Am I the only one who just noticed that it’s Wednesday? The holiday week with the free day is completely screwing me up.
Just to make this a relevant post:
Spend less!
Save more!
Invest!
Wee!
The no-pants guide to spending, saving, and thriving in the real world.
A few weeks ago, on my way to work, while merging onto the highway, a soccer mommy in an SUV decided that she was going to accelerate to fill the opening I was going to use. Not before I got there, which would have left her in the right, if still a jerk, but as I was moving into the lane.
The entire reasoning was that she could be rude and dangerous under the assumption that I would be more civilized and back down, allowing her to indulge her little fantasy about how the world works. Luckily I saw her speed up, and had time to move out of the way. Physics very nearly taught her an expensive lesson.
This is similar to the people who think they’ll be safe because “nothing has happened before” or think “He won’t hurt me because I;m a good person” when confronted with a mugger.
This is magical thinking. Basing assumptions of other people’s actions on nothing more than your personal hopes and biases. The truth is, your halo does not provide a shield. Your luck at dodging criminals while strolling through bad neighborhoods does not circumvent statistical likelihood and your jerkface attempt to run me into a guard rail had better be backed by the stones to deal with a wreck.
Magical thinking, wishful thinking, and baseless hope are not rational methods of running your life. Criminals hunt for victims who wrap themselves in a smug, yet naïve, superiority. Murphy’s Law is waiting for someone arrogant enough to think that the laws of physics don’t apply when you’re commuting. The only rational means of predicting the behavior of others is to look at the signals they are actually producing.
Someone tentatively trying to squeeze into an opening in traffic is far more likely to submit to your passive aggression than the guy who merges with a turn signal and the gas pedal.
Someone in the park after hours in a hoody is more likely to hurt you than the guy in running shorts.
The guy lurking in the shadows of the parking ramp, refusing to make eye contact is a more likely mugger than the suit trying to find his Lexus.
A million years of evolution have given us an incredible ability to detect danger. A few hundred years of relative peace at the end of a few thousand years of relative civilization have not erased that ability, it has just convinced us to ignore our instincts under the mistaken assumption that all predators live in the jungle.
Fear has survival value. Don’t allow your rational brain to override your lizard brain completely. Let your fear keep you safe.
“Friends help you move. Good friends help you move bodies.”
-unknown
Some people have dozens of friends. I’m not that guy.
I have 6.
Everybody in the world can be divided into 4 categories.
Family tends to fall into the same analogous categories.
It sounds cold, but I hesitate to let people graduate into the final category. My wife used to try to “set me up” with people that she thought I’d like to be friends with, thinking I was sad to have so few friends. It took years for her to realize that I was happy. It’s a matter of quality over quantity. Most of the friends I have, I’ve had for 10 years or more. I’ve known each of them for at least 5 years, not that time is a requirement.
Moving people into the “friends” category is a lot like dating. You get along, so you invite the potential friends out for a drink, one on one. You feel them out to see if they are compatible. You meet their families, share some food, build some history. If it all works out, eventually, you consider them a true friend, even if you couldn’t mark the date of the transition.
You wouldn’t marry everyone you date, so why would turn everyone you basically get along with into a friend?
Do you have a lot of friends? What marks friendship for you?
Serial killers in the United States often gain cult status due to their strange courtroom antics and dramatic personalities. Recently deceased death row inmate Richard Ramirez was definitely one of the most famous serial killers of all time before he passed away of liver failure in California’s San Quentin State Prison.
After a dramatic arrest in 1985 in East Los Angeles by residents who recognized Ramirez from photographs displayed all over the news, Ramirez would sit in jail for years while awaiting a trial that finally began in 1989. There would be no more expensive trial in the history of Los Angeles County except for the O.J. Simpson trial that occurred a few years later.
At a cost of $1.8 million dollars, Los Angelinos would pay dearly for the privilege of trying Ramirez in a court of law. Incredibly, however, this massive sum wasn’t the only cost associated with this vicious serial killer. Because he was sentenced to death and due to the incredibly long appeals process associated with death row inmates, Ramirez sat in jail for over two decades without any fear of actually being put to death by the state of California.
