You may be familiar with the title of this article if you have seen the 1934 Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers film of the same name. Interestingly, the film was not considered scandalous in its day despite the fact that the main character, Mimi (Rogers), is seeking a divorce (and trying to fake an affair in order to get it). Of even more interest to anyone who follows current events is the case of a lesbian couple in Maryland that has been stymied in their quest for a legal divorce. This case has made some waves in the ongoing debate about the rights of same-sex couples to marry and it only goes to show just how dysfunctional our system of legislation can be.

Virginia Anne Cowan and Jessica Port were like many other couples in that they reached a point in their relationship where they were ready to take the next step. Unfortunately, the fact that they were both women made it impossible for them to be legally married, at least until a short window of opportunity opened in 2008, when California law allowed them to be wed. Of course, also in keeping with the institution of marriage, the couple eventually faced some trouble in paradise. And like 1 in 3 couples who take the leap these days, they decided that their differences were irreconcilable and that it was time to call it quits. There was only one problem: they weren’t in California anymore.

Although the couple married in California, they continued to live in Maryland, where they still reside today, and that is where they are seeking divorce. But since Maryland state law doesn’t recognize their marriage as legal, they have thus far been unable to obtain their divorce. At a hearing in 2010, the judge (A. Michael Chapdelaine) apparently spent a mere seven minutes listening to their petition for divorce before dismissing them and then subsequently denying their petition on the grounds that recognizing the marriage (a requirement for granting divorce) was “contrary” to Maryland’s laws on the subject.

While this is of course a problem for Cowan and Port (who it seems must now wait for a ruling by the Maryland Supreme Court, which recently agreed to hear their case), the bigger issue here is that the judge’s ruling was seemingly without merit. In fact, couples married in other states have long been granted divorces in Maryland, even in cases where the specific type of marriage was not allowed under Maryland law. Further, several same-sex divorces have already been approved in Maryland to other couples (by other judges), therefor providing a precedent that would have allowed Cowan and Port to be divorced.

Sadly, until a law is passed to regulate such petitions, other same-sex married couples seeking divorce may face the same problem (and many have in other states such as Texas, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island). They can hire a divorce lawyer, file the paperwork, and even get to court, but if they get the “wrong” judge their petition may not even be considered. This is just one more blow for same-sex couples in the fight for equality where marriage is concerned. But perhaps the total absurdity of the situation will soon have legislators singing a different tune. One can always hope (and bombard one’s legislators with signed petitions).

Shirley Simpson is a contributing writer for the Morgan Law Firm, specializing in family law and Travis county divorce.

For starters, there is clothing. In case you didn’t know, a lot of chemicals go into making your average shirt or skirt. First there are the pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and fertilizers that go into the soil whenever a cash crop (like cotton) is grown. Then there are the many bleaches, flame retardants, and other chemicals that coat the textiles that become your garments. And of course, there are hydrocarbons spewing into the atmosphere every step of the way, from the tractors used on farms to the fuel needed to create energy for factories to the trucks that ship textiles and clothing all over the country (and the world). You can see why plenty of people have switched to organic fabrics.

But if these pricy garments just aren’t in your budget, hit up the thrift-store or vintage-clothing circuit to find items that are much more affordable. Although most will not be organic, just think about all the pollution you’ve stopped by repurposing a garment instead of buying new. And remember that there are places like Plato’s Closet and Buffalo Exchange that operate in many locations and strive to bring you items that are trendy, gently used, and totally budget-friendly. You can even check out Once Upon a Child, a website that lets you buy, sell, and trade usable kids clothes.

But what else can you get used? Well, just about any home goods, for starters. Decorative items like furnishing and accessories can be nabbed for spectacular prices when you simply search Craigslist or find a garage sale in your area that has what you’re looking for. And this is also a great way to get new (or antique) fixtures and hardware, like doorknobs, lights, faucets, and so on. But you can take it even further by seeking outlets for reclaimed items. For example, anyone looking to do home upgrades can find gorgeous hardwood flooring and cabinets, keeping these precious planks out of the landfill by giving them a second life in your home. Not only will they lend your house the realistic patina that only comes with age, they’ll also allow you to have the warm woods you crave without the guilt of cutting down more trees.

The idea is that nearly anything you use can be had second-hand. And if you want to do more to reduce your carbon footprint, you could definitely do worse than trying to turn one man’s trash into your own treasure. So think about some of the many products that you buy each year and whether or not you might be able to make do with a slightly used version. With a little TLC (and a lot less expense) these items can help you to have the home and the life you’ve dreamed of without the burden of destroying the planet in the process.

