Vermont is looking to legalize “sexting”, or the act of sending sexually explicit pictures of yourself via text message, for children under 18 years old. 

It’s apparently a big trend among teens now, but it could have some serious unintended consequences.

Even if you’re comfortable with the person you’re sending the image to, you never know where it could end up.  With mobile technology, a picture can be online for the world to see literally seconds after it was taken.  Hypothetically, a picture can be taken, sent to someone else, and posted online faster than the first person can get their clothes back on.

Well so what?  So a couple friends see an indecent picture, what’s the big deal?  Well, not only will a few friends see the picture, any sex offender with an internet connection can find the pictures online.  Not bad enough?  Well what about employers, who are increasingly “googling” prospective employees to come up with any reason not to hire them.  I’m pretty sure a drunken nude pic is disqualifier #1.

Besides, just because taking the picture is legal, it’s still illegal for someone to possess child pornography.  So sexting a picture to a friend could get them in trouble for possessing the picture.

This is a terrible idea, and the officials who thought it was a good idea need their heads examined.  Not to mention they should be kicked out of office.

• Limits to Concealed Carry Laws When dealing with one's right to bear arms, there is...
• Illegal Immigration *il•le•gal adj: not according to or authorized by law. See...

• Identity Theft Prevention - The Best Security Why should we commit identity theft prevention? Preventing is always...
• Online Marketing Is Really Feasible And Profitable Online marketing is an opportunity to business if you don’t...

Recently a new overtime law was passed, which has gotten a lot of people upset and confused. Many hourly laborers are complaining because they fear that they may loose their overtime pay that they have been getting for so long. Many business owners are also confused, because they may not know who they still have to pay overtime wages to and who they don’t.Just to help clear up some of the confusion, according to whitehouse.gov’s “Ask the White House” the following people will still be entitled to their overtime pay:
Hourly workers will continue to qualify for overtime, no matter how much they earn or what they do.

Manual workers or blue collar workers are automatically entitled to overtime regardless of how much they earn.

First Responders like police, firefighters, and EMT’s, as well as Licensed Practical Nurses have their overtime protection strengthened.

Workers who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement will continue to get overtime under the terms of that collective bargaining agreement.

Workers earning less than $23,660 will now have a guarantee to overtime protection – many of these for the first time – regardless of their title or responsibilities. This change will benefit 6.7 million workers.

Because of the updated duties tests, many workers earning more than $23,660 per year will also have strengthened overtime protection.
So basically any union member who already gets overtime in their contract, anyone who is an hourly employee, police and other emergency personnel and anyone making less than $23,660 per year will still get their overtime pay.

What this means is actually a benefit for employees. According to the old overtime law, someone making as little as $8,060 per year/$155 per week could still be exempt from receiving overtime pay. Put it this way, when I was in high school, I worked at a grocery store for about $7/hr. for about 25 hours a week. My gross pay right there was $175/week and I was still 15 hours away from thinking about getting paid for overtime. So in terms of the old law, my employer didn’t have to pay me for overtime even if I worked that many hours. Under the new law, however I would have been able to receive overtime pay.

What does this mean for employers then? Well, really not much. A lot of employees are union workers anyway, so they most likely have an overtime clause in their contract. Then there are hourly workers who for the most part probably got some sort of overtime pay anyway, and then salaried professionals, who would very rarely get any overtime.

But I guess I gave a little summary to this topic because I wanted people to be able to make an informed decision. A decision as to whether or not it is right for the government to say to employers that a particular group of employees has to be paid overtime for work done over a certain amount of time. I mean, think about it from an employer’s point of view. Say you have a manufacturing company and 100 employees manufacturing for you. How much is their labor worth to you when they put together the first product of the day? What about the 5th or the 100th? What about the products made after the employee has already been working for 8 hours? Is his/her labor any more valuable to you then? If so what makes it more valuable? Are they doing something different in the 8th hour that they weren’t doing in the 1st? Will your customers see this value and be more inclined to pay a higher price for your product? If the answer is no, then how can you expect an employer to pay a higher price for the same quality of labor?

• Government Charity With the holiday season in full swing, people are becoming...
• Un-Constitutional Constitution? How many Americans have actually read the U.S. Constitution in...

• Shared Automobile Services Gaining in Popularity Many families have a significant need for multiple automobiles, often...
• What's your time worth? Be honest! A bit of an exchange on a couple of great...

Should the manufacturers of the products we use everyday be held liable for any injuries arising from the misuse of their product, even when they take all the necessary precautions to ensure they are selling a safe product? For example, should a bicycle manufacturer be held liable for the injuries resulting from someone failing to properly land a daredevil stunt that they saw on television, or should a car manufacturer be held liable for injuries resulting from someone who purposefully used the car to mow down another person? The answer is simply that no, they shouldn’t. They’ve done nothing wrong. The product they sold was fully capable of performing the function it was designed for at the time it transferred ownership.Why then did the Senate kill a bill (S.1806) that would have protected gun manufacturers from similar liability, such as when their products were used in crimes? More importantly, why did the bill specify gun manufacturers? Why couldn’t this bill apply to all manufacturers from such liability? It seems as if it would be a benefit to many more industries than just the gun industry.

On its face, the bill seemed like a good idea, prohibiting civil liability resulting from the misuse of the gun manufacturer’s products by others. But why should this even be a debatable point? No one, or no company should be held responsible for someone else’s misuse of their product. Seriously, are people going to sue the gun manufacturers for making a gun that fires bullets? That’s what they’re supposed to do!

Absolutely no one, but you is responsible for your actions. If you decide to smoke a pack of cigarettes a day for the next 20 years, and then wind up with lung cancer, it’s no one’s fault but your own. If you buy a handgun and shoot someone with it, it’s no one’s fault but your own. With that said, if you are the victim of a violent crime where you got shot by someone, don’t try to blame anyone but the person who shot you. It’s no one’s fault but theirs. Assuming the criminal was in possession of the firearm legally, the firearms manufacturer, ammunition manufacturer, importer, and sales person who sold the gun to the future criminal should face no liability. How were they supposed to know that the person they sold the gun to would use it in a crime?

The next thing you know, Microsoft is going to get sued, because a hacker used their operating system while hacking into someone else’s computer. Or an alarm clock manufacturer will face civil liability after someone wakes up late because they forgot to set the alarm. This pattern isn’t going to end either. It’s been a slippery slope since before the big tobacco lawsuits a few years ago.

We, as a society, keep targeting businesses to compensate us for our wrongs. Lawsuits cost these companies billions of dollars, many of which can’t recover from such a blow. With such a “friendly” legal environment here in the United States, it’s no wonder that they want to move their operations overseas.

• New Overtime Law Recently a new overtime law was passed, which has gotten...
• Are we Better off Un-Armed? Many politicians, government lobbyists and members of the "elite" media...

• Bad Day For The Dollar - Great For Retailers! Today was black friday and atleast in San Diego it...
• Is Internet Marketing the Best Home Business? (Part One) Is Internet Marketing the Best Home Business? (Part One) By...