Ron Paul: Debt Ceiling Warning

Recently there has been a lot of debate over whether or not the debt ceiling should be raised. President Obama originally said that the debt ceiling should not be raised, but as of lately he seems to be thinking differently. This is not unusual for Obama to say one thing, and later act in a completely opposing manner. Consistency is not one of Obama's strong point.

On the other hand, Ron Paul has demonstrated his consistency for over three decades. He has been concerned about Government spending since the 1970's. He warned that if spending continued at the rate it was going this country would end up in a financial crisis. Here we are. The national debt has increased over the past 30 years from $1 trillion dollars to $14 trillion dollars.

Ron Paul does not think the debt ceiling should be raised, but he thinks that it will be. The reason why he is opposed to raising the debt ceiling is that the problem will not be solved and it would encourage more spending. He says there are two things that will permit the Congress to continue spending money. They are raising the debt limit and not addressing that if there is too much debt the FED can monetize it.

Four years ago, in 2008, Ron Paul's ideas and views seemed radical. Many things have changed in these past years; the financial crisis he warned about is here, issues with the Federal Reserves and Foreign Policy have gotten people to open up their ears and agree with what he is talking about.

Below is a link to watch Ron Paul's Debt Ceiling warning, which was posted on May 26, 2011

Ron Paul's Debt Ceiling Warning

Brown v. Board Ineffective in Integrating Schools

I just finished reading an article in the Harvard Gazette which has me viewing the pinnacle case of Brown vs. Board of Education in a new light.

The Supreme Court Case came about in the early 1960's. Mr Brown was a black man who had to walk a ridiculous distance every day to get his child to school. Meanwhile, there was a school close to home that his child could not attend because it was an all white school. So, he brought his case to court, the made it all the way to the Supreme Court. He won, and school segregation became illegal.

There are more details to the case, but those are the highlights. I have learned about it multiple times in school, and have only learned about it in a good manner. Learned how so many changes have come about.

I am intrigued because Martha Minnow, the dean of Harvard Law School, recently released a new book titled In Brown's Wake: Legacies of America's Educational Landmark. Though she gives the case its due credit (it did make some changes and was a step towards opening the doors of education for women, disabled, and English as a second language students), she also notes its in-effectiveness.

Schools are still greatly segregated in the United States. Its a very complex thing that cannot simply be changed with a law. Minnow says it is unlikely that courts alone can “produce social change around something as fundamental as how people view one another.” The law is “more like a fence than a spur for interchange,” she said, making a bridge between law and the humanities all the more critical.

I am interested in reading her book, she is asking questions and looking at the Supreme Court Case for a view I have never seen it from.

It seems that there is only so much laws can do. Standards can be set, regulations made, but if people's minds stay exactly the same then no real change can occur. It seems that until people can see each other as themselves, in spite of race, gender, ethnicity, etc., segregation will find a way.

What role can law play in this? How much can it do to bring about this change?

To read the full article from the Harvard Gazette click the link below:

Ripples of Brown v. Board

Below is a link to purchase Martha Minow's book:

In Brown's Wake: Legacies of America's Educational Landmark by Marth Minow