Over the past hundred years, the number of individuals incarcerated in the United States has ballooned from a few hundred thousand people to almost 2.5 million prisoners. The most expensive people to incarcerate are death row inmates, who sit in a type of solitary confinement for decades. A moratorium on future executions in California has ensured that inmates like Ramirez have been costing taxpayers millions of dollars for housing and appeals with no likelihood of being put to death.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, there are around 700 people sitting on death row in California, which require a massive investment of tax dollars. The state’s ongoing budget crisis and inability to balance its budget has put great strain on the prison system to house so many death row inmates at such an incredible cost.
Richard Ramirez’s untimely death at the age of 53 and his decades-long residency within a state prison brings to light a disturbing fact: more inmates die of natural causes while on death row than are actually put to death. Whether support for the death penalty exists or not, the billions of dollars spent by the state to keep inmates on death row has resulted in just 13 executions since the late 1970s.
A study in 2011 that was conducted by a judge and professor in the state suggested that California has spent over $4 billion since the death penalty was reinstituted. Out of those funds spent, at least a billion dollars was used for housing and incarceration of the inmates, including serial killers like Richard Ramirez.
A further study presented by the Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice in 2008 suggested that keeping the system intact with inmates on death row would cost around $137 million dollars a year. On the other hand, if California was to commute those death sentences to life in prison and abolish the death penalty, the yearly cost would drop to $11.5 million a year.
Offering the families of victims of death penalty-worthy crimes the chance to see a killer or other criminal experience the ultimate punishment may offer some sort of closure. Unfortunately, with the expectation that individuals on death row are more likely to die of natural causes than be put to death in California, the implementation of the death penalty in the state must be reexamined.
Model Michael Girgenti, filed paperwork in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that he is the father of Kourtney Kardashian’s son, Mason Disick. According to Kardashian’s lawyer, the three-year old boy is the son of
her boyfriend, Scott Disick, who also fathered her daughter, 13-month old Penelope. Girgenti is requesting DNA testing of Kardashian, Disick and the child, and if it is determined Mason is his son, he is demanding joint custody.
According to the lawsuit, Girgenti met Kardashian during a 2009 photo shoot, where they began a texting relationship. Girgenti claims that Kardashian told him that she and Disick were separated. A report in US Weekly states in a bio of Scott Disick that he and Kardashian split up in February 2009 after two years because of rumours he was cheating. The court documents state that in March 2009 Kardashian and Girgenti had unprotected sex, which is nine months prior to the birth of Mason, who was born in December 2009. Kardashian announced her pregnancy in August 2009, claiming that Disick was the father of the baby.
Kardashian Denial
Lawyers for Kardashian claim that Girgenti’s accusations are “preposterous and an outrageous lie.” Kardashian attorney, Tod Wilson, told E! News that Girgenti has been “selling false and fabricated stories to the tabloids for years about Kourtney Kardashian and her son, Mason. “ Wilson also claims that Girgenti has been seeking payment to publish the court pleading, indicating that Girgenti was more interested in payment for reports of his alleged paternity than actually proving that he was Mason’s father. However, the suit filed in court indicates that Girgenti is seriously seeking proof of the child’s paternity.
Girgenti Claims Resemblance
Court documents also claim that Girgenti tried to reach Kardashian after she announced her pregnancy in August 2009, but she did not return his calls. He claimed he began to consider that he was Mason’s father when he saw photos of the child, stating that the boy resembled him more than he did Scott Disick. Girgenti also stated that Mason looks nothing like his younger sister, Penelope, who is Disick’s child. Months prior to filing the lawsuit, Girgenti wrote to Kardashian, requesting a DNA test, claiming that if there was no response, he would pursue legal action to determine Mason’s paternity. In the letter, Girgenti claimed that his intentions were not to “hurt the family you’ve created,” but that “Mason deserves to know the truth.”
A Los Angeles County judge has set a hearing for the case in late August. At the hearing, the judge could dismiss the case or order DNA tests for Girgenti, Kardashian, Disick and the child. In California, unmarried fathers do not have legal rights or responsibilities until legal paternity is established, and naming a father on a birth certificate may not legally establish who a child’s father is. Since Disick and Kardashian were not married at the time of Mason’s birth, Girgenti may have the legal right to demand a DNA test.