hearts retrieved through standard organ-donation protocols.
"We're very pleased with the lives we saved," said Mark M. Boucek, who led the team before moving to the Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital in
James Burdick of the Department of Health and Human Services, which funded the study, agreed.
"In a very important way, it's a wonderful story. You had three situations with hopeless medical problems who would have otherwise died but got this gift of life," he said. "It's an important demonstration of what is possible."
But critics questioned whether the donor babies were truly dead when their hearts were removed. In those cases, the hearts were restarted in another child's body, meaning cessation was not irreversible, they argued.
"This practice cannot be ethically justified," said George J. Annas, a
Robert M. Veatch, a
"The whole issue is whether the infants from whom the hearts were taken were dead. It seems very clear to me that they were not," he said. "I think it's illegal, and if it's illegal, what we're talking about is the physicians causing the death of the three patients, and that would be homicide. It's immoral. I think it should be stopped."
Boucek, the cardiologist, argued that the hearts were incapable of functioning in the newborns from whom they were removed, satisfying any question about pronouncing the babies dead.
"At the end of the day, we feel we are on very firm ground," he said. "There is no question these all met the criteria that one would establish for death."
Burdick called assertions that the babies were not dead "fussy semantics" that do not "really make common sense."
Because the procedures reopened so many contentious fault lines, two other ethicists proposed scrapping the fundamental ethical tenet that has guided organ transplantation for decades: the "dead donor rule," which states that organs should never be removed from a patient who is not dead. Robert D. Truog of Harvard Medical School and Franklin G. Miller of the National Institutes of Health argued that people with devastating brain injuries or terminal illness, or their family members, should be allowed to decide whether to consent to donate an organ, without needing to adhere to any specific method for declaring death.
"It's a much cleaner way to go, and avoids all of the crazy stuff that we're talking about here, in terms of how do we diagnose death," Truog said during the taped debate.
But a surgeon speaking on behalf of the United Network for Organ Sharing, which oversees the nation's organ-transplant system, rejected that approach, as did several bioethicists. Several experts worry that the
"The whole area of organ donation relies on the public trusting physicians, in that they believe they won't murder them or commit homicide. They won't hasten their deaths," said Arthur L. Caplan, a
Boucek welcomed such debate, but said that in the meantime, Denver Children's Hospital plans to continue the procedures and that other hospitals have begun seeking guidance about how to do them as well.
"It would be unfair to parents who are interested in donating and to the patients who would otherwise die if we stopped," he said.
Infant Heart Transplant Controversy Continues
3 new reports raise question of how long a heart must stop beating before death is certain
Three new reports challenge current guidelines on how long after cardiac death doctors must wait before taking a heart from an infant organ donor.
There's no question that organ donation saves lives, and there's also no question that there aren't enough donor organs to save everyone on the transplant list. However, deciding who is a suitable organ donor, particularly when the potential donor is an infant, is not so clear-cut.
Most people are familiar with the concept of organ donation after brain death, but organ donation is also permissible after cardiac death. Cardiac death occurs after life support is withdrawn, and the heart stops on its own. Because the heart can sometimes restart, the
Now, in the Aug. 14 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, surgeons from Denver Children's Hospital report on three cases in infant heart donors where surgeons reduced the time between when the heart stopped and when organ retrieval began. In one case, the time was shortened to three minutes, and in the other two to just 75 seconds.
The reason doctors might want to shorten this interval is to reduce the time that transplantable organs are deprived of oxygen, which likely increases the success of transplants. Doing so might also help increase the number of available organs for donations, which is important because as many as one in four babies awaiting a heart transplant dies while on the waiting list, according to the study.
"Donors who died from cardiocirculatory causes offer an opportunity to reduce waiting time and waiting-list mortality among children whose survival depends on a heart transplant," wrote the
In two of the four accompanying perspective pieces in the same issue of the journal, two experts with normally divergent viewpoints on this issue, agreed on one thing: Under the current definition of cardiac death, cardiac function must be irreversible, and by definition, if cardiac function is irreversible, how can such a heart then be placed in another person where it starts beating again? Clearly, the loss of cardiac function was not irreversible, according to Dr. Robert Truog, director of clinical ethics from
"I don't know how you can ever have a patient that meets the criteria for irreversible loss of function, and then reverse that function in someone else," said Veatch. Using other organs after cardiac death is possible, he said, but if surgeons are declaring someone dead because their heart has stopped, then under the current law, that heart shouldn't able to be used in someone else, no matter how long surgeons wait.
Truog also thinks the debate over how many seconds to wait before declaring cardiac death misses the point. "If death means irreversible loss of cardiac function and that heart beats in someone else's chest, it's not irreversible, is it?"
He said the debate over whether transplant surgeons are hastening death is similar to the debate over whether or not withdrawing mechanical ventilation was killing a patient or not from 30 years ago. Today, he said, many deaths occur in intensive care units when mechanical ventilation is withdrawn.
