Tuesday, February 24, 2009

NEXT POST
Black History Month; The Subject that Segregates copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org The history of Black Americans is a glorious one. It is a chronicle filled with much triumph, as well as many trials and tribulations. Yet, many debate whether a month that commemorates people, pitch in color, defies reason. Do the days dedicated to the acknowledgement of African American achievements divide us as a nation? The answer, some say is a complex one. Consider the thoughts of Columnist, Clarence Page of The Chicago Tribune. Is Black History Month already history? Well, it depends. Another view comes from a fellow Journalist and contributor to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Cynthia Tucker. She is more emphatic in her evaluation. Ms Tucker writes; Month robs blacks of part in U.S. history, It seems the subject, Black History Month, segregates opinions. The theme divides people just as the annals of an analogous tale do. Yet, perhaps, before Black History Month becomes but a memory we must reflect on a reality too painful to ignore. A newborn was brought to his adopted parents who, while well educated, seemingly ethical, and definitely well-established in the community were cruel to the infant. The proud father and mother were happy to take the neonate in. "Dad" and "Mom" were fine folks. Each spoke eloquently. They wrote wondrous words such as "all men are created equal." Yet, in the New World they acted as barbarians would. All that they said they thought sacred was negated. The patriarch brutally beat the baby. He may not have physically laid a hand on the toddler. Nonetheless, he had overseers do the dirty deeds. The matriarch, while outwardly sweeter, swiped at the "boy" whenever he was near. The man who acted as a father, and his spouse, did all they could to ensure the tot remain enslaved. The head...
PREVIOUS POST
Where is the restraint in spending? Republican Response to Obama Budget Request - Bloomberg copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org On this fine day in February 2009, President Barack Obama submitted his budget blueprint. For the first time, in near a decade, transparency is built into a national financial plan. The tremendous costs to wage the two wars America is engaged in are no longer hidden. Outlays for military offenses have been written into the ledger, and not in the traditional invisible ink. While one might think fiscal and political Conservatives would be pleased, upon receipt of the document, Republicans immediately pounced. Senator Judd Greggspoke on the Grand Old Party's behalf when he asked, "Where is the restraint in spending?" Interestingly, Senator Gregg and his fellow Republican Legislators did not solicit answers to this inquiry when the last Administration reigned. For all those many years, the Conservatives did not concern themselves with the price the American people paid. None on the "Right" worried of what might be when "unnecessary"wars are fought The monetary debt left to American children was not a consideration when combat was paid for on credit. Then, as now, the greater trepidation was expressed for higher taxes. America attacked its adversaries with borrowed money and on time borrowed from the brood. As long as parents did not have to pay, or see the billions of bites taken from fruits reserved for their offspring, war, or supplementary spending was wonderful. What is not so glorious for the wealthy are the words of President Obama, or his plan to pay as we go. "Having inherited a trillion-dollar deficit that will take a long time for us to close, we need to focus on what we need to move the economy forward, not on what's nice to have," Mister Obama said. This statement did not...

A being that believes . . . "thinking is the best way to travel!" [Mike Pinder, Moody Blues]

Recent Comments