But one area that many green businesses overlook is automotive. This could be because most companies don’t have corporate cars, and even if they do there is only a handful at their disposal, slated for the top executives (or on hand for business travel). However, this is one area that many businesses could turn to when looking for ways to greenify, and it can make a massive impact on the environment without requiring a huge expenditure. There are many ways that looking for eco-friendly solutions in the arena of transportation can benefit a company, its employees, and the environment in general.

Let’s start with corporate cars. Most execs in the upper echelons of the corporate world expect a company car as part of the hiring package, and they want something that relates their status to the world. It must be sophisticated, powerful, prestigious, and above all, expensive. BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Jaguar tend to top the list. But if there’s one thing the heightened demand for alternative vehicles has done it’s up the competition. And even luxury carmakers have responded by creating their take on the eco-friendly automobile, many by adding fully electric vehicles to their lineup. MB, for its part, has several options, from fuel-efficient diesel engines to hybrid and fully electric vehicles. And for the company that’s willing to pay more for their corporate transportation, companies like Fisker and Tesla can provide sporty hybrids and electrics that look anything but eco-friendly (and yet, offer lower or even zero emissions).

Even companies that aren’t providing corporate cars can still encourage employees to go green when it comes to transportation. The first and easiest way to encourage staff to change is through carpool rewards. You don’t have to hand out minivan or caravan insurance quotes to get as many employees as possible to cram into a car on any given work day, but you can offer gas cards or other incentives to help reward employees that make this small step for the environment. You can also contract with the city to provide your employees with discounted or even free metro passes so they can take mass transit instead of personal vehicles. And many companies have opted to install electric car chargers in premium parking spaces for employees that drive electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids. Or you could follow the example of Google, which actually provides a fleet of electric vehicles for employees to take out on lunch breaks or for business-related local travel. In short, there are many options for the company that wants to support eco-friendly transportation and make their operation a little greener.

There are all kinds of reasons that you might want to purchase insurance in order to protect your company. If you own a building (or any number of properties), you may have insurance to cover damages in case of break-in, theft, fire, or any natural disasters that are prevalent in your area (earthquake, flood, tornado, etc.). You probably also pay for worker’s compensation to cover any employees that are injured or otherwise take ill on the job. In most states (Texas is the only exception) such coverage is mandatory, although the amount and type of coverage required varies from state to state. And companies over a certain size (generally with 50 employees or more) must provide health insurance benefits for employees (although that may change to include all businesses if the Obamacare plan is instituted in full).

And while these many types of insurance are certainly expensive, the truth is that they are meant to protect your business, your property, and your employees. Of course, for some companies even paying for mandatory insurance is almost enough to put them under. When you start throwing in elective insurance, as well, forget about it. And yet, any business that plays host to a wide range of customers (or even a small list of clients) may want to consider the potential benefits of adding liability insurance to their long list of policies. The truth is that every time someone walks through your door it is a gamble if you don’t have this type of coverage. It may not be likely that a visitor to your facility will slip on a wet floor, fall off a ladder, or get hit by a falling box, but accidents definitely happen, and there’s no reason to think that they can’t happen at your business, no matter how cautious you are.

Talking to your insurance provider or seeking a liability insurance quote online is not difficult, and you will probably be able to find a plan that suits your particular needs. There are varying levels of coverage available depending on the size and scope of your operation and each provider and plan will come with different price points. You can certainly opt to forgo this type of coverage should you so choose, and many businesses that are small, poorly funded, or not open to the public will do so. But when you are faced with the prospect of paying for legal fees, medical bills, and other costs associated with an accident, injury, or illness that occurs on your premises, you’ll be glad you have a policy in place to cover these expenses so your business and your patrons don’t suffer.

Although little personal information has been released about the boy in question (probably due to his status as a minor at the time of the surgery), what is known is that the 17-year-old student was likely coerced into undergoing the operation, of which his parents were unaware, and that he was given only a small percentage of the funds garnered from the sale of his organ. His mother first became suspicious when the boy brought home a brand new iPhone and iPad, both of which were far too expensive for him to have gotten through legal means (considering that he was from one of China’s poorest provinces, Anhui). He admitted that he had gotten the money by selling his a kidney. Now he is suffering from renal deficiency, a condition that continues to worsen, and the public outcry has prompted prosecutors to indict five people on charges of illegal organ trading and intentional injury.

