History geek question:
So, I'm trying to study up on the American context of my era, since it's eventually going to become relevant to my story. Can someone please explain Andrew Jackson's good side to me? I mean, I know he was an early populist, and he was certainly an effective military commander, but he's so strongly associated with Indian removal and therefore with the Trail of Tears that I get snarly when books lionize him. And so far all the books I've found on the War of 1812 do lionize him.
I'm not sure what it is--it's not like any of the historical figures from that period that I like are exactly saints. But somehow between my associating Jackson with the Trail of Tears and the fact that all of these War of 1812 books I'm reading make the British into evil yet militarily incompetent ogres, I keep throwing my source material at the wall because I just can't stomach Jackson as the "good guy."
Dunno about that Lee chick though.
Oh, fer.... I meant Suzi. Or maidengurl, or whichever of you wenches.
I usually overtip her.
Well, you are a cat. Very little sense of fiscal responsibility, as a species.
But "motion control" is veryvery bad for supinators - those shoes force the arch to stay up. Supinators have problems precisely because the arch is so high that it isn't collapsing as it should when weight is put on it - they should have "neutral-cushioned" shoes.
It's possible, of course, that I'm full of shit.
juliana,
motion control shoes are the opposite of stability shoes, right? I mean, I can't remember the running lingo anymore.
Very little sense of fiscal responsibility, as a species.
Too true. My cat likes to knock coins onto the floor.
Too true. My cat likes to knock coins onto the floor.
Last night I went to investigate the cool new toy Ozzie seemed to have found and was taking much glee in attacking.
It was a book of stamps.
