I got injured today.
On the way back from the storage room, Amber and I decided to make the most of our trip outside. Amber perched herself on top of the boxes on the cart ("Carl") and I pushed her down the slight incline outside Murphy Grill. The cart hit a snag, though, so Amber flew off onto the cement, and Carl flew up and whacked my knee. I have a large bruise from the ordeal, but we had a good story to tell when we arrived back in Admissions.
Mitch and I came home today. It's my last weekend home before I leave for Japan, so I'm making the most of it. Mom is playing Mario Kart, and obviously, I'm writing an entry; the rest of the time, though, I've been reading my international relations textbook. I just finished the chapter on realism, and now I'm onto liberalism. I've noticed, though, that the attitude the book takes on liberalism is quite different from the attitude it employed on realism. Most of the current chapter I'm on has been about how liberalism is entirely idealistic, and only neo-liberalism takes any hints from the realistic perspective.
And you could say that being idealistic is the whole point of liberalism, but if you read the text, you'd understand why I'm frustrated.
The basic point is that it's obvious the textbook was written in 2003 when the Iraq War had just begun and public support for it was mostly in favor.
I have no tolerance for biased textbooks. Even though college students should be expected to be able to read critically and understand biases, I certainly don't have to hold any respect for the author of the text.