It seems that the group involved in this transaction included brokers who scoured the internet for possible donors and then leased an operating room for the procedure. Also indicted were the hospital contractor who leased the room and the surgeon who removed the kidney. The party reportedly received 220,000 Yuan in payment (roughly $35,000 US), of which about 10% was given to Wang (or approximately $3,500). This would have been more than enough to cover the costs of the iPhone and iPad the teen brought home (totaling about $1,000 on the Chinese market). The remaining money was split amongst participants in the illegal organ transplant ring, and it is as yet unknown who paid for and received the kidney.

Unfortunately, this occurrence is not rare. With only about 10,000 (legal) transplants performed in China each year and a demand that numbers in the millions (about 1.5 million people are currently seeking transplants), the black market for organs is huge. And with so much of the republic steeped in poverty, many will do almost anything to earn the money needed to pay off debts. As for the startling trend of teens willingly giving up their vital organs, experts attribute the phenomena to the rapidly growing consumer market in China, as well as a generation that is being raised to expect the comforts of modern consumerism.
Although it appears that little can be done at this point for Wang and others like him, many of whom have no real options for specialized medical care (not even temporary health insurance), it is promising that the government has recognized a growing issue and taken steps to send a message to those who would traffic in human organs. Hopefully it is the beginning of the end for such practices. But more likely than not it will be quite a while before these people are stopped. However, the ongoing attention of the media to cases like Wang’s will almost certainly help to speed the process.

When asked to think of products that may affect the environment and our health, most people think of obviously problematic things like plastic that will not decompose in a landfill and dangerous chemicals in cleaning products. One class of products that people usually neglect to think about includes cosmetics and personal care products. These products include things like lipstick, mascara, perfume, shampoo, deodorant, lotion and toothpaste. You may not realize it, but you probably use up to 10 or more personal care products in one day. Many people use these products with no hesitation, confident that the government must be making sure that these products are safe and not wrecking the environment. However, according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit research and advocacy environmental organization, your confidence may be misplaced.

Cosmetics and personal care products are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Cosmetics and Colors. According to the FDA, “…a cosmetic manufacturer may use almost any raw material as a cosmetic ingredient and market the product without an approval from FDA.” This means that regulation falls upon the manufacturers rather than a governmental agency. According to the EWG, within the past 30 years, the cosmetic industry has only done a safety review of 11 percent of the 10,500 ingredients it uses, and the FDA does not do any routine reviews either. This means that 90 percent of the ingredients commonly used in personal care products and cosmetics have not been evaluated by a third-party agency.

You might argue that many of these products are not intended to be ingested by humans, and thus, there is no problem. However, the skin easily absorbs cosmetics and other products, and products used on lips or hands are accidentally ingested through contact with the mouth. Studies done by scientists show that cosmetic ingredients can build up in human tissue; they’ve found preservatives like parabens in breast tumors, industrial plasticizers like phthalates in urine and fragrance components like musk xylene in fat. Do these ingredients affect humans in any noticeable way? Is the buildup of cosmetic ingredients dangerous? No one is sure because the studies simply have not been conducted, but the few studies that have been done seem to indicate that exposure to these ingredients does affect humans. For example, studies were conducted on feminized baby boys indicated that diethyl phthalate, a common fragrance used in cosmetics and personal care products, was to blame.

In addition, the ingredients in these products can easily make it into our environment. Ingredients absorbed and ingested by humans show up in urine and excrement. Although sewage is treated in the United States, the treatment does not manage to filter out everything, and when the wastewater is released back into the water supply, the ingredients come into contact with the environment. Studies have found ingredients from cosmetics and personal care products in bodies of water throughout the country. Some of these ingredients, especially those that affect hormone production, have been linked to the feminization of fish. Fragrance components that have made their way into the water have affected mussels, which cannot filter out poisons from their bodies once exposed to these chemicals. These are just two of the numerous studies showing how ingredients from common products are harming the wildlife and environment.

If we have studies demonstrating damage done to wildlife by cosmetic and personal care ingredients, then what are these things doing to us? Unfortunately, we don’t have those answers yet, but if you’re interested in being proactive about your health and the environment, there are plenty of eco friendly products on the markets for you to purchase, or you can research what chemicals your favorite brand of toothpaste may contain and if they pose any problems.

AUTHOR BIO

Jenna Pacht writes for Village Laser, which specializes in Denver laser. When Jenna isn’t thinking about the environment, she’s helping people remove unwanted hair with Denver laser hair removal.

