Israeli government sends mixed signals on peace

Israeli government sends mixed signals on peace - Ahead of the arrival of President Barack Obama on a high-profile Mideast mission, Israel's new government on Monday sent mixed messages about pursuing peace with the Palestinians.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a speech to parliament that his hand is outstretched in peace and that he is ready for a "historic compromise," but one of his closest allies called hopes for peace "delusional."

The conflicting signals gave a glimpse of the infighting that is likely to hinder the government if Netanyahu, who has historically been reluctant to make serious concessions to the Palestinians, decides to launch any new diplomatic initiatives.

Students of Estella's school for bakery and pastry making, work on an image depicting U.S. President Barack Obama made out of chocolate in Givat Shmuel, central Israel, Monday, March 18, 2013. Obama’s trip to Jerusalem and the West Bank will take place March 20-22, and it is the U.S. leader’s first trip to the region as president, and his first overseas trip since being reelected. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit)

"The rhetoric about peace is one thing and doing peace is something else. Doing peace requires deeds," Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said of the new Israeli government.

Well aware of the large gaps between the sides, Obama has been careful to lower expectations for the 48-hour visit, which begins Wednesday. The White House has already said he will not bring any bold new initiatives. He will leave the details of diplomacy to his secretary of state, John Kerry, who is expected in the region in the coming weeks.

Instead, Obama plans to meet separately with Israeli and Palestinian leaders in hopes of finding some common ground. Toward that goal, the White House confirmed Monday that the president has added a third, previously unscheduled meeting with Netanyahu on Thursday, immediately after returning from talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank. There are no plans for the three to meet together.

Upon taking office in 2009, Obama vowed to make Mideast peace a top priority. But talks never got off the ground, and ultimately Obama turned his attention elsewhere.

The Palestinians have refused to negotiate while Israel continues to build in settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, territories where they hope to establish a state. Israel captured both areas in the 1967 Mideast war.

The Palestinians say construction in the areas, now inhabited by more than 500,000 Israelis, is a sign of bad faith. The Palestinians say the pre-1967 lines should be the basis for a future border.

Early in his term, Obama persuaded Israel to impose a partial freeze on settlement construction, allowing talks to resume briefly in late 2010, toward the end of the Israeli moratorium. Netanyahu refused to extend the freeze, and negotiations collapsed weeks later. A frustrated Obama later backed off his calls for a halt in settlement building, leaving the Palestinians disillusioned.

Netanyahu says negotiations should resume without preconditions.

Since winning re-election in January, Netanyahu has pledged to make a new push for peace.

"We extend our hand in peace to the Palestinians," Netanyahu said in Monday's speech, delivered shortly before his new Cabinet was sworn into office. "With a Palestinian partner that is willing to hold negotiations in good will, Israel will be ready for a historic compromise that will end the conflict with the Palestinians once and for all."

Netanyahu gave no details. The Palestinians have suggested he again halt settlement construction or release the longest-held Palestinian prisoners Israel is holding as a goodwill gesture.

Making any significant concession would be a struggle for Netanyahu. The coalition, stitched together during nearly six weeks of negotiations following a Jan. 22 parliamentary election, is focused more on domestic issues than peacemaking. And on the Palestinian issue, his partners include moderates and hard-liners who share little common ground.

On one hand, Netanyahu has appointed Tzipi Livni, a dovish former foreign minister who has good ties with the Palestinians, to be his chief negotiator. His largest coalition partner, Yair Lapid of the centrist Yesh Atid Party, has called for an aggressive attempt to reach peace.

In contrast, the pro-settler Jewish Home Party rejects any concessions to the Palestinians, and Netanyahu's Likud-Yisrael Beitenu bloc itself is dominated by hard-liners. His new defense minister and housing minister, who each wield great influence over Israel's policies in the West Bank, are both sympathetic to the settlers.

Ahead of Netanyahu's speech, Avigdor Lieberman, a powerful ally of the prime minister and himself a West Bank settler, said anyone who thinks peace can be reached with the Palestinians is "delusional."

"This conflict cannot be solved. This conflict needs to be managed," he told his Yisrael Beitenu Party, an ultranationalist faction that has formed a joint parliamentary bloc with Netanyahu's Likud Party. Lieberman said he would fight any attempt to halt settlement construction.

Considering this recipe for deadlock, the Palestinians have shown no optimism over the new Israeli government.

"This is a government of political paralysis. It's also the government that has given the settlers enormous powers," said Hanan Ashrawi, a senior Palestinian official.

The Israeli election focused heavily on domestic issues, such as the high cost of living and calls to end a contentious system that has allowed ultra-Orthodox Jewish seminary students to be exempt from compulsory military service.

Addressing his party Monday, Lapid made no mention of the Palestinians, appealing to the ultra-Orthodox to work with him on draft reform.

Netanyahu said that while there is a "golden moment" to deal with domestic issues, his first concern was to protect Israel. He listed a number of security threats to Israel, including Iran's suspect nuclear program, instability in neighboring Egypt, the civil war to Israel's north in Syria and the threat of sophisticated weapons reaching the hands of violent anti-Israel groups.

Zahava Gal-On, leader of the dovish opposition party Meretz, said Jewish settlers were the "big winners" of the election.

"The next government will not make peace, will not narrow social gaps, will not concern itself with equality for all citizens of the state. The next government will continue to do much for the settlers and little for the rest of the Israeli public," she said. ( Associated Press )

READ MORE - Israeli government sends mixed signals on peace

Radiation Poisoning Killed Ex-Russian Spy

Radiation Poisoning Killed Ex-Russian Spy — The British authorities said today that Alexander V. Litvinenko, a former Russian K.G.B. officer and foe of the Kremlin, died of radiation poisoning here in what a senior official called “an unprecedented event.”

Police said radioactive traces were found at three London locations, underscoring the highly unusual nature of the whole episode, which began when Mr. Litvinenko first complained of feeling unwell three weeks ago.

Alexander V. Litvinenko in his hospital bed in London on Nov. 20

In a day of fast-paced developments that resembled a dark political thriller, Mr. Litvinenko’s family issued what they said was his deathbed statement accusing President Vladimir V. Putin of “barbaric and ruthless” murder, a charge promptly rejected by the Russian leader.

Mr. Litvinenko’s father, Walter, also accused Russian authorities of responsibility and said his son was “killed by a little, tiny nuclear bomb.”

