ADHD a hoax or over diagnosed?

I have seen a couple of different places discuss how the rate of Children in France that would qualify for the ADHD diagnosis is drastically lower than the US the first was a podcast by Tom Woods the second was this article.
Even though I don't have a degree in the matter I am inclined to agree with the statement ADHD is over diagnosed. First I have my self as a bit of evidence- when I was a kid I had that diagnosis and through out my life I was on different types of medications with horrible results, such as- being aggressive, suicidal and just stoned.  Some people will say I just needed the right medication- but there comes a point when you have to question the diagnosis. Later in life I was diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome- which is a condition on the Autistic Spectrum.
I was the one who informed my blogging partner about the condition- and I tried my hand at a couple more medications- one left me sedated sleeping most of the day and unable to think straight and the other seemed to have no effect in dealing with my depression. As you can not treat Asperger's with medication and my depression was caused by losing my job and latter getting dumped I felt the medication had very little effect and my psychiatrists took me off of it.
My mother is a special ed teacher who is currently working with autistic children and she claims that there is a tendency to have a label of the day when they are unsure what to do with a child and the people who make the claim that ADHD is over diagnosed tend to believe the issue is really behavioral and social and both places state the French have less tendencies due to how they deal with students and run the schools.
As I have only gone to school in the US and I am not an educational major I can't comment on the theory.

Ecco tarriffs

one of the many areas where the status quo has conflicting policies can be seen in the fact many politicians will support free trade while at the same time push for tighter environmental regulations. There are good reasons to support free trade- such as the notion that it will improve life for people around the world and prevent war and promote better understanding- there are also good reasons to be concerned about the environment.
The problem is that the argument for government regulation is that corporations can not be trusted to maintain environmentally safe  policies while the argument for free trade is that the free market will benefit the general population and must be encouraged.
 You can not hold both beliefs as the same time one of the two must be dismissed- this means either supporting an Eco tariff where you compare the cost of meeting regulations in the US vs those of other nations and taxing the difference or coming up with a free market solution to protecting the environment. I would prefer to look at the free market solutions that protect private property- which would include consumer advocacy and education, along with union negotiations and may be law suits so companies will be forced to pay restitution when their pollution harms people and their livelihood.
If a toxic chemical can not be dumped in the Red River between Oklahoma, Texas- where I grew up- then I don't want to see it dumped in the Red River in Vietnam.

immigration- the real issue we need more jobs and better real pay globally.

Our current immigration system is a mess- as we have an unofficial open border , the politicians are discussing giving amnesty to people here illegally then to make the political matters worse we have the 14th amendment giving birth right citizenship.
As a nation we need to ask what is wrong with having  an honest policy and either enforcing the laws as written or adopting an official open border policy?
The main arguments against adopting an open border policy are the following.
1.) the notion that modern immigrants don't try to adopt to the US culture. Most of the immigrants family's I have met at least the kids speak English and they try to keep the heritage of the old country as well as claim that of the US.
2.) The fear immigration will overwhelm welfare roles- this was one of the reasons that New Zealand has such  strict immigration polices -they don't let anyone in except the rich. The issue here is however is the government welfare system and not immigration.  If a program either private or public is successful it will be a hand up. One of the reasons I prefer private charities over government welfare programs is the simple fact I can go to places like Charity watch  and give my money to what ever program I believe is the most effective at helping people.
3.) depressed wages- When ever you have to many people and not enough jobs you can expect depressed wages the best way to improve the situation would be more jobs. The only way that will happen is to have more business opening up and possibly growing- this is why in my posts on the minimum wage I talk about the importance of regulatory, tax, regulatory tort and monetary reform.
There are regulations that make it hard to start a new business like a city that only has a limited number of taxi licences and others that make it expensive to hire the 50th employee both sets of regulations form a tag team against the poor after all some rich person might be interested in taking some large gamble that will shake up some given industry but feel unable to do so.
Going from country to country should simply be called moving and all the economic objections people might give should be countered with proposals to end those objections with more liberty.

basic principles

I'm stepping back to cover some basic principles that guide my thoughts on politics and society.

1. TANSTAAFL- There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. This phrase gets tossed about a bit and it relates to the fact everything in life does have some opportunity costs even things that don't cost you money. For example if I am sitting on the couch watching classic "Doctor Who" while chatting with Truthseaker on Yahoo IM- there are tons of other things I could be doing at that point in time but I am not on the simple grounds I would prefer to watch classic "Doctor Who" and chat with Truthseaker. 