The first major hurdle for any company entering a new market is ignorance. A lack of knowledge concerning fundamentals like laws and language is a glaring problem, but there are also more subtle issues at play, such as understanding cultural mores and what the public will find appealing or alternately, offensive. The guiding hand of an insider will not only help a company to navigate these waters, but also provide a diverse viewpoint on which to base decisions moving forward. Companies that neglect to enlist the help of locals in any capacity face an uphill battle when moving into a new market, mainly against their own ignorance.

But there are other reasons why it behooves an expanding company to join up with existing businesses in foreign ports. For one thing, a company that is already up and running could provide for some of the infrastructure that an outside business venture will require. One of the major issues involved in moving into other countries often revolves around a lack of infrastructure, potentially including not only adequate building space, but also access to materials, roads, waterways, electricity, money (banking), and so on. Companies that are firmly established may not only have these basic elements already in place, but they might also be able to assist in paving the way for further inroads (literally as well as figuratively). This could be essential to the success of a newly expanded business operation.

Of course, this is all assuming that a corporation interested in moving into foreign markets is able to first traverse the tricky legal pathways associated with doing business in other countries (another aspect of expansion that a joint venture could help to overcome). Although many corporations might view joint ventures as dangerous, considering that they require a business entity to cede some control over their operations and their brand image, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t at least make the effort to learn more about this option and how it can benefit their transition to a new market. Ultimately, they may decide to go in a different direction, simply hiring local advisors and management, for example, to show them the ropes and get the ball rolling. But for companies new to the world of international business (or even those that are simply having trouble moving into a particular nation), joint ventures can be a great strategy to ease the difficulties associated with entry into foreign markets and create an undertaking that benefits all parties.

And yet, there are constantly stories in the news about big-name pharmaceutical companies that have engaged in fraudulent activity, cut corners to save costs, or ignored reports of wrongdoing from employees (hence several notable whistleblower cases in the last several years involving major drug manufacturers (like Pfizer, KV, and GlaxoSmithKline, just to name a few). But there are also cases of a breakdown in the supply chain leading to placebos hitting pharmacy shelves, or even instances of the wrong medication being given out to patients. So who is responsible for these glaring blunders in an industry that should be strictly regulated to prevent such issues?

The real problem here is one of scope. Although many countries have measures in place (laws, government regulators, and so on) to prevent these types of problems from ever reaching consumers, the pharmaceutical industry is so large that it is a miracle more issues aren’t uncovered (which isn’t to say that they don’t exist). But the issue is multifold. First, there are spotty controls. Not only do different countries have different laws in place to govern the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals, but in many cases, various states, provinces, and smaller regions operate autonomously, exercising control over their own certification process for suppliers and distributors, for example.

This is pretty much a recipe for disaster. Although doctors, distributors, and even some drug manufacturers have agreed that a system of universal regulation should be required (like an international tracking system for drugs that can be used to verify their origins), forward momentum for such a massive undertaking is understandably stunted by having too many cooks in the kitchen (or lab, as the case may be).

And then, of course, there is the fact that the pharmaceutical industry, although government regulated, is a business, and a multibillion dollar business, at that. Whenever that much money is involved there is bound to be corruption of some kind to contend with, from low level scam artists that sell drugs on the black market to more industrious entrepreneurs that inject placebos into the legitimate supply chain to pharmaceutical manufactures that set up shop in under-regulated countries and then fail to adequately self-regulate.

Sadly, consumers are the ones who always end up suffering for these shortcomings and bear the brunt of such blunders. It’s practically to the point where average consumers should attend pharmacy schools online in order to ensure their own safety when it comes to prescription drugs. So who is to blame? Everyone, really, from manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors to the governments that are supposed to monitor them. But if you end up with a bad batch of drugs (or worse, the wrong medication) it doesn’t really matter who’s at fault; the whole system ultimately failed.

From the time a child enters pre-school, he not only receives lessons in the fundamentals (reading, writing, arithmetic, and so on), but he also begins to learn the social lessons that will stick with him for life. And while people make a lot of fuss about the formative years and how lessons that we learn as toddlers and young children tend to stick with us for the rest of our lives, the truth is that we continue to learn and grow as human beings until the day we die. It’s just that we get set in our ways and it can sometimes take a major catalyst for adults to seek change. The lessons we learn in our youth are strongly instilled in us and they can be difficult to unseat, which is why schooling is a key aspect of creating the business leaders of tomorrow.

