PayThePeople.com

Archive for July, 2010

Giving a blow job can be done in many different positions. However, if you’re not comfortable in the position that you’re in while you’re giving a blow job. You are not going to enjoy it. You want to be in a position to where his cock works with a downward angle of your throat. Kneeling before your partner with him standing is good if you’re in a confined area, but also for some men it is easier for them to cum when they are standing.

Another good position is to have your partner sitting down and you crouch between their legs. Or you could lay down and let your partner, feed it into your mouth, although you have less control of the depth. Of course you could always just have your partner lay down.

It does not matter if you’re dealing with a soft penis. You can still get started by kissing it and licking it and it won’t be long before it’s hard and waiting for more. Begin the starting at the base of the cock and lick all the way up paying special attention to the head. Try licking the underside of the shaft and the testicles, and then softly blow on the moistened areas for an incredible sensation.

Use your hands sliding up and down in tandem with your mouth. While your hands are moving up and down the shaft, you can be sucking on the sensitive head. Try deep throating, but if you’re not able to don’t worry. You can still give an excellent blow job without deep throating. Here’s a tip, you can practice deep throating with a peeled banana.

If you are really enjoying giving head. Then let your partner know how much you love being down there, make noises, stroke or tickle his thighs and butt and then finish the job. It is your choice whether or not to swallow if you do not want to swallow, then as your partner approaches climax finish with your hand or let him come on your body.

A wealth of information exists that explains the relationships between school subjects and careers. Across the nation, children, teens, teachers, and counselors use Career Interests Areas or Clusters to explore careers and to make school study plans. There are sixteen (16) Interests Areas or Clusters:

1. Agriculture, Food, & Natural Resources

2. Architecture & Construction

3. Arts, A/V Technology & Communication

4. Business, Management & Administration

5. Education & Training

6. Finance

7. Government & Public Administration

8. Health Science

9. Hospitality & Tourism

10. Human Services

11. Information Technology

12. Law, Public Safety & Security

13. Manufacturing

14. Marketing, Sales & Service

15. Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics

16. Transportation, Distribution & Logistics

States and federal agencies across the nation have created career cluster web sites and resources. We have reviewed three (3) of the best state or federal agency web sites.

Louisiana Integrated Skills Assessment (LISA)

One of the most unique comprehensive career cluster resources is the Louisiana Integrated Skills Assessment (LISA), an Internet program. LISA lets you explore career clusters, careers, abilities, training requirements, and more. Using the Lisa, you can do the following tasks:

Assessment: Explore career options using the Work Importance Locator.

I Enjoy: Find careers based upon the things that you enjoy.

Cluster: Find careers from Career Cluster Groups.

Search: Search for jobs based on knowledge, skills, and abilities.

Best Match: Use your current job to find knowledge, skills, and abilities to identify a new career.

Compare: Compare current job to potential new job.

Profile: Use this feature to create a profile from a selected career.

There are 3 steps in the LISA program. In Step 1, when you choose a career cluster, you will read the description of the cluster. When you select a career cluster in Step 2, you can select a career group. In each career group, you will see a lot of different careers. Finally, in Step 3, you see additional occupational information, such as:

Job descriptions

Educational and training requirements

Crosswalks, for example ONET, DOT, GOE, and other codes

Abilities

Knowledge

Skills

Tasks

Work Values

Labor Market Information

There is detailed information in each job profile:

Description

Crosswalk

Abilities

Knowledge

Skills

Tasks

Work Values

Occupational Characteristics Narrative

The Louisiana Integrated Skills Assessment (LISA) is an excellent tool for students to do career cluster exploration.

NCE Career Clusters and State Career Clusters Initiative Resources

The NCE Career Clusters has adapted information from the State Career Clusters Initiative to create a career education toolkit for teachers and counselors. In your NCE Career Clusters toolkit, you can find a Career Cluster Model, poster, resource booklets, At-a-Glance PDF Slices, and Plans of Study. Each resource is designed to facilitate the exploration of Career Clusters.