Photographs of the dying former agent had showed him hairless and gaunt in a hospital bed, and friends who visited him said he looked ghostly. Developments in the case over the past week have tantalized Britons, confronting them with the notion that their land might be used as a theater for sinister machinations more familiar in a James Bond movie.

Word of a possible radiation attack, using what officials identified as a rare and highly radioactive isotope known as Polonium 210, sounded alarms across London, although many Londoners seemed to take word of the alert with a degree of stoicism, or even indifference, on a damp Friday evening.

“Spy Radiation: Major Alert,” said a banner headline in The Evening Standard.

Police said they had found radioactive traces at several locations which Mr. Litvinenko had visited in early November — the Itsu sushi bar on Piccadilly, his home in north London and the Mayfair Millennium Hotel near the American Embassy in Grosvenor Square — and were continuing to search them for evidence. The authorities also said they were trying to find nurses and other medical staff who had treated Mr. Litvinenko since he began to complain of an unspecified illness on Nov. 1.

Roger Cox, the director of the Health Protection Agency’s center for radiation, chemicals and environmental hazards, said a large quantity of alpha radiation had been found in Mr. Litvinenko’s urine. “If that enters the body by ingestion, then it will rapidly track through the body and go to most major organs,” he said.

Mr. Cox said that a computer model was being used to try to work backwards from the alpha radiation levels found today to estimate the magnitude of the initial exposure.

At a news conference, Dr Pat Troop, the agency’s chief executive, described Mr. Litvinenko’s death as “an unprecedented event in the U.K.” and said he had “apparently been poisoned by a type of radiation.”

Polonium 210 is found naturally in low amounts in the human body and in the natural environment. It is available on the Internet and has industrial uses, “but the only time it becomes dangerous is if you ingest it or breathe it in,” said Dave Butler, a British radiation expert.

A British counterterrorism official, who spoke in return for anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case, said polonium was a byproduct of the nuclear industry and used in industry in the production of anti-static materials.

But the form believed to have been used in the suspected poisoning would have required high grade technical skills and a sophisticated scientific process to produce. The official declined to comment on what security measures were being taken to locate possible sources for the substance.

Mr. Litvinenko, 43, was a former operative in the K.G.B. who became a colonel in its successor organization, known by its Russian initials as the F.S.B. In the late 1990s, Mr. Litvinenko said publicly that he had been ordered by assassinate Boris Berezovsky, an exiled Russian tycoon, but had refused to do so. He fled to Britain and secured British citizenship earlier this year. In 2003 he authored a book accusing the Russian Secret Service of orchestrating apartment house bombings in Russia in 1999 that led to the second Chechen war.

Since his illness became known last week, his friends have depicted his poisoning as an officially-sanctioned reprisal for his criticism of the Kremlin and his efforts to investigate the fatal shooting in Moscow last month of Anna Politkovskaya, an investigative journalist.

Before news broke of the discovery of evidence of radiation poisoning, Alex Goldfarb, a friend of Mr. Litvinenko, read out to reporters what was described as his deathbed statement, addressed largely to President Putin.

“You may succeed in silencing me but that silence comes at a price,” the statement read. “You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed.”

“You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilized value,” the statement said. “May God forgive you for what you have done, not only to me but to beloved Russia and its people.”

Mr. Litvinenko’s death, announced late Thursday, threatened to build diplomatic strains between Britain and Russia, but Britain sought to avoid a major crisis. A Foreign Office official, who spoke in return for customary anonymity, said the Russian ambassador here, Yury V. Fedotov, was called to the Foreign Office today and told that “police were pursuing their investigations and the situation was now more serious.”

British officials wanted Russia to help the inquiry with any information they might have about the case, the official said.

Mr. Putin found himself on the defensive when he appeared in Helsinki following a meeting with leaders of the European Union, as he had been when he traveled to Europe following the death of Ms. Politkovskaya.

He called Mr. Litvinenko’s death a tragedy, but suggested that there was “no indication that it was a violent death,” citing what he said was a British medical report. He called for an investigation and pledged the assistance of Russian authorities.

“I hope that the British authorities will not contribute to the fanning up of political scandals having no real grounds,” he said in remarks that were televised in Russia and given unusual prominence in state newscasts, given the gravity of the accusations being directed at Mr. Putin’s Kremlin.

Mr. Putin also brushed aside the significance of Mr. Litvinenko’s statement, suggesting his death was being used for political purposes.

“Those who did it are not the Lord and Mr. Litvinenko is not Lazarus,” he went on. “It is regretful that even such tragic events as a death of a human being is being used for political provocations.” ( nytimes.com )

READ MORE - Radiation Poisoning Killed Ex-Russian Spy

Move-in before marriage no longer predicts divorce

Move-in before marriage no longer predicts divorce — Nearly half of first marriages break up within 20 years, a new government study finds. With those odds, you might wonder: Would we be better off living together first?

The new research, part of a marriage survey of 22,000 men and women, suggests times have changed from the days when living together signaled poor chances for a successful marriage later.

"It's not playing as big a role in predicting divorce as it used to," said Casey Copen, lead author of the study.

Living together before marriage has been a long-growing trend. In the late 1960s, only about 10 percent of U.S. couples moved in together first, and they ended up with higher divorce rates.

Today, about 60 percent of couples live together before they first marry.

"It's becoming so common, it's not surprising it no longer negatively affects marital stability," said Wendy Manning, co-director of the National Center for Family & Marriage Research at Bowling Green State University in Ohio.

Researchers with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked for trends in first marriages. They interviewed men and women ages 15 to 44 during the years 2006 to 2010. About 40 percent were married.

The study found those who were engaged and living together before the wedding were about as likely to have marriages that lasted 15 years as couples who hadn't lived together.

But what about the couples who were living together but weren't engaged? The new study found marriage was less likely to survive to the 10- and 15-year mark among couples who weren't engaged when they lived together — findings similar to earlier research.

For example, for women, there was about a 60 percent likelihood a marriage would survive 15 years if the couple either hadn't lived together before the wedding or were engaged while they were sharing the same living space.

But if no firm marriage commitment was made while she and her boyfriend were living together, the likelihood the marriage would last 15 years fell to 53 percent. The numbers were similar for men.

Potential explanations include more lax attitudes about commitment, lower education levels or family histories that made these couples more pessimistic about marriage, Copen said.

The experience of living together before marriage is different for different people, said Richard Settersten Jr., an Oregon State University professor of human development and family science.

Some young people put off marriage because they're pursuing a college education and starting a career. For them, "cohabitation is a trial marriage, usually without kids, that often ends in marriage," Settersten said.