If a patient, or in the case of an infant or a child, the patient's surrogate, provides consent for organ donation prior to cardiac death, Truog said in his perspective, "With such consent, there is no harm or wrong done in retrieving vital organs before death, providing that anesthesia is administered. With proper safeguards, no patient will die from vital organ donation who would not otherwise die as a result of the withdrawal of life support."
Veatch takes a more conservative stance on organ procurement, and said he believes that most local organ procurement organizations wouldn't support the
Veatch said, ideally, people would have a choice when they decide to become organ donors, and that choice would include organ donation after whole brain death, organ donation if you've suffered a permanent loss of consciousness, and cardiac death. Currently, organs are only harvested after whole brain death or cardiac death, according to Veatch, and he added that only
Truog said the debate isn't likely to end soon, and sometimes, more than medical personnel get involved in these highly controversial decisions. In one case in
These days some Iraqi employees are happy with their new salaries that the government approved this month. The raises brought happiness for thousands of Iraqi families who were awaiting this step for a long time to improve their livelihood.
Unfortunately, this first step was imperfect because it didn’t include all Iraqi employees.
Again, some are oppressed in an unjustified way, depending on strange standards which the government hasn’t revealed. It’s as if the government thought it was too big a step to let all employees share the same improvement in their livelihoods without making them envy each other in bitterness.
Thousands of former military industry employees were deprived from this raise as if some want to continue punishing them for their former jobs under the old regime.
Thousands of auto-financing companies who work in huge and productive factories that provide Iraqis with essential items for their cars and trucks didn’t get the raise. Now these factories are totally neglected, and some of them have closed. The employees in these factories are left to face their poverty, as well as their broken factories that the government didn’t bother to rehabilitate to revive this important national industry.
The government said the employees of these factories should take their salaries from the revenue of their factories’ production. But that output is either depressed nowadays or is lacking customers and demand.
.
Another group of disappointed employees, teachers who were oppressed during Saddam’s reign, also didn’t get a raise. Saddam considered teachers as unproductive employees.
Sadly, in a society that once elevated the status of teachers, that once prized education, it seems the present government now regards teachers and education in much the same way as the old regime.
"You get the best of both worlds," Miley Cyrus sings in the theme song of her hugely popular Disney Channel show, "Hannah Montana." It's a reference to her character's secret double life as both a rock star AND a normal schoolgirl.
Offscreen, though, this 15-year-old phenom is starting to learn how hard it really is to have the best of both worlds: as a G-rated Disney superstar AND a real-life, growing teenager with an eye on a long career.
Cyrus, whose fresh, easy charm and down-home southern appeal have catapulted her to an astonishing level of celebrity, especially in the past year, found herself having to apologize Sunday for some entirely un-Miley photos in Vanity Fair magazine.
At a moment when she otherwise would have been relishing an amazing week — a deal for her memoirs (reportedly seven figures), the cover of People magazine and a feature in Vanity Fair — she issued a statement saying how embarassed she was. This came almost certainly at the behest of worried executives at The Walt Disney
For the record, only Cyrus' back and shoulders are bare in the most controversial shot by Annie Leibovitz, the renowned celebrity photographer. Many an Oscar-night gown would show as much skin. Cyrus herself told the magazine in an accompanying article that she found the photo, in which she gathers a sheet around her, "really artsy. It wasn't in a skanky way. And you can't say no to Annie."
But Cyrus IS 15, with a fan base that begins in preschool. And it's what the photo suggests rather than shows — the idea that she might be nude, perhaps even in bed — that bothered some parents who poured their feelings onto blogs over the weekend. She wan't nude during the shoot, nor in bed, but she does have a subtle come-hither expression.
Leibovitz said Monday that she and Cyrus had discussed the photos beforehand, and Vanity Fair said "Miley's parents and/or minders were on the set all day ... everyone thought it was a beautiful and natural portrait." As for Disney, it accused editors of creating a situation "to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old." Disney declined to make anyone connected with "Hannah Montana" available to speak for this article.
Unfortunately for Cyrus, the photos, taken in February, might not have made nearly such a splash but for a bit of awkward timing: They emerged just days after some attention-getting amateur shots of Cyrus hit the Web. In one, she tugs down a tank top to reveal a bright green bra. In another, she lies languidly on her back across a male friend, shirt raised to bare her midriff.
So the timing was terrible. But some celebrity watchers saw the developments as an attempt by Cyrus and her handlers — while not necessarily calculated — to look ahead a few years, beyond the tween audience.
"She has to find a way to gain a new following," said Peter Castro, deputy managing editor of People magazine. He likened her situation to that of a butterfly still trapped in the cocoon. "She began as a caterpillar, and made a lot of money that way, but now she doesn't know which way to go. She's thinking, soon I've got to be a butterfly."
Biological analogies aside, Cyrus' predicament evoked plenty of references to the cautionary tale of Britney Spears, who started on the Disney Channel about the same age as Cyrus and had her first huge hit, "Baby One More Time," at age 17.
"Britney was in a Miley place," said Castro. Then she decided to break out, making her persona in "Baby One More Time" a sexy schoolgirl, and doing a provocative photo shoot for Rolling Stone. "She alienated parents, but gained a whole following of older kids," says Castro.