Career Cluster Resource Booklet

To prepare for a Career Clusters discussion, teachers and counselors use the State Career Clusters Initiative Career Cluster Resource Booklet. The brochures discuss the differences between career clusters and career pathways. The booklet outlines that career clusters are career groups from the same industry that have the same skills and educational requirements. Career pathways are specific careers that are within the each career cluster. The Resource Booklet discusses the following topics:

Historical background information

Cluster Knowledge and Skills

Pathway Knowledge and Skills

O*NET Crosswalk Report

Validation Studies

Assessment Protocol

Certification Protocol

The booklet is a “must-read” resource that provides in depth information on each career cluster. Each booklet has detailed graphs, charts, and tables.

Career Cluster Model

To provide an overview of Career Clusters, teachers and counselors use the Career Cluster Model. The Career Cluster Model simplifies sixteen (16) Career Clusters model. The center of the NCE Career Clusters model focuses on six (6) major groups. The career clusters are color-coded so that you can easily present six (6) major groups in classroom activities. The six (6) major groups are:

1. Environmental and Agricultural Systems

2. Business, Marketing, and Management

3. Communication and Information Systems

4. Industrial, Manufacturing, Engineering Systems

5. Health Sciences

6. Human Services and Resources

Here is summary of the relationship between the sixteen (16) Career Clusters and the 6 Super Clusters.

1. Environmental and Agricultural Systems

Agriculture, Food, & Natural Resources (1)

2. Business, Marketing, and Management combines:

Business, Management & Administration (4)

Finance (6)

Hospitality & Tourism (9)

Marketing, Sales & Service (14)

3. Communication and Information Systems involve:

Arts, A/V Technology & Communication (3)

Information Technology (11)

4. Industrial, Manufacturing, Engineering Systems

Transportation, Distribution & Logistics (16)

Architecture & Construction (2)

Manufacturing (13)

Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics (15)

5. Health Sciences

Health Science (8)

6. Human Services and Resources

Education & Training (5)

Government & Public Administration (7)

Human Services (10)

Law, Public Safety & Security (12)

The sixteen (16) Career Clusters systematically fit within the six (6) major groups.

Career Cluster Brochure

Another excellent career cluster student aid is the Career Cluster Brochure. The brochure is filled with photographs that show people performing the different jobs. With this easy-to-read booklet, students get an overview of the different careers, career clusters, and career pathways. Students read about:

What is a career cluster?

What is a career pathway?

What school subjects are important for a career in the … career cluster?

What is the educational or training requirement for a career in the … career cluster?

What are the necessary credentials for a career in the … career cluster?

What is the employment outlook for a career in the … career cluster?

What are some sample occupations?

Career Cluster Slices

Besides the Career Cluster Model and the Brochure, a third student Career Cluster aid is the NCE Career Cluster Slices. The NCE Career Cluster Slice identifies specific career opportunities found within each Career Pathways. Each Cluster Slice is illustrated and designed to explore areas, such as:

Cluster Description

Pathway Description

Cluster Knowledge & Skills

Career Field

Preparation for a Career in …

Examples of Education and Training Postsecondary Programs of Study

Students discover that each pathways leads to post-secondary options including:

Apprenticeships

Certificates

Licenses

Associate’s Degree Programs

Bachelor’s Degree Programs

Master’s Degree Programs

Doctoral Degree Programs

Professional Degree Programs

Career Clusters Plan of Study

At the beginning of the students’ middle school years, the students use assessments identify career cluster interest areas. With the Career Clusters model, brochure, Slices, and LISA resources, the students have explored the different careers and post-secondary training options. Students, teachers, counselors, and parents then use the Career Clusters Plan of Study to strategically plan the students’ high school course work. The Career Clusters Plan of Study provides examples of English, Math, Science, Social Studies, electives, and extra-curricular activities for the following grade levels:

7th – 8th grade

9th – 10th grade

11th – 12th grade

Examples of advanced coursework for postsecondary credit

The NCE Career Clusters web page is the gateway to the student career cluster resources.