Others — in many cases, people not on a college track — move from one living-together relationship to another, some of them producing children, he said.

Commitment has made a difference. In interviews with some women who have been married 20 years or more after living with their spouse first, firm belief in a future together was a common theme.

"I sort of knew he would be part of my life long-term.... I wasn't thinking, 'He's moving in with me, is he ever going to marry me?'" said Hillary Mickell, a San Francisco woman who first moved in with her husband when they were students at Boston University.

But this was in 1985, and she did try to hide their situation from her parents in California, sometimes telling them her beau answered the phone because there had been a snowstorm and he was stuck in her apartment. "It became a running joke — there are blizzards in Boston nine months a year," said Mickell, co-founder of a social network site for recipe exchanges.

The CDC study also concluded:

• —Nearly half of first marriages will break up within 20 years — a statistic identical to what other studies have found.
• —The percentage of young women currently living with a male partner grew from 3 percent in 1982 to 11 percent recently.
• —Women and men with bachelor's degrees were more likely to delay marriage but also more likely to eventually get married and stayed married for at least 20 years.
• —Asian women were the most likely to be in a first marriage that lasted at least 20 years. Nearly 70 percent of Asian women were still in their first marriage, compared to 54 percent of white women, 53 percent of Hispanic women and 37 percent of black women.

Among men, 62 percent of Hispanics were still in their first marriage at 20 years, compared to 54 percent of whites and 53 percent of blacks. The study did not have statistics for Asian men. ( Associated Press )

READ MORE - Move-in before marriage no longer predicts divorce

Kids & Cursing: 'Modern Family' Toddler Typical

Kids & Cursing: 'Modern Family' Toddler Typical - Bleeped-out swearing may be okay for adults on TV, but what about kids? The ABC show "Modern Family" is about to find out by airing an episode this week about a foul-mouthed 2-year-old.

The show's theme already has critics at the anti-indecency Parents Television Council grumbling, but researchers who study cursing find that believe it or not, 2 years is about the age when kids really start to use "adult" language.

"Yes, 2-year-olds say f---," said Timothy Jay, a psychologist who studies psycholinguistics and obscenities at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. "Preschoolers are pretty well-versed in the lexicon, and by 11 to 12, we are looking at adult swearing patterns."

In this image released by ABC, from right, Jesse Tyler Ferguson portraying Mitchell Pritchett, and Eric Stonestreet portraying Cameron Tucker are shown with Aubrey Anderson-Emmons, who plays their adopted daughter Lily in a scene from "Modern Family," airing Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012 at 9 p.m. EST on ABC. A group opposed to the use of profanity is protesting Wednesday's episode of "Modern Family," in which the character Lily is shown, but not heard, using an expletive. (AP Photo/ABC, Peter "Hopper" Stone)

Starting early

The obscenity colloquially known as the "f-bomb" will drop from toddler Lily's mouth on Wednesday's (Jan. 18) episode of "Modern Family." The storyline centers around Lily's parents, Cam and Mitchell, who are trying to clean up their daughter's language before she appears as a flower girl at an upcoming wedding. (The obscenity will be bleeped.)

While the director of communications and public education at the Parents Television Council told FoxNews that the storyline is "in poor taste," it may hit close to home for many parents today.

"Kids say swear words as soon as they talk," Jay told LiveScience. "We have 1- and 2-year-olds who say 'f---' and 's---' in our sample."

Jay and his colleagues have a dataset stretching back into the 1970s of words that schoolteachers, day care workers and other adults who work with children report hearing. Kids mimic words early on and pick up quickly on which words are "bad," even if they don't know the exact definitions of those words, Jay said.

Profanity and the brain

In fact, studies suggest that swearing is firmly embedded in the brain. Swearing is a form of "formulaic language," said Diana Van Lancker Sidtis, a professor of communicative sciences and disorders at New York University. These are expressions such as "You bet!" that frequently appear in conversation, and kids learn them as they're learning how to piece together sentences.

Not only does swearing start early, it's hard to dislodge. Stroke victims and people with brain injuries often remember how to swear even when other words elude them, according to a 1999 review by Van Lancker Sidtis in the journal Brain Research Reviews.

The emotional component of swear words may be what makes them stick, according to the review. Because these emotional words are processed differently in the brain, they may remain when other speech patterns are ravaged.

Swearing also makes it easier to bear pain, according to a 2009 study in which volunteers submerged their hands in a tub of ice water, a common laboratory method for inducing pain. Some were told to repeat a swear word of their choice as they submerged their hands, while others were told to repeat a boring, nonobscene adjective.

The volunteers who were swearing a blue streak kept their hands submerged longer than the other participants, suggesting the profanity helped them cope with pain. It's possible that swearing increases aggression and thus pain tolerance, study researcher Richard Stephens of Keele University told LiveScience at the time.

Swearing also serves a purpose of expressing emotion more deeply, succinctly and cathartically than any other type of speech, Jay said. But this positive side of swearing gets little attention, he said.

"A lot of people don't realize that swearing represents an evolutionary leap, in that it allows us to be verbally aggressive without being physically aggressive," Jay said.

Learning to swear

The positive aspects of profanity aside, parents may wince at a 3-year-old swearing like a sailor — especially because children don't fully understand the social nuances of when and where swearing gets a pass until they are teens, according to Jay.

Choosing to have TV toddler Lily say the f-word, bleeped or not, is likely to elicit the most discomfort possible for viewers, at least according to a January 2011 paper published in the journal Mass Communication and Society. That research surveyed 500 college students and found that sexually suggestive words were rated as the most offensive, with excretory language coming in second and religious blasphemy bringing up the rear. The students also reported that swear words are most offensive on broadcast television, which would include ABC, the channel that hosts "Modern Family."

Broadcast television is currently under fire, with an ongoing Supreme Court case determining whether the Federal Communications Commission breaks the First Amendment by penalizing broadcasters for brief nudity and fleeting expletives. A previous Supreme Court case, FCC v. Pacifica in 1978, cited children's exposure to television as a reason to uphold indecency laws.

But it's not "Modern Family" or even famously profanity-laced, bleep-free shows like HBO's "The Sopranos" or "Deadwood" that teach kids to swear, Jay said. Those lessons come from closer to home.

"Television really has nothing to do with it," Jay said. "Nothing to do with it. We don't learn how to swear from television — nobody does. We learn how to swear from our siblings, from our parents, from the backyard."

