Just looked at my finals schedule and my first final is Federal Income Tax on April 26th at 8:30 in the morning. Then I have Administrative Law on April 28th at 8:30 in the morning. I'm definitely not ready to take those finals. So it's time to get to work on those classes
Cue the music (Eye of the Tiger)
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Quite a Conversation
I'M BACK!!!!
On the way to Bloomfield a couple weekends ago, the people in my car had a conversation which we've all had or at least heard of at least once in our life. That conversation (or debate) was about the Catholic Church and how stereotypically Catholics believe that they are correct and that anybody else that disagrees with them is wrong. I took two things from that conversation.
1) While we didn't all agree, the conversation was actually quite pleasant. The reason why I say this is because nobody started yelling or even raising their voices. It was like we were actually LISTENING to each other. In the end, my point is that its ridiculous when people are debating a subject then one of them start yelling or trying to talk louder than the other. It's annoying. Just because you are talking louder than the other, doesn't mean you are now more persuasive. If anything it probably shuts the other person off. Let me give you an example.
Which is the better pizza place? Papa Johns or Valentinos?
Papa Johns: Well the garlic sauce that comes with the pizza is just icing on the cake which is Papa Johns Pizza
Valentino's: IT'S BASED IN NEBRASKA AND IT'S JUST SO MUCH BETTER
Persuaded? :)
2) Okay, I'm Catholic and I've never been impressed with the stereotype that Catholics "think they are right and everybody else is wrong."
It's funny however that nobody ever says this about other denominations even though I have experienced the same from members of other denominations...as I digress
The point I wanted to make in this post is that I don't understand why people get so upset about the stereotype. If somebody who is Catholic believes they are correct about a topic...then anybody who disagrees would HAVE to be wrong in the eyes of that Catholic. It's only logic.
If I believe I'm right on a subject, and you disagree, then I HAVE to think you are wrong.
If we disagree on a subject, then how can we both be right?
I have an opinion about the interpretation of the Constitution, and I believe I'm right. So anybody that disagrees with me, would HAVE to be wrong in my eyes. It's not possible for me to believe I'm right and that it's also possible for somebody else to be right even though they disagree with me.
Or if the question was which is the better football team, Nebraska or Oklahoma, and I would think that Nebraska is better. It's not possible for the other person who thinks Oklahoma is better to also be right in my eyes.
There are many Mormon's who are going to school at Creighton, they have strong beliefs and they believe they are right when it comes to their faith. Since I don't agree they would have to think I'm wrong.
Yay!!
(anybody else notice I used ALL caps when I was trying to be persuasive?) :)
On the way to Bloomfield a couple weekends ago, the people in my car had a conversation which we've all had or at least heard of at least once in our life. That conversation (or debate) was about the Catholic Church and how stereotypically Catholics believe that they are correct and that anybody else that disagrees with them is wrong. I took two things from that conversation.
1) While we didn't all agree, the conversation was actually quite pleasant. The reason why I say this is because nobody started yelling or even raising their voices. It was like we were actually LISTENING to each other. In the end, my point is that its ridiculous when people are debating a subject then one of them start yelling or trying to talk louder than the other. It's annoying. Just because you are talking louder than the other, doesn't mean you are now more persuasive. If anything it probably shuts the other person off. Let me give you an example.
Which is the better pizza place? Papa Johns or Valentinos?
Papa Johns: Well the garlic sauce that comes with the pizza is just icing on the cake which is Papa Johns Pizza
Valentino's: IT'S BASED IN NEBRASKA AND IT'S JUST SO MUCH BETTER
Persuaded? :)
2) Okay, I'm Catholic and I've never been impressed with the stereotype that Catholics "think they are right and everybody else is wrong."
It's funny however that nobody ever says this about other denominations even though I have experienced the same from members of other denominations...as I digress
The point I wanted to make in this post is that I don't understand why people get so upset about the stereotype. If somebody who is Catholic believes they are correct about a topic...then anybody who disagrees would HAVE to be wrong in the eyes of that Catholic. It's only logic.
If I believe I'm right on a subject, and you disagree, then I HAVE to think you are wrong.
If we disagree on a subject, then how can we both be right?
I have an opinion about the interpretation of the Constitution, and I believe I'm right. So anybody that disagrees with me, would HAVE to be wrong in my eyes. It's not possible for me to believe I'm right and that it's also possible for somebody else to be right even though they disagree with me.
Or if the question was which is the better football team, Nebraska or Oklahoma, and I would think that Nebraska is better. It's not possible for the other person who thinks Oklahoma is better to also be right in my eyes.