State Career Clusters Initiative, NCE, and Lisa materials are just examples of career cluster resources. Career clusters resources have established a connection between school subjects and careers.

Resources:

Explore Career Clusters, Texas Workforce Commission/Career Development Resources (TWC/CDR), US Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, and Louisiana Department of Labor

Nebraska Career Education, States’ Career Clusters Initiative, 2005, and NCTEF/NASDCTEc (National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium) States’ Career Clusters Initiative, & National Association of State Directors of Career and Technical Education Consortium

State Career Clusters Initiative Washington, DC: National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium, 2002

also check me out on www.facebook.com and www.twitter.com

Self Employed Tax Calculator, Calculate Self Employment Tax Deductions 2010, 2011 www.harborfinancialonline.com

What happens when you have a rogue or even out of control employee that uses an office computer to send or even post threats of great bodily harm or uses an office computer to generate other highly offensive communications? Can an employer who ends up being sued for such conduct assert a defense of immunity under the provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C. 230. This particular federal law defense of immunity actually does preempt inconsistent state law that might otherwise impose liability in certain circumstances. The Act immunizes “provider[s]… of an interactive computer service” (the employer) where “another information content provider” (the employee) has initiated the offending activity.

While the facts considered recently by a California Court of Appeal in Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790 are unquestionably extreme and will not likely be encountered in garden-variety employment situations, the CDA immunity defense could well apply in more benign or commonplace circumstances as a result of the court’s ruling in this particular case.

In the Delfino case, the court considered a situation in which unbeknownst to his employer, a very angry and upset employee sends anonymous emails to various adversaries. He also created posts on Internet bulletin boards, threatening great bodily harm and death to these various individuals.

In making this illicit communications, the employee used the computer systems of his employer. The victims of these horrible threats and postings ended up contacting the FBI. The FBI in turn traced the emails and postings to the employee’s office computer. This was accomplished by by tracking the emails and postings back through the originating IP address.

The employee admitted that he engaged in the in the conduct of which he was accused. In the end, criminal charges are filed against him.

The employer terminated the employee. The victims of the employee’s threats sued the employee and the employer for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision or retention. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed the employer was aware that the employee was using its computer system to threaten them. The further argued that the employee took no action to prevent the co-defendant employee from continuing to make threats over the Internet.

The ultimate question before the court in the case was: Can the employer be liable under these circumstances?

Some may consider this particular scenario far fetched. The case was presented as one of first impression in Delfino v. Agilent. The California appellate court determined that an employer could in fact assert the immunity defense under the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C. 230.

In asking the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment, in which it asserted that the employer was a “provider… of an interactive computer service”, and therefore entitled to complete immunity under the CDA. Section 230(c)(1) states that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The statute also preempts inconsistent state law that would impose liability, saying: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” Section 230(e)(3), italics added.

The primary goal of the CDA has been to control the exposure of minors to indecent material over the Internet. Nonetheless, one of its other important purposes is “to encourage [Internet] service providers to self-regulate the dissemination of offensive materials over their services.” This was determined in the case of Zeran v. America Online, Inc. (4th Cir. 1997) 129 F.3d 327, 331, cert. den. (1998) 524 U.S. 937.

The CDA also been enforced in a manner so as to avoid the chilling effect on Internet free speech that would occur if tort liability ended up being imposed on companies that do not create potentially harmful messages but are simply intermediaries for their delivery. Id. at 330-331.

Accordingly, Section 230(c)(2) immunizes from liability an interactive computer service provider or user who makes good faith efforts to restrict access to material deemed objectionable. However, the provider must make a good faith effort to restrict access to material that is deemed objectionable.