"Little kids are like language vacuum cleaners," he added. ( LiveScience.com )

READ MORE - Kids & Cursing: 'Modern Family' Toddler Typical

Men, Women, and the Two Stories Behind Every Kiss

Men, Women, and the Two Stories Behind Every Kiss - The meeting of lips may feel harmonious, but it isn't. Men are always pushing to make kisses sloppier, while women always want to keep at them long after the show's over. And kissing style isn't the only point of contrast: In light of recent findings by psychologists, a kiss shared between a man and a woman seems more like a clash of spirits than a meeting of souls.

"Women tend to use kissing to create a bond with their partners, and to assess them as potential mates," Susan Hughes, a psychologist at Albright College in Pennsylvania, told Life's Little Mysteries. "Meanwhile, men use kissing as a means to an end." That end being sex. "Males are kissing primarily to increase arousal for their partner," Hughes said.

Those statements may strike some as obvious and others as old-fashioned, but regardless, they're scientifically proven. Hughes and her colleagues published a study in the journal Evolutionary Psychology three years ago that helped test, and prove, several theories evolutionary psychologists have long held about kissing. The researchers probed the kissing preferences and opinions of more than 1,000 males and females in their sexual prime — college undergraduates — who were asked to mark their answers to a series of detailed kissing questions on a 5-point scale.

The results showed that both men and women consider kissing an important and highly intimate interaction. Both sexes use kissing to gauge the relationship compatibility of themselves and their partners. Furthermore, both may become more or less attracted to their partners based solely on their experience kissing them, a result that lends support to the theory that pheromones and other important biochemical signals get exchanged when people kiss.

But the similarities end there. While women usually consider a bad kiss to be a deal-breaker, men reported that they would more than likely still have sex with a woman even if she were a bad kisser. In other words, biochemical cues be damned!

In fact, the data showed that males feel much more strongly that kissing should lead to sex than females do, period. "Whereas females felt there was a greater likelihood that kissing should lead to sex with a long-term partner than a short-term partner, males felt that in either instance, kissing should lead to sex," the researchers wrote in their article.

Men also like significantly wetter kisses. The gender divide becomes drastic when the kissing involves short-term partners, who presumably hold primarily sexual rather than romantic appeal. In the short-term, men like kisses to be wet, while women do not. Psychologists hypothesize that males "perceive a greater wetness or salivary exchange during kissing as an index of the female’s sexual arousal/receptivity, similar to the act of sexual intercourse," Hughes wrote.

Follow-up research conducted in 2009 by Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University, even found that men pass testosterone to women via their saliva when they kiss, which may momentarily increase women's sex drive.

Perhaps more surprising than the fact that men like sloppy kisses is that "they'll even forgo kissing altogether if they can just have sex," Hughes told Life's Little Mysteries. Indeed, Hughes' survey found that over half of men would be willing to have sex with someone without kissing them, while only 14 percent of women would do so.

Sheril Kirshenbaum, a science journalist, extended that finding to adult men and women for publication in her book, "The Science of Kissing" (Grand Central Publishing 2011). She found that guys really don't grow out of their indifference to kissing: As in Hughes' survey, the adult men in her survey did more often than not express a willingness to have sex without kissing. Meanwhile, "Several women actually called or e-mailed asking why they'd even be in that situation in the first place," Kirshenbaum wrote. Two women asked if the survey question was referring to prostitution.

The gender divide is indeed dramatic; it even extends to when men and women like to kiss. "Basically, most men don't like to kiss after sex," Hughes said. "This is even true of men in long-term, committed relationships, which we thought was a bit surprising." Though men typically want to kiss only until the sex starts, women like kissing before, during and after intercourse.

Why all the differences? "From an evolutionary perspective," Hughes explained, "females are limited reproductively, so they want to bond with a mate, whereas males can have a lot of partners and so are generally more interested in having promiscuous sex. Both use kissing to get what they want."

In summary, women use kissing as a screening tool — to find a man with the right pheromones. Then, when a good mate is found, kissing is used to increase mutual feelings of attachment. Men, on the other hand, kiss primarily to gain sexual access.

A great kiss, then, by no means results from great minds thinking alike. ( lifeslittlemysteries.com )

READ MORE - Men, Women, and the Two Stories Behind Every Kiss

Can Your Doctor Treat Your ED?

Can Your Doctor Treat Your ED? - It's hard enough to talk about sexual matters to anyone, much less your physician. So it would seem important for your doctor to have the tools to help you communicate and understand a sexual problem when it arises, and to lay out your options for treatment.

The problem is that many if not most general practice physicians do not feel comfortable treating and prescribing treatments for erectile dysfunction (ED) in their male patients. Sexual problems in female patients are even more problematic because there are no FDA-approved drugs for their conditions, and most doctors are reluctant to prescribe off-label for sexual disorders.

A new study conducted in Israel attempted to learn why most general practice physicians are not able to help their patients with their sexual problems. The researchers ran a one-day sexual dysfunction education program for physicians there to see whether it would change their treatment and prescription behaviors.

The study compared doctors' prescribing habits for PDE5 inhibitors (Viagra, Cialis, Levitra) - the medications most commonly used to treat ED - before and after the training program, and with that of other doctors who did not take the education program.

Among the interesting findings of the study are that doctors are reluctant to treat ED not because they lack the knowledge. Rather, they felt they lacked the appropriate communication skills to be able to talk comfortably and in detail about their patients' sexual concerns.

And compared with their pre-program prescribing rates over a three-month period, the trained doctors increased their prescriptions for PDE5 inhibitors by 31 percent in the quarter following the training, and by 41 percent compared to non-participants during that same period. There were no differences in rates of prescription prior to the program.

The authors conclude that exposure to training in sexual health treatments as brief as one day can markedly shift both the attitudes and prescription behavior of doctors. This has important implications for prescribing doctors and physician educators in this emerging field of medicine, and for patients who deserve to know about treatments for their sexual problems ( .lifestyle.yahoo.com )

READ MORE - Can Your Doctor Treat Your ED?

Thirsty calf milks human kindness

Thirsty calf milks human kindness - A HUNGRY orphaned calf is experiencing first hand the milk of human kindness — suckling daily from an Indian woman's breasts.

Couthi Bai breastfeeds the 46-day-old cow three to four times a day, claiming there is no difference between the calf and a human baby.

Her fellow villagers in India, where cows are considered to be sacred animals, are supportive of her bond with the calf.

Close ... woman and calf enjoy a special bond

Couthi said: "After her mother died, I held her in my arms and breastfed her. I nurtured her by feeding her my milk.