But, he added, "I don't know that Miley could get away with that. I think her dad and management team are closely following Britney's career, saying, 'Don't let this ever happen to you.'"
Unlike the 26-year-old Britney of today, for whom the phrase "train wreck" has become an unwelcome cliche, the self-possessed and upbeat Cyrus has worn the title of "role model" easily. She has been utterly scandal-free until now, unless you count her failure to wear a seat belt during a car ride in her concert movie (her dad apologized for that, too).
"Miley's at the very top of our celebrity list," said Joanna Saltz, executive editor of Seventeen magazine, whose average reader is between 16 and 17. While Spears never appears in Seventeen, readers love Cyrus, Saltz said, because she seems genuine, unproduced, comfortable in her own skin.
"And she's just exploded," said Saltz. "A year ago she was the queen of tweens, and now she's a favorite of our readers. She's crossed all age groups."
Just how big is this young lady, whose 70-date concert tour in 2007 sold out within minutes, who had desperate parents filing lawsuits and entering wacky endurance contests (like hanging onto a pole for six days) to get tickets, who herself took home $1 million a week and something close to $20 million from the tour?
"Honestly, it's astounding," said Rolling Stone editor Andy Greene. "She was selling 20,000-seat houses. She could have sold 80,000 a night. I spoke to one dad who said the atmosphere in there was like nothing since the early Beatles concerts. It's hard to think of anything quite like this."
"Hannah Montana" is the No. 1 cable series for kids aged 6-14, and if you include the networks, second only to "American Idol." And even Cyrus' consolation prize to fans who couldn't get concert tickets, the "Best of Both Worlds Concert" 3D movie, grossed more than $60 million, a rare hit for a concert film.
Her two soundtrack albums have sold 3.5 million and 3 million copies respectively in this country, according to Nielsen SoundScan. And according to People, "Hannah Montana" merchandise — from bedding to handbags to toys to shoes — is expected to rake in $1 billion this fiscal year.
Janet Koch has made her own contribution to that sum. The mother from
Like so many other young girls, Cayla adores Cyrus, says her mother, "because she's someone she could see going to school with. She's not a diva. She's real."
"She wants to be Miley," her mom says. "She wants to do exactly what Miley's doing."
And while Cayla hasn't seen the Vanity Fair photos, her mother does not think she would be bothered by them. Cyrus would have to do a lot worse to lose these fans.
Ultimately, whether Cyrus' career will be hurt by these photos will come down to parents like Koch — after all, many tweens won't even see them.
Certainly Seventeen magazine will be staying on her side.
"What happened this weekend is part of what makes her such a great role model," says Saltz, the editor. "When she thinks she's made a mistake, she immediately owns up to it. She doesn't run from it or deny it. That's very rare to see in young celebrities today."
Smoking can be hazardous to your health, and it's turning into a bad career move, too.
A Whirlpool Corp. factory in
As annual health care premiums rise more than 10 percent a year, many companies are trying to rein in costs by encouraging healthy living.
"I can't think of a client of ours who has not shifted their focus to controlling the cost of their health care plan," said
Some employers have developed wellness programs to motivate employees, while others ask employees to state on benefits forms whether they use tobacco.
Whirlpool, based in
In
Management suspended the 39 employees Friday after they were spotted using either chewing tobacco on company property or taking a drag in one of the factory's dozen shelters for outdoor smoking, Castrale said.
"It's definitely not something we wanted to do," she said. "It's unpleasant."
The employees were suspended without pay, and they'll present their case at "fact-finding" meetings before management determines their fate. Whirlpool had to recall some laid-off workers to keep production running due to the suspensions.
A 2007 national survey showed that 16 percent of all large employers — those with 20,000 or more employees — adjust health care premium contributions according to the worker's smoking status, according to the human resources consulting firm Mercer.
The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act limits the changes an employer can make to a health premium because of a worker's unhealthy habits. But it doesn't set parameters on punishment if an employee lies about his or her habit, Paton said.
Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, which advocates for employee privacy, sees no problem with employers trying to curb smoking. But he worries that the trend of cracking down on employees' unhealthy behavior is extending beyond tobacco use.
"We shouldn't have to give employers complete control over our private life so they can save a few dollars on medical care," he said.
Massage parlors in an Indonesian town are asking their female masseuses to padlock their skirts and pants to make it clear that sex is not on offer. But the move has been protested by the women's affairs minister of
"It is not the right way to prevent promiscuity," Meutia Swasono was quoted as saying in Thursday's Jakarta Post. "It insults women ... as if they are the ones in the wrong."
At least one parlor in the tourist town of
Others in the town started following suit after local officials suggested it was a good idea at a recent meeting with parlor owners. TV footage and photos have shown several masseuses with small padlocks in the zip of their pants or skirts in recent days.
"The padlocking phenomena has been seen at various parlors and it is something we like," said Imam Suryono, the head of the town's public order authority. He denied media reports that he had formally ordered them to wear padlocks.
It was not immediately possible to contact Swasono for comment. >>>>
Bravenet Blog 
Blog Community
Get a Free Blog
Manage your Blog
bravenet.com