Please email me at:
![Jason [at] LiveRealNow [dot] net](https://liverealnow.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/email.jpg "Jason [at] LiveRealNow [dot] net"){kind=small}
Or use the form below.
[contact-form 1 “Contact form 1”]
The Library vs Amazon
A few weeks ago, I discovered the queue at my public library’s website. The process is simple: Select your books, wait a few days, then pick them up. They are available from any library in the county, delivered to my local library. That’s awesome. Much more convenient-and cheaper-than Amazon
So I moved a couple of pages of my Amazon wish-list into the library’s queue.
I must not have been thinking, because two days later, I got an email telling me that 19 books were ready to be picked up and 10 more were in transit.
In this county, each checkout is good for 21 days. For items that don’t have a waiting list, you can reserve 3 times. That’s 12 weeks for 29 books. Hopefully, I’m up to the challenge. Please keep in mind, I’m a father of three, two of whom are in diapers, and I’m married, and I have a full time job.
I have frugally blown every second of spare time for months.
Update: This was another post written in advance. When all of the books came in, I suspended my request list. Little did I realize, the suspension cancels itself after 30 days. That was 30 more books. Whee!
Zimmerman Wins Lottery: A Prank, but What Are the Real Odds of Winning?
Satirical reports regarding George Zimmerman have been misconstrued as factual by several media outlets, which have led to the belief that the man who killed Trayvon Martin is now a multimillionaire due to a lucky lottery ticket. The improbability of the story is astounding, but the more inconceivable notion is that reporters actually believed it enough to pass it on to their audience. The origin of the hoax was the same source that profligates fake news items on a regular basis: The Onion.
The outlet makes no claims about their veracity, and yet they have been regarded as a legitimate resource on innumerable occasions. This is an ultimate embarrassment for any organization that failed to recognize the comedic parody as satire. Errors like this indicate an inhuman lack of humor in tandem with a dense mind. Fortunately, news consumers were not to be deluded, and immediately subjected the reporting to a fact check.Through metaphorical symbolism, the original faux news story implied that Zimmerman’s recent acquittal has visible parallels with a lottery victory because both scenarios seem to bestow an improbable fortune. The report
was obviously meant to be disseminated as sarcasm, but the writers must feel tremendous pride in their ability to dupe the mainstream media. An unintended prank has a marvelous ability to generate a lasting reputation for the satirist. Notoriety is now something the author has in common with Zimmerman.
A stark contrast exists between lotteries and trials, and they are not equivalent. The justice system strides to avoid occurrences of random chance while lotteries promote the notion that anyone can win. The legal process is supposed to rely on evidence. Regardless of the circumstances, a victory in the courtroom has to be vigorously earned. Contrarily, there is nothing anyone can do to increase their chances in a lottery short of buying massive amounts of tickets. In a trial, the concept of reasonable doubt exists to exonerate the defendant, which should eliminate any potential for a toss-up. Courtrooms operate using evidence while lotteries are strictly statistical; therefore, the comparison is non-existent.
Even when it comes to jury selection, the process is not chaotically uncontrolled. Both sides have a general composition is mind, and they meticulously scrutinize prospective jurors as they whittle the numbers down. The pool is always sifted for bias. They are analyzed with hopes of picking people that will be sympathetically swayed towards a certain point of view. At the end, one side picked a better jury. Lotto victors cannot pick the numbers that will be responsible for their fate. Winners of lotteries do not stalk unarmed teenagers with a gun and fatally shoot them, but apparently winners of trials in Florida do.
Lotteries are often labeled as a tax for dumb people; coincidentally, this demographic is the same segment of the population that was targeted by the falsified journalism. In fact, real lottery odds are mathematically insignificant. An ABC News study declares it would take 1,684,841 years for the average lottery player to win a jackpot. Not even Zimmerman is that lucky.
Related articles
Resolving Legal Disputes
Dispute resolution has to do with the impartial rectification of conflict between individuals or parties. More specifically it is the utilization and execution of methods that are designed to resolve conflicts. In a case in which there is a dispute between people or groups, often times a third, neutral, party is selected to be an impartial representative for the disputing persons. Although dispute resolution can refer to resolutions both in and out of the court, it mainly applies to disputes that are settled outside of the legal framework of the judicial system.
Two of the most common types of dispute resolution are known as adjudicative and consensual. While adjudicative resolution requires a third party to mediate the outcome, such as a judge or jury, and usually involves some form of litigation, consensual resolution is the attempt to solve the issue between the two disputing parties without involving a third party, although at times a neutral arbitrator will be selected to preside over the case, though they will often be there not so much for authoritative purposes but more as a council to keep things fair. There is also a third upcoming type of dispute resolution, online dispute resolution, or ODR, which has become more popular in recent years with the rise of the internet’s prominence in daily life, but it is mainly the application of traditional consensual resolution practices, only adapted to the online environment.