"She was so young when the cow died. For me, there is no difference between a calf and an infant.

"I feed her three or four times a day, the same amount an infant requires in a day.

"Sometimes we have to feed her chapatis, we give her water to drink and slowly she will grow on this diet.

"The gods will be pleased if I raise her."

Other residents of the village of Kilchu do not seem pay much attention.

One villager said: "It's the first time this has happened in our village. Whenever she goes to the fields she takes the calf along. Like our mother brought us up by feeding us her milk, similarly, she is nourishing the calf with her milk.

The 46-day-old calf now follows her wherever she goes.

Bai lives in Kilchu in India's northern desert state of Rajasthan.

A video was released last year of a woman from Japan breastfeeding her cat.

Click Here To Video
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3120554/Thirsty-calf-milks-human-kindness.html

READ MORE - Thirsty calf milks human kindness

If celebrities insist on using their fame to bring awareness to health problems

Doc Hollywood. If celebrities insist on using their fame to bring awareness to health problems, they should follow these guidelines. Cancer has a cure. That breakthrough medical news is not the result of grueling medical research published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Instead, it is brought to us via fading actress-cum-Thighmaster queen-cum-New Age health guru Suzanne Somers. In her new book, Knockout: Interviews With Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer and How To Prevent Getting It in the First Place, Somers claims, "There are doctors out there who are curing cancer," contrasting her findings with the "debilitating, often deadly fraud" of mainstream medicine that wants "to keep cancer alive and well" since it's "big business" for doctors and pharmaceutical companies.

Suzanne Somers

While many surely see Somers as a quackadoo, more than a few may see her as a pioneer: Upon its release, Knockout became a New York Times best-seller and ranked No. 284 in sales on Amazon. Not bad for a fading actress-cum-Thighmaster queen-cum-New Age health guru.

Somers is just the latest in storied history of stars who have shone a spotlight on medicine. The list includes fellow celebrities Christopher Reeve (spinal cord injury) and Farrah Fawcett (anal cancer), as well as famous athletes like Magic Johnson (HIV) and Lance Armstrong (testicular cancer). For them, and countless other celebrities who have dished about disease, the public has been, and remains, a keen and attentive audience.

There are many reasons celebrity health stories resonate with us. Since they always seem to be in front of us—on TV, in the movies, on the Web—they seem familiar, even trustworthy. Their stories of illness are very emotional, earning them our sympathy and empathy. Then there's their aura of invincibility: Whether it's the image of Armstrong winning the Tour de France (seven times!) or Reeve soaring as Superman, their swing from health to illness makes them underdogs we root for. Finally, celebrities are effective. Studies have shown that celebrity disclosure of an illness can increase public interest in the specific disease and lead to changes in the public's behavior. Many go on to form organizations and raise millions of dollars in support of research into their diseases.

Still, celebrity medical advice can be hazardous. Their messages have led some doctors and patients to make inappropriate health decisions, at times increasing risks for patients and driving up health care costs. Their advocacy, while informative and inspiring, often oversimplifies complex medical issues. Finally, the first-class advantages most celebrities enjoy can create false hope for their economy-class public.

Perhaps the best example of both the benefits and risks of celebrity medical advice is journalist Katie Couric. After her husband died from colon cancer at the young age of 42, Couric took up the fight against the disease. In 2000, she underwent a colonoscopy on TV as a way of urging others to get screened. The public followed: A 2003 study showed a 20 percent increase in colonoscopy rates in the months after Couric's TV segment. The study's authors labeled this phenomenon the "Couric Effect."

Yet colonoscopy, which Couric and her foundation call the gold standard of screening, remains controversial. Theodore R. Levin, a gastroenterologist at Kaiser Permanente in Northern California and a national authority on colorectal cancer screening, offers caution about her message. He agrees that Couric's advocacy has been very helpful. But by pushing colonoscopy, the most invasive and expensive screening method, he worries that the public may not learn about safer and more convenient options.

One of them is the FIT test, a highly sensitive yet noninvasive test to detect blood in the stool. Patients can perform this test by themselves at home. In studies by the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force that compare FIT testing with colonoscopy, outcomes are similar. Another controversy Couric has caused, probably as the result of her own experience, is her past advice that people in their 40s be routinely screened for colon cancer. That's something Levin and other experts agree makes no sense unless a person has a family history of the disease.

The simplicity of celebrity health messages also creates problems. Celebrity sound bites often don't include pertinent information. Colonoscopy, for example, carries the risks of bleeding, infection, or perforation of the colon. All screening tests can also result in misleading false positive or false negative rates and a whole host of other drawbacks the public really ought to know more about.

Publicity about a disease can also lead to a spike in health care costs without any added benefit. This is exactly what happened in 2005, when pop star Kylie Minogue, then just 37 years old, revealed she had breast cancer. In her native Australia, researchers found mammography rates rose 33 percent in women aged 25 to 34 and 25 percent in those 35 to 44 for six months after Minogue's revelation. The absolute number of breast biopsies increased in both age groups as well. Yet the number of confirmed breast cancers changed little. All that Minogue's publicity did was scare patients and doctors into overscreening. That drove up costs and needlessly exposed women to the radiation of a mammogram.

Barron H. Lerner, a physician and historian at Columbia University (and a Slate contributor), refers to anecdotal advice and advocacy as the "N equals 1 phenomenon" in his 2006 book, When Illness Goes Public. N equals 1 is when "specific cases … assume particular importance, even being seen as definitive examples of given diseases and their prognoses, and how they should be treated." Anecdote becomes scientific proof, which usually puts these assertions in contention with reality.

The N-equals-1 phenomenon can have a dramatic effect on the public. Take actor Steve McQueen, whom Lerner wrote about in his book. In 1979, McQueen was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a rare, deadly form of lung cancer. Doctors offered McQueen little hope he would survive. So McQueen turned to alternative medicine. He traveled to a clinic in Mexico, where he started an aggressive regimen of nutritional supplements, coffee enemas, massages, shampoos, prayer sessions, psychotherapy, rectal enzyme implants, and injections of a cell preparation made from fetuses of sheep and cattle. Initial reports suggested the treatment worked: McQueen's doctors in Mexico claimed that his tumor had shrunk by 60 percent to 75 percent.

McQueen praised his healers effusively. But the truth, revealed after his death in 1980, was that the tumor had only grown over time, extending from his lungs to his diaphragm, down into his intestines and up into his neck. Nevertheless, McQueen's story engaged the public and, most of all, inspired hope in cancer patients. All 152 rooms at his Mexico clinic were booked shortly after his death, and scores more clamored for admittance: all of that demand despite clear evidence that McQueenCare failed.

