just do it. no offense OP but i feel like you have a long history of talking about doing things here and getting all pumped up and psyched but then just never doing anything about it. this isn't meant to discourage you because i'm the same way, i'll run through an entire plan in my head but then not follow through by actually making it happen. it's something you have to train yourself to do. my advice would be to find a community college and enroll. you need to be doing something. even if it's just GTCC and you're moving to greensboro, you're still improving your life by leaps and bounds and getting out of what sounds like a stagnant, vitality-drraining situation up in reidsville (fug that place anyway.) good luck.
this, combined with massive fines for being in possession of a gun that isn't registered to you or if your gun is used in a crime, would make a meaningful difference and pose no actual threat to gun owners outside of the NRA's shrill and blustery straw man rhetoric.
i'm always conflicted about this argument because while duh racism is structural and systematic and reflected in our law enforcement institutions, individual police offers are variables and therefore there is no way to say with any scientifically-deduced certainty that a perp died or lived because of his skin color, because the claim isn't repeatable. this means you just have to plug anecdotes into an existing framework of structural violence against blacks, which is useful, but doesn't lend itself well to making empirically-based claims about individual incidents.
if it weren't for his adapting to the increasing popularity of gay rights sentiments, obama could be a republican. hell, the ACA, for all its reforms, is still just a private mandate that dumps billions of dollars into the pockets of insurance companies benefitting fro the misfortune of american medical maladies. in spite of the howling of perspectiveless dolts that insist obama is the most liberal president in the history of the cosmos, he's been performing at center right on a host of issues. he is an improvement over his predecessor, but i am disappointed. hopefully bernie can do better :-)
two of my angriest moments were the drew carter mugging on saturday night football in 2007 and cowboys game in 2009 when a deep muhsin muhammed touchdown was called back for offensive pass interference. i almost fuging destroyed the bar on that one.
Inspired by the Panthers vs. Seahawks replay thread. Mine is from that game, when Kam Chancellor jumped over the field goal unit for an attempted block, and then when we lined back up for the retry he stood in the exact same place and not one player or captain or coach ever even considered the possibility of lining someone up to block him. Sure enough, he did the same exact damn thing while I was screaming blood and carbon dioxide at the TV along with the rest of the universe, and he blocked the kick. I'm convinced the only reason I'm not dead right now is because the penalty called it back and nullified the turnover. Even Haruki Nakamura's boner on the Falcons hail mary in 2012 wasn't as staggeringly, avoidably, obviously fuging stupid.
holy mother of god i finally got done with that thread on SR. absolute gold. i remember three years ago stepping off a ship after an internetless month at sea, plugging into the wifi at a cafe in sydney, and finding out the bounty scandal had just broken. the joy that filled me was unspeakable, and i spent the next week glued to the updates laughing endlessly at their misfortune. nothing with ever compare to those days, but damn if this doesn't come close. this is a staggering breach of privacy and galette is a humungous ass and i would buy him a drink anyway just for ruining things for so many shrimp-scarfing swamp fans.
I was hoping someone would respond to my effort post :-) I'll agree with you on a surface level re: your two kinds of history, but I also think there's much merit in the postmodernist argument that there is no such thing is true objectivity in any pursuit of knowledge, as each pursuit is framed by the epistemology present at the time it's pursued. therefore there are multiple truths - and multiple historical truths - depending on whose memory is being sanctioned by those who produce historical memory. Because of this I disagree with your dichotomy of "political analysis rather than historical fact" as I don't think it's the binary you think it is. This being the case, the best thing we can do is try to be as objective as possible without blundering into the folly of enlightenment-era notions of objectivity as a pure approach, which generally means transparent methodology about how to read, write, and interpret history. Much historical work over the past half century has been about precisely this, from analyzing what it means to analyze history through the lens of presentism (culling the past to serve present needs) or historicism (attempting to assemble the facts independently of their present meaning) or historiography, which analyzes the historical change of historical writing and facts themselves. All this to say: the flip side of your attack on bomb scholarship as tainted by liberal academia (to whom you've failed to assign a motive for such disdainful anti-americanism) is that your defense of it is itself produced by political forces invested in the bomb drop being the right decision (or at the very least the clearly-present, obvious, manifest choice at the time, the only decision that we really could've made.) I've outlined what political forces have produced this defense. I've also outlined the facts that fly in the face of this narrative, and that is that multiple historical sources demonstrate a lot of internal uncertainty about the decision to drop the bomb. It wasn't the monolithic decision everyone likes to officially remember it as. And Edward Layton? Fine, maybe Edward Layton knew a lot about the Japanese and maybe Nimitz didn't oppose the bomb drop (is anyone actually suggesting he did, or is that a straw man?) But it sure as hell seems he had some misgivings about it. And even if he didn't, lots of other important people did. Also, your poke at college professors is laughable considering the role they played in ending the war and greasing the wheels of peace immediately post-war. And it is a source of significant debate whether or not the U.S. would've actually used the atomic bomb on Germany. Finally: getting upset at men in war possibly having "bad intentions" is the precise opposite of cold, hard historical analysis. In fact, it reflects the nationalist rhetoric that rose out of the 1980s and 90s during the attempted return to patriotic values and official historical narratives that reflected those values, a tide of good feelings about America intended to combat any manner of ambiguity or dialogue about a less-than-wholly-moral American decision-making process during the Good War. Perhaps your own selection of historical facts reflects a more political base to your historical analysis than you realize.