The hot sauce idea is a little wacky. When I first heard it, I thought "how interesting, does hot sauce have an ingredient that kills sperm?" But after reading some of the other things on this guy's web site, it sounds more hostile than preventative. I'd stick with something more reliable as a method of pregnancy prevention.

However, I have sympathy for the guy in this case. This isn't some made-up phenomenon. There have been court cases where women used sperm from condoms to get pregnant. I'd like to think that any person I cared enough to sleep with wouldn't do such a thing - but I've known people who did things that completely shocked and baffled me. Even people we know and trust can have a side that we don't see. And the consequences are so monumental - having a child. When I was dating, I made sure that I couldn't get pregnant - condoms AND the pill. Even though I only slept with a couple of people that I really cared about - I might have trusted them, but the consequences of a mistake were monumentally life-changing, and I didn't want a child under any circumstances. I wasn't taking any chances. I can understand a man who feels the same way. The hot sauce might seem silly, but if I were a man, I wouldn't leave my condoms lying around either.

This season was disappointing. There were a lot of wacky challenges in the first half of the season that didn't really reflect the chefs' skills, and I agree with Jonathan - too many catering challenges! And I'd like to see some change in the rules so cooking "not to be eliminated" isn't rewarded so heavily.

On the other hand, I think Top Chef has two purposes for the contestants. Of course, they all want to win, and 100K is nothing to sneeze at. But it also gives these chefs a weekly showcase for their skills on national television, something that has the potential to jumpstart their careers, if they do well and show off their food (as well as their personalities). Ariane made a point of mentioning her restaurant almost every week - I'll bet customers started pouring in once the show started airing. (Not to mention she was on Iron Chef last week, as a sous chef.) I'm sure Carla will be getting a lot of business from her appearance on Top Chef - who wouldn't want to eat a meal cooked by Carla, after seeing her meals praised over and over again by some of the top chefs in the country?

Richard (from last season) said something about this on his blog at Bravo - he said that winning Top Chef was an egg, but being on top chef was being given a chicken, and chickens lay eggs. He's certainly used his appearance on Top Chef to gain publicity for his restaurant and his cooking, even though he didn't win.

But someone has to "win", or you wouldn't get people watching the show and rooting for one contestant or another. If you just had a weekly cooking showcase, I doubt you'd get as many people to watch.

I'm a little wary of the "just quit" advice, because of my experience. I was one of those valued, in-demand employees, with headhunters calling me - until massive layoffs hit my industry. I was laid off, searched in vain for another job, lost my health insurance, got cancer - there are worse things than a bad job. Losing your job can also be hazardous to your health. In this economy, I'm not sure anyone can be blithe about finding another job.

What you can do is set limits. Learn to say "no". I know it's not easy, but what's the worst that can happen - they'll fire you? Maybe, but most likely they won't want to take the trouble of hiring someone else and training them. Figure out what you really NEED to do to do your job, and what's not - and be firm and clear about it. This will be very difficult at first. But keep reminding yourself, this is what I must do to keep my sanity. If I don't do this, I will burn out and won't be any good to anyone. You can do it.

If it doesn't work, then you can quit. But a lot of employers will push you until you break, or until you push back.

One big issue in this "competition" between public and private is whether the private insurers will be regulated, particularly whether they'll be allowed to exclude people for pre-existing conditions. I haven't heard an answer to this question in the discussions about this private-public competition, but during the campaign I think Obama implied that the private insurers wouldn't be allowed to exclude people this way.

If the private companies are allowed to exclude people with pre-existing conditions (or charge them much higher rates), then I'm not sure the public plan will be able to compete. Private companies will be allowed to skim off the healthiest, most profitable customers, and therefore undercut the government plan. If the private companies are regulated and have to take everyone at the same rates (the way employer plans do now), then the public plan will have a chance - but the Republicans will probably scream that that's unfair to the private insurers.