Even when celebrities playing doctor do make valid points, most of us can't even begin to match the wealth and resources they can bring to their own health battles. In 2003, Dr. Jerome Groopman profiled the actor Christopher Reeve in The New Yorker. Several years earlier, Reeve had fallen off his horse and broken his neck, leaving him paralyzed from the neck down.

Just like McQueen, Reeve was determined to find a cure for his injury. His activism in the form of lobbying for stem cell research and other cutting-edge ideas ignited interest in and raised money for spinal cord injuries. And Reeve's remarkable physical progress inspired others. "Every step that he makes … we know how incredible that is. … Seeing the progress he is making, it keeps us going," said one patient.

But Reeve's progress came with a hefty price tag. His annual medical expenses exceeded $500,000 a year. He also received free medical equipment from manufacturers as a result of his celebrity. One company gave him an electrical-stimulation bike, valued at $100,000, for home use. That sort of hope—not to mention free gifts—is unattainable for most of us, and a reminder that at least socioeconomically, we are not at all like the celebrities we admire.

Celebrities should thus exercise caution in their messages about health matters. Perhaps most important, they should be transparent. Take an example pediatricians like me deal with every day: ex-Playboy model Jenny McCarthy, who continues her crusade against vaccines because she believes they caused her son to develop autism.

Before she was the face and fury of the anti-vaccine movement, McCarthy described her infant son as a quiet "Buddha baby" who seemed to stare off into space rather than making eye contact and engaging with his mother. That's a classic early red flag for autism, one that was probably overlooked well before her son received many of his vaccines.

McCarthy discusses her son's ordeal at every turn, but she hasn't disclosed his medical records. If McCarthy is going to blame vaccination for autism despite all the medical and legal evidence to the contrary, she needs to be more up-front with her son's story. Celebrities who go public should also refrain from publicizing preliminary findings and be sure to communicate caveats, like the risks of a screening test in addition to its benefits, regularly.

Regardless, celebrity medical advice isn't going anywhere. We doctors must respect their ability to influence the public. But if those stars work more like Katie Couric, who partners with doctors, and less like Jenny McCarthy or Suzanne Somers, who use their celebrity to undermine them, celebrities are more likely to succeed in crafting both an influential and accurate message. ( slate.com )

READ MORE - If celebrities insist on using their fame to bring awareness to health problems

Five Ways to Revitalize Your Search

Five Ways to Revitalize Your Search. According to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, 19.3 percent of full-time workers were unemployed for 27 weeks or more in 2006. If you have been looking for a job for a while, there's a good chance you're frustrated with your inability to find one. The longer you're on the job hunt, the more likely it seems that you won't ever be employed.

But the job market remains strong for highly skilled professionals, and with the right approach, you can significantly increase your chances of landing the position you seek. Here are five ways to fend off the frustration and revitalize your job search:

1. Revisit old possibilities.

It's likely that you sent out a flurry of résumés in the early part of your search and received responses from or even interviewed with a few hiring managers. Even though you weren't offered a job, that doesn't mean these businesses aren't interested in hiring you now, especially if you reached the later stages of the interview process. So consider reaching out to the firms you initially contacted to express your continued interest in working there and to find out if any new openings exist.

2. Broaden your network.

One of the best ways to find a job is through people you know because résumés from referrals often receive top billing among hiring managers. If you've been networking through friends and family and still haven't found work, it's time to expand your list of contacts. Talk to former co-workers and managers, college alumni and members of professional organizations you belong to. Or schedule informational interviews at businesses you're interested in so you have a contact when a job opens up. Remember that it never hurts to get back in touch with people you've already spoken with, either to let them know you're still looking for a job or to better specify what sort of position you hope to find.

3. Determine your weak points and strengthen them.

Instead of making small changes in multiple areas of your job search, it's better to step back and take a look at the search from a broader perspective. Chances are, altering one aspect of your search, based on where you're having the most problems, can have a big impact on your success with employers.

For example, say you've gone on several interviews and have even been called back for additional meetings with some companies. But you still haven't received any offers. The problem may lie solely with your interview skills after all, your résumé and cover letter are drawing heavy interest from employers. So instead of trying to "fix" something that's in good working order your application materials devote extra attention to your interview skills. You might review questions you've been asked by hiring managers thus far and practice your responses with a friend who can critique you.

4. Take classes or workshops.

It's never a bad idea to improve your skill set. You can take a class and build capabilities in new area. Or maybe you've noticed a skill requirement you don't have that keeps popping up on the job descriptions that interest you. For example, if you're an editor or writer, and the jobs you apply for frequently require "basic HTML proficiency," your lack of knowledge in this area could prevent you from landing a new position. Taking classes, either online or at a local university, or even working with a friend who knows this programming language, can help you get up to speed and improve your marketability. Just make sure to update your résumé upon learning a new skill or strengthening your proficiency in a certain area.

5. Take a temporary job.

While you're probably searching for a full-time job, it might be worth considering working as a temporary professional. Not only can temporary jobs help you build new skills, you also will be able to meet people who could serve as valuable contacts down the road. And a temporary engagement may very well lead to a full-time position. In a Robert Half International survey, nearly one-in-four executives said the most important benefit of using temporary workers is to evaluate a prospective employee before making a full-time job offer.

Whatever you do to jump-start your job search, be sure to give thought to all employment opportunities that come your way, even those that don't seem promising at first. For example, a position that does not offer the starting pay you had hoped for might provide other benefits, such as the ability to quickly advance within the organization. You never know what will lead you to your next job, but remaining motivated and marketable will help you find it eventually. ( msn.com )

READ MORE - Five Ways to Revitalize Your Search

Six Rules for Effective 'Net-working

Six Rules for Effective 'Net-working. For busy workers, networking online is a great way to quickly meet dozens -- or even hundreds -- of like-minded professionals. It also can be an option for those less inclined to reach out and socialize with new business contacts in a traditional setting.

Web sites like LinkedIn.com and MeetUp.com, as well as industry conference discussion forums and trade association chat rooms, are making it easier for people to expand their professional networks. But, if you do not use these portals wisely, you can make mistakes that will shrink rather than supersize your base of contacts.

While the Internet can seem like a casual environment, the rules of etiquette still apply. In fact, you should be particularly vigilant while conversing in cyberspace as it's easy to let down your guard and express opinions or use language you normally wouldn't because you're not face to face with your audience. Worse, when you make a faux pas online, it may be posted for everyone to see and "etched in stone" if your comments are archived on the site.