Many disputes can be solved simply through adherence to the law, however, sometimes issues arise that the legal structure isn’t equipped to handle, and so a third party is chosen to resolve the conflict. These types of conflict fall within the jurisdiction of the law and so will be relegated to the political system for arbitration. Judicial resolutions are conflicts that will be, hopefully, settled by the court. In the United States, this is often the case with dispute resolution. This form of resolution usually involves litigation. This is the use of outside individuals to argue for or against the disputing parties. In a courtroom, the lawyers are the litigators, while the judge and jury listen to the arguments in order to come to their decisions.
Extrajudicial resolution is non-court settlement of conflict. Also known as alternative dispute resolution, or ADR, this is what people are usually referring to when discussing dispute resolution. ADR is usually more efficient, cost effective, and less time consuming than judicial resolutions. Extrajudicial resolution concerns various types of ways to settle conflict. These include arbitration and mediation. In arbitration neutral individuals will listen to both sides of an argument and render a decision based on evidence. Unlike the court systems, this proceeding doesn’t necessarily include a binding agreement with the parties.
Mediation is used in extrajudicial resolution as a way to open a dialogue between conflicting parties. The idea is to use a trained neutral third party in order to come up with unique solutions to solve the issue. A mediator is trained to be both an effective negotiator as well as an excellent communicator. A mediator is like a judge in that they cannot take sides, and they do not give legal advice either. Their decisions are not obligatorily followed, though they tend to be followed since the mediators are trained to make decisions that benefit both parties.
The techniques used in dispute resolution can be used both in and outside of the court room. It is often used by individuals who wish to speed up the process by not having to get into the political system. However, they are useful in many cases where individuals wish to come to the most beneficial agreement for all the parties involved.
Huh?
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!
John Luke Robertson Gets Engaged: The Benefits of Marrying Young
As I’m sure you’ve all heard by now, a young Mr. John Luke Robertson is engaged to be married at the ripe age of nineteen. While I’m positive you may be reeling in awe at how anyone could fathom being married at that age, the idea isn’t such a terrible one. The Robertsons have done more than build an outdoorsman’s empire; they’ve set the standard for wholesome values and American family dynamic. Even though I’m sure the two lovebirds won’t be dining on ramen and sharing a ramshackle apartment on the cheap side of town, they have the right idea. Let’s take a moment to explore why marrying young may not be such a bad idea for those of us less waterfowl adept.
In the beginning, there was man. Man loved woman. Woman loved man. They found that they were so completely enamoured with one another that they couldn’t stand the idea of a moment apart and decided, “Hey, let’s spend every moment of or life together, forever.” There they are. Two young, ambitious people with the world ahead of them. Now what?
Likely, college is still looming for the two. Instead of struggling to work through school while paying for housing, they help each other. Two incomes mean half the burden and twice the savings. Instead of going out at night, they stay in studying, bonding, burning cookies and making lasting memories. After four years, that time spent at home has paid off. Instead of tarnishing their unblemished credit by applying for for small loans to stay afloat and likely defaulting, they’ve been paying off credit cards, paying on student loans, and thusly establishing good credit.
Speaking of homes, it’s about time for that. Thanks to the lack of partying and indecision, they left school with great GPA’s, promising careers, and a near perfect credit history. They purchase a home. Likely, a nice home with room to grow and most importantly, equity. Now that they’ve made the leap, the mortgage payment isn’t much more than the rent would have been and they can afford to pay a little extra toward the principle each month. Settling down so early has paid in dividends, via two incomes and ever increasing property value. Our couple has accomplished in five years what would take a single graduate closer to ten or fifteen to obtain.
They may or may not decide to have children. In the event that they do, the kids will have grown and left the nest before our couple has even reached 45. Diligently working and supporting each other, they have continued to save. The house is paid off and the kids are gone. Retired at 50, they own their home outright. They can relax and spend the rest of life enjoying it from a comfy porch swing. There is no struggle or financial burden. They are free, while others their age may still be living paycheck to paycheck and worrying about keeping a roof overhead.
You may still consider the idea of marrying young to be frivolous, but it is likely that at this point in your life you could have been twice as well off had you only settled down with that girl from high school who would have followed you to the end of the Earth. Following your heart may not only make you happy, it can make you stable, self sufficient and and financially secure. They don’t make a duck call for that.