There are many Mormon's who are going to school at Creighton, they have strong beliefs and they believe they are right when it comes to their faith. Since I don't agree they would have to think I'm wrong.
Yay!!
(anybody else notice I used ALL caps when I was trying to be persuasive?) :)
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Insightful Thoughts of the Day!!
1) Met with my Teammates mentee this morning. Learned his favorite sport is baseball, and not basketball...I asked for a new mentee.
2) Baseball is underrated. The MLB is overrated.
3) Read an article at Mises.org titled "Why Some People are Poorer." The author spoke about how people can be divided into four different "subcultures." However dividing these subcultures doesn't take into account present circumstances of the individual. These "subcultures," he says, "are not necessarily determined by present economic status, but by the distinctive psychological orientation of each toward providing for a more or less distant future."
It's not that I agree with the article, but it's just an interesting way to look at things and I point this out because I've never thought about it this way before.
We usually think either that people are poor because of luck, bad parenting, motivation and other such factors. But this article described the "lower class" and "upper-class," and remember the author doesn't mean lower and upper class as far as economic conditions, but lower and upper class as "future oriented." Which do you fall under?
UPPER-CLASS: "At the most future oriented end of this scale, the upper-class individual expects long life, looks forward to the future of his children, grandchildren, even great-grandchildren, and is concerned also for the future of such abstract entities as the community, nation, or mankind. He is confident that within rather wide limits he can, if he exerts himself to do so, shape the future to accord with his purposes. He therefore has strong incentives to "invest" in the improvement of the future situation — e.g., to sacrifice some present satisfaction in the expectation of enabling someone (himself, his children, mankind, etc.) to enjoy greater satisfactions at some future time."
LOWER-CLASS: "The lower class individual lives from moment to moment. If he has any awareness of a future, it is of something fixed, fated, beyond his control: things happen to him, he does not make them happen. Impulse governs his behavior, either because he cannot discipline himself to sacrifice a present for a future satisfaction or because he has no sense of the future. He is therefore radically improvident: whatever he cannot consume immediately he considers valueless. His bodily needs (especially for sex) and his taste for 'action' take precedence over everything else — and certainly over any work routine. He works only as he must to stay alive, and drifts from one unskilled job to another, taking no interest in the work."[3]
I think I have characteristics from both classes. I have a very future-oriented mind set in what I do as far as education and my career, but I do suffer from an impulsive behavior. "Should I go out with my friends and go wild, or should I stay and outline for Bankruptcy?" Hmm...let me think....
2) Baseball is underrated. The MLB is overrated.
3) Read an article at Mises.org titled "Why Some People are Poorer." The author spoke about how people can be divided into four different "subcultures." However dividing these subcultures doesn't take into account present circumstances of the individual. These "subcultures," he says, "are not necessarily determined by present economic status, but by the distinctive psychological orientation of each toward providing for a more or less distant future."
It's not that I agree with the article, but it's just an interesting way to look at things and I point this out because I've never thought about it this way before.
We usually think either that people are poor because of luck, bad parenting, motivation and other such factors. But this article described the "lower class" and "upper-class," and remember the author doesn't mean lower and upper class as far as economic conditions, but lower and upper class as "future oriented." Which do you fall under?
UPPER-CLASS: "At the most future oriented end of this scale, the upper-class individual expects long life, looks forward to the future of his children, grandchildren, even great-grandchildren, and is concerned also for the future of such abstract entities as the community, nation, or mankind. He is confident that within rather wide limits he can, if he exerts himself to do so, shape the future to accord with his purposes. He therefore has strong incentives to "invest" in the improvement of the future situation — e.g., to sacrifice some present satisfaction in the expectation of enabling someone (himself, his children, mankind, etc.) to enjoy greater satisfactions at some future time."
LOWER-CLASS: "The lower class individual lives from moment to moment. If he has any awareness of a future, it is of something fixed, fated, beyond his control: things happen to him, he does not make them happen. Impulse governs his behavior, either because he cannot discipline himself to sacrifice a present for a future satisfaction or because he has no sense of the future. He is therefore radically improvident: whatever he cannot consume immediately he considers valueless. His bodily needs (especially for sex) and his taste for 'action' take precedence over everything else — and certainly over any work routine. He works only as he must to stay alive, and drifts from one unskilled job to another, taking no interest in the work."[3]
I think I have characteristics from both classes. I have a very future-oriented mind set in what I do as far as education and my career, but I do suffer from an impulsive behavior. "Should I go out with my friends and go wild, or should I stay and outline for Bankruptcy?" Hmm...let me think....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)