Following are six rules for ensuring your online networking efforts impress rather than offend:

1. Choose your venues wisely.

The best forums for professional networking tend to be those well moderated and frequented by participants you can learn from; many industry associations host their own business forums that you can participate in even if you are not a paying member. Also, remember your networking activities do not have to be limited to business- or industry-specific sites. If you're a marketer, for example, someone you meet through a Web site dedicated to those with a passion for painting could become a valuable member of your network.

2. Learn the rules.

Before participating in any online discussion group, be sure to read the guidelines. Also spend some time reviewing the archives or FAQs to get additional insight into the group. Some forums, for example, may not allow participants to promote their services, while others may have chat rooms designated just for doing business.

3. Come up with a sig line.

A signature file or "sig line" is a short block of text that can be automatically attached to the end of electronic messages. It helps identify you and provides some insight into who you are. A sig line can contain your name, company or professional affiliation and contact information.

4. Proofread your posts.

You should avoid discussing personal issues or outrageous weekend escapades online. Read your message several times to make sure you're not revealing confidential information -- about yourself or your company -- or coming across as rude or overbearing. Typos or other grammatical errors can also make you appear unprofessional, so be sure your posts are clean and well composed.

5. Play nice.

Avoid sarcasm as much as possible. What you view as dry humor may come across as searing criticism in a posting. Also, always be respectful and tolerant of others' ideas and opinions. You may be offended by one member's comments or get discouraged when someone disagrees with you, but resist the temptation to write a harsh message in response. Negative or defensive remarks will only fuel the fire.

6. Don't steal the stage.

Be selective in your commentary; there's no need to weigh in on every topic. You'll earn more credibility if you provide insight on the subjects you know best. Also, consider sending messages to participants directly, rather than copying the entire group, if the topic you want to discuss pertains to only a select few.

7. Be a resource.

Don't consult your professional network only when you need something; regularly e-mail business contacts to offer your assistance, share a news article or update them on your career progress or a recent business win.

When networking online, it's crucial to demonstrate courtesy and tact in order to foster healthy professional relationships. By following the suggestions outlined in this article, you can develop a strong online presence that leads to new job leads, clients or potential mentors who can help you advance your career. ( msn.com )

READ MORE - Six Rules for Effective 'Net-working

Five Job Search Mishaps

Five Job Search Mishaps. Everyone makes mistakes, but one of the worst times to do so is when you're applying for a job. As Lori McLeese, Chief People Officer at San Francisco-based nonprofit Room to Read, says: "I think of the job search process as dating, where you and the job seeker are on your very best behavior. If any red flags come up during this time, I wonder what the candidate's performance will be like if we hire him or her."

Indeed, many mistakes -- like showing up late to a job interview -- will throw into severe doubt your chances of receiving a job offer. Is there a way to recover from such a serious gaffe?

Despite your best efforts, there are some mistakes you simply can't recover from, such as submitting a résumé and cover letter addressed to the wrong employer. But other errors do not necessarily spell doom for you.

Following are common mistakes job seekers make and tactics that will give you a fighting chance to recover:

Mishap No. 1: You arrive too late

If there's one rule of interviewing it's to never arrive late. And yet, despite leaving your house with plenty of time to spare, you get stuck in traffic and watch as your meeting time creeps closer and closer. The key here is to not wait until the last minute. If you expect to be late, call the hiring manager to explain your delay and provide an estimate as to when you will arrive. In most cases, the person will understand the circumstances and be able to postpone or reschedule the interview. The hiring manager will question your professionalism and desire to land the position if you keep him or her waiting without an update from you.

Mishap No. 2: You arrive too early

Though it may not seem like a terrible offense, being very early for an interview can create a poor first impression. If you're camped out in the reception area half an hour before your meeting, the hiring manager may not appreciate the pressure to see you earlier than expected. Wait in your car or outside the building if you arrive more than 15 minutes before an interview and use the time to prepare. Then, head to the restroom to check your appearance one last time. Aim to be in the company's lobby about five minutes early.

Mishap No. 3: You flub an interview question

"Why are manhole covers round?" Even if you're not asked a brainteaser like this, you may stumble when answering a question posed by the hiring manager. In this situation, don't panic. If you find yourself rambling or grasping for words, pause to think more about your answer. The interviewer will understand if you need some time to formulate a response. If you bombed a question earlier in the meeting, only to think of the perfect response later, ask the hiring manager if you can revisit the question. You'll demonstrate your ability to think on your feet and have the opportunity to get your message across.

Mishap No. 4: You hit "send" too soon

A hiring manager at a Bay Area financial institution recalled a former candidate who was in the running for a job -- until the applicant sent the following thank-you e-mail: "I do think this position would be a great fit for my background and experience, and I'm sad to hear there will not be the possibility of working with you." Says the manager, "I was laughing too much at her mistake to take her seriously for the job."

But there is a way to make a comeback from this type of error. When a candidate McLeese interviewed made a similar mistake, the job seeker sent a second e-mail apologizing for the mistake and referencing a number of tidbits from their conversation. "She remembered that I was the first human resources employee at the company; that I have lived in Kuwait, Egypt and South Korea; and that I like to snowboard," McLeese says. "Given the follow-up and personal touch, it was a mistake I could overlook."

Your best approach when it comes to a technology snafu? Don't pretend it didn't happen. Instead, diplomatically address the situation. Even if you don't ultimately get the job, you'll showcase your personality and ability to recover from a mistake.

Mishap No. 5: You lowball yourself

What happens when a hiring manager requests your salary requirements, and you later find that you asked for too little compensation? Be honest and act quickly. Tell the hiring manager that you've done additional research and feel the figure you quoted falls below market trends. Be sure to reference any supporting documentation, such as salary surveys, that help you make a case for higher starting pay. Employers are often willing to renegotiate salary before an offer is accepted if an error like this is made because they want new employees to feel valued from day one. However, in the future, you should always do your compensation research before you begin the interview process.

A blunder during the job search can create an opportunity for you to demonstrate skills -- such as diplomacy and tact -- not always evident during the hiring process. Often, it's how you handle a mishap that offers hiring managers valuable insight into your character -- and how you'd behave in a similar situation if you were hired.( msn.com )

READ MORE - Five Job Search Mishaps

Seven Jobs in Health Care That Require Moderate Training

Seven Jobs in Health Care That Require Moderate Training. No job is guaranteed to last forever, but certain industries offer more hope for longevity, an especially attractive quality these days. The health-care industry employed 14 million workers in 2006, making it the largest sector in the nation, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Its outlook is promising, with the potential to add 3 million new jobs between 2006 and 2016.