There waters are somewhat murky when it comes to what can be taught through public education and what should be left up to parents. And this is why our educational system is somewhat spotty. While “no child left behind” was certainly an interesting idea, the inception has proven that strict standardization of learning quashes creativity and pushes kids through the system even if they’re not ready to move on. In terms of business, both are bad. No one would argue that schools need a baseline when it comes to education so that all kids meet certain minimum standards, but a good system should incorporate the individual needs of children into the learning process so that every child has the opportunity to build his strengths and expand beyond the rote data download that seems to pass for education these days. A well-rounded and confident pupil will almost certainly have more opportunity (and subsequent success) than one rigidly held to a specific and narrow standard.

However, many students can get a second chance at the collegiate level. Although universities often base a portion of their decision to admit students on their standardized test scores, most are looking for something extra in the way of interests or life experience. The reason is that these institutions of higher learning have loftier ideals when it comes to education. They want their graduates to have more knowledge when they leave than when they entered, for certain, but they also want them to be better people, open to change and to new experiences. Universities generally strive to create an atmosphere of innovation, tolerance, diversity, and creativity. And this is one of the many reasons why so many businesses seek out degreed individuals. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that they have additional knowledge and a proven ability to set and achieve long-term goals.

So students take note: whether you’re going into law at an Ivy League school, biding your time in community college until you have the grades to transfer, or working towards a masters in communication online or an online MBA in finance, businesses are looking at you. And what they hope to see is not just a high GPA; they want to hire people that are both knowledgeable and creative, that are eager to try new things and tackle any challenge they are presented with, that can see a different solution when everyone else is out of ideas, and that find the value in collaborating with a diverse workforce. The only way to get there is with an open mind and a voracious appetite for learning. This is what it takes to enter the workforce and become a leader in business. And for businesses looking to create strong leaders, ongoing education is essential.

Businesses under a certain size are not currently required to offer health benefits to employees, but many find ways to do so anyway because it helps them to remain competitive. Those that fail to offer this common bonus simply don’t provide enough incentive for the best or most qualified candidates in the industry to consider them as potential employers. And while there are certainly job seekers that are gunning for corporate positions with multinational companies because they want the paycheck, the ladder-climbing opportunities, and a shot at an executive office, there are probably an equal number who have done their time in the big leagues and decided that a small company with a family feel and a little more autonomy is just the ticket. However, most of these latter types are probably not too keen on the idea of giving up their healthcare benefits in the process. And then, of course, there are the millions of people who are unemployed throughout the world. So should companies be forced to offer these expensive benefits?

In some countries there is no need thanks a universal healthcare system. Nations like France, which has often been cited as boasting some of the best healthcare, offer health care to all of their citizens free of charge. Okay, so it’s not exactly free; they pay for it with their tax dollars. But the point is that no one gets turned away from the emergency room because they are uninsured. And many countries are turning to the option of universal coverage as part of a humanitarian agenda. Sectors on every continent have gone this route, including nearly all of Europe, much of Asia and South America, and even parts of Africa. The move may result in higher taxes, and these systems are not without corruption and other setbacks in some areas, but at least anyone who is sick can go to a hospital for testing and treatment.

Although there are still many countries throughout the world that have yet to adopt a system of universal healthcare, the United States is a notable holdout; it is strange to see such a wealthy nation unwilling to offer this basic service to its citizenry. Although they have a long history of animosity towards the idea of socialism, the truth is that they have no good excuse for not ensuring that basic health care is available to all. But it looks like they may finally be leaning towards a policy of public coverage with their healthcare reform act (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA) that was passed in 2010 and seeks to expand coverage by 2014.

Of course, universal healthcare doesn’t come without its costs, and in an effort to keep the private insurance industry alive, one of the provisions of the act is that every business will now have to provide benefits such as medical, dental, and vision coverage, a mandate that could tank small businesses. With states, organizations, and even individuals filing lawsuits claiming that it is unconstitutional to force people to buy insurance, the implementation process could be help up indefinitely or even brought to a halt. But the idea behind universal health coverage is sound, even if the methodology is flawed. Should everyone enjoy access to health care? Yes. Should businesses be required to pay for a portion of it? Probably not. But one thing is certain: the seed has been planted. So even if this particular act is overturned, it seems like America may finally be headed down the path to universal healthcare.

Shirley is a contributing writer for EZ Contacts USA where you can find designer sunglasses mens and find out about Ray-Ban Aviator sightings.