Gah.
I'm making a decision.

I'm not going to judge any of this.
I'm just going to take what people say at face value, and put stock only in what people say about themsleves.

Too many people being petty, too many people hating when they don't need to be, too many people putting their noses where they don't belong.
I'm sorry if I've seemed mean or judegemental to anyone. I really do value everyone. You're your own person.


In other news, I think I'm going to spend a weekend in TN this summer after I turn 21(the weekend of DCI @ MTSU, i think). Pretty darn excited about that one.

War Eagle!

note:
Don't ask me out over facebook.
I don't take it too kindly.

mmk?

This is something that struck me as really applicable, and a very good point to make.
( Read on! )

Also, I gave blood yesterday. My iron was just peachy! ^_^ And I didn't pass out (immediately) afterwards. (I got all the way to marching band rehearsal before I got pukey feeling)

Today is an absolutely gorgeous fall day. (Why does the forecast for Friday have to be cold? ) And I'm off to go get ready for my POLI 3020 exam. Hope y'all enjoyed the article!

Milton Friedman (1912-2006), economist, author.


"The paternalistic 'what your country can do for you' implies that government is the person, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. the organismic, 'what you can do for your country' implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served." ...
"The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather 'What can I and my compatriots do through government' to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom?" ... "Freedom is a rare and delicate plant. Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom, yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom. Even though the men who wield this power initially be of good will and even though they be not corrupted by the power they exercise, the power will both attract and form men of a different stamp."
"How can we benefit from the promise of government while avoiding the threat to freedom? Two broad principles embodied in our Constitution give an answer that has preserved our freedom so far, though they have been violated repeatedly in practice while proclaimed as precept.
First, the scope of government must be limited." ...
"The second broad principle is that government power must be dispersed."
Capitalism and Freedom (1962) [emphasis added]

He goes on and the rest is very interesting, but i don't want to bore you, so this is just something to think about. Got it from my reading assignment for tomorrow in Political Theory.

Some words from John Locke:

"I may grow rich by an art that I take not delight in, I may be cured of some disease by remedies that I have not faith in, but I cannot be saved by a religion that I distrust, and by a worship that I abhor. It is in vain for an unbeliever to take up the outward show of another man's profession. Faith only and inward sincerity are the things that procure acceptance with God." ...
"In a word, whatsoever may be doubtful in religion, yet this at least is certain, that no religion which I believe no to be true can be either true or profitable unto me. In vain, therefore, do princes compel their subjects to come into their church communion, under pretense of saving their souls. If they believe, they will come of their own accord; if they believe not, their coming will nothing avail them. How great soever, in fine, may be the pretense of good will and charity, and concern for the salvation of men's souls, men cannot be forced to be saved whether they will or no. And therefore, when all is done, they must be left to their own consciences."

A picture story for you.
While I should be sleeping. (I have to leave before 8:00am to get to practice on time tomorrow. For our 8:00pm kick-off)

( Hershey's )

It's really hot outside.
Therefore, since I was in the mood to go running (and very much feel the endorphines now! XD) I ran w/o a shirt.

What I want to know is, in your own opinion, (and WITHOUT saying a thing about me- b/c I don't want to hear it) what ought a person look like to go around without a shirt?
For girls, either in a sports bra (ie- running, yardwork...), a swim suit top, or some other middrif showing shirt. And for guys, just generally without a shirt.
Do you think it matters what pants/shorts they're wearing? Do you think it matters how hot/humid it is outside? What about the setting? (obviously nowhere fancy... )

I'm just curious. Let me know y'all's opinions, leave them anonymously if you'd like.

AP video of IT.

State Senate smackdown

MONTGOMERY - One senator hit another senator in the head on the Senate floor Thursday, a violent punctuation mark on the last day of a legislative session in which hundreds of bills died as senators feuded over operating rules.
There was some action Thursday. Gov. Bob Riley signed into law both state budgets for the year starting Oct. 1. Lawmakers passed them last week. And he signed pay raises, which will take effect this fall, for 137,000 teachers and other employees of public schools and two-year colleges and state agencies.
But it was the blow Sen. Charles Bishop, R-Arley, delivered to Sen. Lowell Barron, D-Fyffe, that dominated talk at the State House.
The two men were involved in a heated talk during a break in debate when Bishop suddenly hit Barron in the head, near Barron's left ear. The blow knocked Barron back onto a desk.
Patrick Harris, assistant secretary of the Senate, said he quickly grabbed Bishop and pulled him back.
Veteran senators said they never before had seen a senator hit another senator on the floor. "I have been down here 23 years. There have been many heated moments. But I don't know of a moment where a senator has hit another senator upside the head," said Sen. Hank Sanders, D-Selma.
Several said they were embarrassed by Bishop's action. "This is certainly a sad, sad day for this state and for this legislative body," Sen. Linda Coleman, D-Birmingham, said. "We are the highest elected officials, as far as a group, in this entire state. We are lawmakers. We say that we are not lawbreakers. As lawmakers, we are not above the law."
Bishop, 69, said he hit Barron, 65, because Barron called him a "son of a ..."
"If he calls me that again, it'll happen again," Bishop said later.
Barron denied calling Bishop that name. "I didn't call him anything."

If I'm climbing the escalator at the Bethesda station quickly, I take 100 steps up- while it's moving, of course. (on the middle escalator. There is also one out of the train platform and one out of the tunnel, but they're short)

Also, I saw a sign that said this in the metro the other day: "Escaleftor: a person who stands on the left side of an escalator where they should be walking" My favorite. Serioulsy. Left is for waking, right is for standing. How hard is that? The people during rush hour get it.