Many jobs in health care require an extensive education that combines formal schooling with on-the-job training. Naturally, you want surgeons to have several years of practice before they begin operating on patients. You might be surprised to learn how many jobs -- none of which allows you to perform a transplant, thankfully -- you can find in health care with a moderate amount of formal training.

Here are seven jobs in health care that offer plenty of on-the-job training or require less than a bachelor's degree. Not only do these jobs allow you to work in a thriving field, but you also have the satisfaction of helping someone's well-being.

Pharmacy technicians

What they do: Perform administrative tasks in pharmacies and assist pharmacists preparing medication for patients.

Training: No nationwide regulations for a pharmacy technician's education exist, so each state has its own guidelines. Certification and formal training are definitely positives for job seekers, but expect plenty of on-the-job training as well.

Salary: $26,720

Medical transcriptionists

What they do: Transcribe audio recordings made by doctors and other medical staff. The recordings are often of medical reports or notes that need to be formally documented.

Training: Transcriptionists can obtain certification, which helps employment opportunities. Depending on the employer, adequate course work or an associate degree in a relevant field can qualify you for a job.

Salary: $31,250

Clinical laboratory technicians

What they do: Perform various tasks -- ranging from collecting blood samples to preparing tissue samples -- in a clinical lab.

Training: An associate degree or certification is preferred by most employers, but expect plenty of on-the-job training as well.

Salary: $34,270

Medical secretaries

What they do: Work with physicians and scientists to write articles, speeches, presentations and reports.

Training: Requirements vary, but all secretaries should have a strong command of grammar and possess excellent communication skills. Knowledge of medical terminology, procedures and insurance practices also helps.

Salary: $28,950

Medical records and health information technicians

What they do: Ensure that patient records are complete and accurate. They review medical charts and other documents that need to be on file regarding the patient's medical history.

Training: An associate degree is standard, although relevant health-care experience or status as a registered health information technician improves job opportunities.

Salary: $29,290

Physical therapist aides

What they do: Prepare the physical therapy site for a patient's treatment and assist with other duties that a physical therapist or a physical therapist assistant requests.

Training: On-site training is typical, though related education is helpful.

Salary: $22,990

Personal and home care aides

What they do: Help patients live comfortably in their own homes or in a live-in facility that is not a hospital or institution. Their patients can range from elderly individuals to people with disabilities.

Training: On-the-job training is standard, although some states and employers require further education, which you can obtain from a vocational school or community college.

Salary: $18,480

( msn.com )

READ MORE - Seven Jobs in Health Care That Require Moderate Training

Five Tips for Executive-Level Job Seekers

Five Tips for Executive - Level Job Seekers. Recent economic woes have struck a severe blow to the nation's work force -- penetrating as high as the top tiers of corporate America. As the economy becomes increasingly shaky and companies are forced to trim budgets, executive-level and management positions have become more vulnerable than ever.

Considered by many to be "untouchable," thousands of upper-level professionals have been thrust into unemployment and have discovered that today's job market is much harder to navigate than in previous years. Now, the market is flooded with candidates just as highly skilled and experienced as the next. In addition, finding a job that can match -- if not improve upon -- a prior position can seem incredibly daunting due to many companies' growing financial limitations.

To stand out from their competition and prove that they offer a high return on investment, executive-level job seekers need certain tools, including the essential job-search documents needed to market oneself in the job hunt, plus a few others to achieve an advantage over competitors.

"There's no question that the executive résumé and cover letter are the foundations of your career-search plan. However, you'll want to give careful consideration to some additional tools that are capable of providing significant leverage in your search," say Louise Kursmark and Jan Melnik, co-authors of "Executive's Pocket Guide to ROI Résumés and Job Search."

In their book, Kursmark and Melnik encourage job seekers pursuing leadership positions to create and implement the following tools in their job search:

Elevator speech

An "elevator speech" is a 30-second summary (the time you have if you run into a potential employer on an elevator) that briefly introduces individuals to those who can help them in the job search. Many managers and executives have probably already developed and delivered this type of speech to people several times throughout their careers, but may need to adjust it to reflect their new goals.

According to Kursmark and Melnik, job seekers must convey four key elements throughout their introduction, including who they are, what they do, what they're seeking and any other key information relevant to their experience or job search goals.

In addition to knowing how to develop this tool, it's essential for job seekers to know when to use it. A good rule of thumb is to always be prepared with an elevator speech. They can be useful at networking events, clubs and associations; during "cold" phone calls; as well as at personal events such as weddings, dinners and any type of impromptu opportunity.

Networking script

Networking is the key to finding good jobs quickly, which is why having a plan for networking situations is critical. While these conversations will all be unique and should feel genuine, it helps for job seekers to outline a few key points they'd like to address during the conversation. For example, job seekers will want to ask questions such as, "What ideas or referrals might you have for me?" "What related industries can you think of, and contacts do you know, where these skills might prove valuable?" or "Who in your network might be interested in someone with my leadership experience and background?"

Leadership initiative document

This one- to two-page document is a relatively new tool job seekers are using to further market their achievements and leadership experience. Typically, this document lists three to five career-defining stories that describe a specific situation or challenge, tactics and actions implemented to address the problem and results achieved. Ideally, these stories should reflect what the job seeker would hope to accomplish in the new position.

After crafting this document, job seekers can use it several ways. It can become a leave-behind document following interviews or meetings, a follow-up piece to a résumé and an additional component to the traditional résumé/cover letter package.

Professional biography

This tool provides more extensive information about the job seeker; it is ideal for portfolios or personal Web sites and used as a tool for recruiters to use when introducing or advancing the candidate to a company or organization. After the job search, this document is still useful and often used for company news releases, marketing materials and Web sites, as well as for public-speaking engagements.

Targeted search summary

This document identifies employers and industries in which the job seeker is interested. This tool comes in extremely handy at networking meetings where others may appreciate a visual reminder of where the job seeker's interests and opportunities are.

While each of these components of the job search can be extremely beneficial to job seekers, Kursmark and Melnik warn not to overload hiring managers and recruiters with too much information. "Instead, carefully select and present only the documents that will stimulate their interest in you and your professional capabilities." ( msn.com )

READ MORE - Five Tips for Executive-Level Job Seekers