2. Voluntary exchange is always better than force- this is one of the many problems with government mandates. If Marry hires Bill and Ted to paint her house for example- you might not like the details of the contract- for example they might agree to do the job for less money than you or a different paint- but you don't right do dictate pay rates- you would have room to complain if they were using a toxic paint that would harm  you and your property. 

3.) Murphy never sleeps- Murphy's law is what  ever can go wrong will go wrong when Murphy is on the job. This is one of the classic problem with all political promises. Every time a politician proposes a new law, program or what not they will always paint a rose picture where the proposal pays for itself and  life is some how better. So you need to think about what they expect things to work and as many ways that things can go wrong- and alternatives to accomplish the goal.

4.) Be contestant but feel free to change your mind as you get new information. This might sound contradictory but it is not. The constancy is about ideology, morality and logic not your opinion on individual positions. As one quote from a  British politician accused of flip-flopping goes "When my information changes my opinion changes- do you do the same sir." 

Oklahoma Surgical center- why aren't they the typical clinic ?

Healthcare is an important issue for us- as you as you will know from reading other posts my friend and blogging partner Truth Seeker- was born with 4 forms of Congenital heart defects so the importance of affordable healthcare is not lost on us.  On the build up to Obamacare- the supporters were quite fond of stating how much faster medical expenses have grown compared the the ecconomy as a whole- I believe some figures were saying as much as 10 times as much as the general rate of inflation.
This is an issue that must be fixed in order to determine how to do that we must ask  the simple question how did we get in this mess?
The first clue might be found with the Oklahoma surgical center  this is a clinic that offers up front pricing and claims that other clinics charge several times more than they do- on their webpage they like to point to operations where their total cost was less than the co-pay at other clinics.
Their founder  claims in his blog that they are the exception instead of the rule because the current US healthcare system is a  scam filled mess that that hurt consumers.
The first being the Certificate of  Needs laws which- used to exist at the federal level but now exist at the state level in all but 14 states- which are built around the notion that limiting the number of clinics providing a service would some how limit the prices. Their supporters would claim that this is because the medical industry for some reason is different than the rest of the ecconomy and is exempt from basic laws of economics .
Then we have programs like Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Payments which was set up to reimburse healthcare providers that were losing money treating uninsured and patients. The problem according to Dr. Keith Smith- in his videos title the $100 aspirin is that the program has institutionalized abuse as hospital might jack up a bill by by 100000% as they know people would not be able to pay- then claim a loss and collect 5% of the bill which would be 500% more than they should have charged in the first place. The problem is not solved by more insurance due to claims repricing programs where an insurance company will get a bill negotiate it down then charge a claims repricing fee based on the percent they claim to have saved the policy holder.  These videos paint an image where hospitals are not struggling due to giving away free care but rolling around in cash because they gouge the public with the DSH program and will fight any plan to either end or reform the program in a cost saving manner tooth an nail.
Any healthcare reform needs to favor a free market approach if you were to reform the DSH program- the easiest part of any reform might be putting a limit on what you will pay for some medicine- for example you can buy a bottle of aspirin 500 tablets for $3.60 at Walmart there is no reason for a hospital to believe they can get buy with charging $5 for a single pill. The harder part would be to determine a DSH reform where you have hospitals competing and driving down prices to a market clearing level which is exactly what I would expect to happen if the program was ended.
While there are some people who are battling horrible conditions and should get help for the medical battles and I will do what I can for them- but these people should be the exception and not the rule- and the Oklahoma surgical clinic does provide some clues on how to improve the medical system.

