John Hope Franklin, Scholar, dies at 94

John Hope Franklin, a scholar of African-American history and an advocate on slavery issues, passed away on Wednesday, March 24 at the age of 94. Dr. Franklin died of congestive heart failure. Dr. Franklin was very involved with debates that helped shape America's racial identity. He worked with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., W.E.B. DuBois, Thurgood Marshall and other civil rights activist. Dr. Franklin's first book, From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African-Americans" was published in 1947and sold over three million copies. Dr. Franklin taught at Harvard, University of Chicago and Duke. He worked with the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education case which outlawed the "separate but equal" doctrine. Dr. Franklin also participated in the 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama with Dr. King. In 1995 he was awarded the Medal of Freedom by former President Bill Clinton. The Medal of Freedom is the nation's highest Civilian honor. Mr. Clinton also selected him to head the Advisory Board to the President's Initiative on Race in 1997.

Some of Dr. Franklin's accomplishments are: first African-American president of the American Historical Association, first black department chairman at a white institution (Brooklyn College), first black professor to hold a chair at Duke, first black chairman at the University of Chicago's history department and first African-American to present a paper at the Segragated Historical Association. Dr. Franklin received more than one hundred honorary degrees in his profession.

Dr. Franklin was born on January 2, 1915 in Oklahoma. He was forced with racism as a youth which prompted him to live his life dedicated to being an activist against racism. Dr. Franklin was a very influential man in our country in the fact he served his life dedicated to spreading his word on slavery and other very important issues.

Gray Wolf Will Lose Protection

The Obama administration announced Friday, March 6, 2009, it will take the gray wolf off the endangered species list in Montana and Idaho. It was left a predator under federal protection in Wyoming. Taking it off the list in these two states will allow there to be a hunting season for the animal. The Bush administration announded this in January but put off the adoption of the law so the Obama administration could use it.

Jenny Harbine, a lawyer with EarthJustice in Montana, has sued to keep the protection of the gray wolf. She is against the killing of these animals. Idaho's govenor stated in 2007 he favored the wolf population being cut from 800 to 100 and he would be the first to buy a wolf hunting license. Idaho has agreed to keep its wolf population of 500, Montana to keep its to 400. If the population drops below 150 the wolf will be relisted as endangered. Environmentalist sued last year to stop the law that wolves be removed from the list. They said without the protection the number of wolves was not abundant enough for different regions, which is necessary for survival. A judge agreed and stopped the delisting. The Fish and Wildlife Service then dropped the argument for more study on this. Environmentalist say they will take the issue back to court.

Wolf management plans in Idaho and Wyoming assume protection; whereas the one in Montana falls short, so the wolf will remain on the list. In Wyoming the wolf is seen as a predator and can be shot on sight if it were delisted. The controversy began last year when people chased down wolves on their snowmobiles and shot them from plans.

If I lived out west where there were wolves I would want there to be a hunting season for them. The question I would like to propose is, what if your child was in the backyard playing and a wolf came and attacked the child. Or, if your beloved pet you've had for years was killed by a wolf, would they still be in favor of saving the wolves. Yes, these are beautiful creatures but there has to be control over the population of them.

Family of Afghan Girl perform abortion

This article I read really does not have much to do with politics in the U.S. but I found it repulsing and something I wanted to speak out on. A five month pregnant girl in Afghanistan was held down by her mother while her older brother performed an abortion on her with a razor blade. They told her it was shameful for the family that she was pregnant, although she had been raped. I don't understand that at all. What is wrong with those people (sorry if that was politically incorrect) but that infuriates me. Our animals here in the U.S. are treated better than the women there. Our country has spent millions of dollars overseas trying to better their country and they still do inhuman acts such as performing an abortion on a family member for the sake of them not looking bad. Where is the humanity there? Rape victims in Afghanistan face imprisonment, abandonment or murder by their own families for the sake of honor. In our country we stand by our family members in times of crisis, not murder them! The rape victim stayed at home for four to five days until her father finally took her to the hospital where he told them she had been bitten by a dog rather than the truth to, again, save the family from shame. I think they are unbelievable people and would rather live in a hole in the ground than in their country. If I've offended anyone with this I am sorry, it just makes me furious such shallow people walk this earth. Link

The Economic Cost of War

President Obama announced Friday the troops will soon be coming home from war. His speech announcing the possible removal of troops from Iraq was seen from an economic standpoint. The war has cost $860 billion so far. President Obama has repeatedly criticized spending overseas. The war has made many people question if it has really made our country safer, not only from terror attacks but for the economy, as well. History suggests that with the possibility of an end to the war spirits may lift and help boost consumers, which in turn helps the economy. There are problems, though, with ending the war in the way of thinking of prosperity. The cost of the war is sensitive to the amount of troops serving in Iraq and President Obama has said he will stay aware of the changing conditions in Iraq as he carries out his plan. Analysts say even if the war were to end now the savings that would occur would be so small they would not make a dent in the debt we are in and it would come too late to help the economic crisis. The President's defense budget calls for $144 billion in 2009, $130 billion in 2010 and $50 billion for 2011 and beyond. His budget is not getting high scores across the political spectrum in pertaining to the true cost of the war. Bob Work, vice president at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, says the budget is wrong but it is very upfront. Winslow Wheeler of the Center for Defense Information says that although President Obama pledge our troops will be home by 2010 the U.S. will still be carrying out missions in Afghanistan so the dropoff in cost will be unsurprising the first two years. Studies have shown by Congress how much the cost depends on the timing for withdrawal. The Congressional research services estimated in 2006 it is costing $390,000 a year to keep each American soldier overseas. In other words, delaying sending our troops home only sends our deficit further in the hole. I think although our country seems to be heading for a depression the safety of our country should be our first priority. We had to go to war to show that our country will not stand for terrorists to attack on our soil but I also believe there does have to be a stopping point. It aggravates me because we have been overseas for so long trying to help a country that seems they could care less if we're blown off the map only to put ourselves in a major economic crisis. Something has to give.