Drawing on prior CDA cases that actually were beyond the employment context, the Delfino court ruled that there are three essential elements that a defendant must establish in order to claim section 230 immunity. These three elements are determined by the court are:

(a) the defendant is a provider or user of an interactive computer service;

(b) the cause of action treats the defendant as a publisher or speaker of information; and

(c) the information at issue is provided by another information content provider. Gentry v. eBay, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 816, 830.

In considering the first element (whether the employer was a provider or user of an interactive computer service), the court ruled the question a matter of first impression. In its judgment, the court specifically held: “We are aware of no case that has held that a corporate employer is a provider of interactive computer services under circumstances such as those presented here. But several commentators have opined that an employer that provides its employees with Internet access through the company’s internal computer system is among the class of parties potentially immune under the CDA.” Delfino, 145 Cal.App.4th at 805.

Prior courts had interpreted the term “interactive computer service” broadly in their own decisions and rulings. (For example, in Batzel v. Smith (9th Cir. 2003) 333 F.3d 1018, 1030, fn. 15, cert. den. (2004) 541 U.S. 1085), the court held that the employer was a “provider of interactive computer services” under the CDA. Id. At 806.

Considering the second element of the test, (whether the cause of action treated the defendant as a publisher or speaker of information), the court found that plaintiffs, in alleging that the employer was liable for the employee’s cyber threats, sought to treat the employer “as a publisher or speaker” of those messages. (sec. 230(c)(1).) Id.

On the last element of the test, (whether the information at issue was provided by another information content provider), there was no dispute that the employee was the party who had authored the offensive e-mails and postings. Moreover, there was no evidence that the employer played any role at all in “the creation or development” of these threatening and offensive messages and postings. Id. at 807-08.

In the end, the court concluded that the employer satisfied all three of the elements necessary to establish immunity under the CDA. Therefore, the court of appeal did affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer. The court of appeals agreed that the grant of immunity under the CDA was proper pursuant to the terms and conditions of that law.

In its decision, the court also noted that, even if plaintiffs’ claims had not been barred under section 230(c)(1), granting summary judgment to the employer was nonetheless proper. The court reached this conclusion because plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case on their claims against the employer. Id. at 808. In this regard, the court specifically held that there was no indication that the employer ratified in any manner the employee’s conduct, and that the employer could not be liable under theory of respondeat superior. Id. at 810-12. In addition, there was not even any evidence that the employer was even aware of the employee’s conduct. Id. at 815.

In its holding and order, the court affirmed the long established principle that an employer will not be held vicariously liable for an employee’s malicious or tortious conduct in a situation in which the employee substantially deviates from his employment duties for personal purposes. The court additionally offered what can be considered an important teaching point on the theory and principle of ratification under California law.

The court noted that imposing derivative liability on the employer for an employees actions need not be founded on respondeat superior. Such liability can also be based upon the doctrine of ratification as discussed in Murillo v. Rite Stuff Foods, Inc. (1998) 65 Cal. App.4th 833, 852). In that case, the court observed that an employee’s actions may be ratified after the fact by the employer’s voluntary election to adopt the employee’s conduct. This is done, in essence, by treating the conduct as that of the employer’s own. Id. at 810.

In considering what evidence can support the ratification theory, the Delfino court cited the California Civil Code 2339. The court, in citing that provision, determined that an employer’s failure to discharge an employee after knowledge of his or her wrongful acts may be used as evidence that can support ratification of that employee’s conduct.

In the end, there were a number of lessons that have been learned in the aftermath of Delfino. This includes the fact that although employers can take some degree comfort that the CDA can offer them immunity if out of line employees make offensive or threatening Internet postings or emails, conservative employers should take corrective actions immediately against offending employees when such conduct is discovered. This action potentially should include termination, if the circumstances so warrant. Employers should institute certain policies and procedures that prohibit employees from using the employer’s computers to post or send threatening or offensive information. Moreover, since CDA immunity will be lost if the employer cannot establish that the information at issue was “provided by another information content provider”, cautious employers will also need to avoid any conduct that would suggest the employer has promoted, sponsored, initiated, or ratified the offending material in any way, shape or form.