Living wage conclusions

Tax, Tort, Regulatory and monetary reform as long with ending subsidies needs to be brought up whenever the minimum wage is discussed especially when someone make the claim that it in fact was relatively higher.
When someone makes the claim it was someplace between 30% and 300% higher in 1968- it is vital to ask the simple question why the did the real value drop with out a decrease in unemployment?
I have seen many people state the reason was greed- the problem is this would be like the FAA blaming a plane crash on gravity- which was constant through the entire flight.
Colonel Sanders, Ray Kroc, Dave Thomas and every other business man will naturally look at how to maximize their profits - that is simply the nature of business, so I try to look at what has changed since the late 1960's or if they bring up Australia- what is different between both nations.
Your standard of living is not based on how much money you have in your pocket- rather it is completely based on what you can buy with that money and that in turn is based on society's productivity levels and competition.
A good example of this is to simply think about the quality of life has changed over the course of the past few centuries.
Next it is important to remember there is no such thing as a free lunch - in life there are always trade offs and  Failure to understand this fact is magical thinking which is doomed to fail.
This is the reason that I ask everyone who wants to see a $15 minimum wage  especially if they site the the US in the past or Australia- why are prices so high in the modern US?
I don't expect CEO's to cut their own pay but instead- reduce hours for those people the increase would effect, decrease quality and increase prices so the value of $1 would drop so that the quality of life you could afford on $15 would be a lot closer to what you can currently afford on $8 today.
I don't pretend that there might not be any negative side effects for ending subsidies and conducting the forms.  I just claim they will affect fewer people and be over quicker.
I am not saying we should toss every regulation out- I am though saying we should look at costs and benefits because Australia might just be proof that it will result in drastic price cuts with reasonable environmental and safety standards.

Living wage part V- monetary reform part II

I mentioned shortly about people screaming for inflation becuse it lowerd real wages. A good example of that can be seen in this article by Kevin Drum of Mother Jones Magazine titled Why High Inflation is Good in a Recession.
The basic claim is that in a recession the biggest obstacle to recovery is the phenomena is sticky wages which is caused by employers who for some reason are not wanting to cut wages.
His entire plan to unstick wages- is to go print out a bunch of money to devalue wages as employers are refusing to do it.
My understanding of economics states that no matter how bad the ecconomy is- that the only reason that an employer would be reluctant to cut your pay is because there is still demand for the goods and services that the company is providing. Now Kevin Drum is arguing for a higher minimum wage.
If Kevin Drum or anyone else advocating inflation to solve the "problem of sticky wages" honestly believes the biggest problem facing the ecconomy is that wages are not adjusting then they should advocate repealing the minimum wage and if he has honest concerns about the standard of living for the poor then he should have advocated letting deflation run it's course.
The primary argument that people will bring up against repealing the minimum wage is the fear it doing so will hurt the poor by lowering real wages across the board. However if someone were to turn around and sight sticky wages as an argument for inflation which is common among Keynesian economists then they can not use this argument as they are expecting that inflation will decrease real wages across the board.
If there was no minimum wage- companies will try to cut pay the concept of sticky wages states that they will be reluctant to cut a good employees wages especially if they are making money. There is a chance that wages might fall with out prices falling- and there are two reasons that this might happen. The first is the ecconomy quickly starts to recover and people prefer to pay a few bucks over standing in line so companies hire more people for example starting pay might fall from $9 to $6 so a company might hire 3 people instead of two so it is now easier to get a job and at some point prices will settle with close to 0% unemployment.
On the other hand if you simply allow inflation to run it's course a Keynesian would argue that the higher real wages would lead to more unemployment as employers are reluctant to hire new people and would automate and off shore jobs that consumers would prefer to have done by a person in the US.
The problem with this argument is that they will make the claim that increasing the minimum wage will lead to higher real wages because employers for some miraculous don't automate or move jobs off shore or raise their prices to accommodate the higher costs.
Letting deflation happen may result in jobs getting moved off shore and automated but as prices are going down consumers will have more purchasing power which means they might have the money to hire people to do other jobs and you might have some jobs come open as people decide to retire.
In either of the two situations the way to reduce the possible bad side effects would be if it was easier to start and grow a business which takes us back to tax tort and regulatory reform. People who object to the idea of having a minimum wage- will inevitably support tax, tort, regulatory and monetary reform and ending subsidies as they expect it to reduce the cost of running a business which in turn will mean higher real wages due to a mixture of lower prices and unemployment depending on consumer preferences.
My next post will be the last on the subject

Living wage part IV monetary reform- part 1

A lot of people who support raising the minimum wage will sight inflation as a reason to do so. When I see this come up I always ask- what is the reason for the inflation and suggest that we would be better off with out inflation and bring up the reason for inflation.
Inflation is a monetary phenomena caused by an expansion of the money supply from a mixture of fractional reserve banking, government over spending and money printing.
First fractional reserve banking- the way our banks operate is the following. 100 people deposit $1000 in the bank-on the 15th then they turn around and lend $50,000 on the 16th. They still tell the first group of people they all of $1000 available to them but they have only $50,000 in the bank. So the money supply has grown and as it does prices start to rise.
Rising prices tell companies to produce more while consumers buy less which results in this inflationary trend reversing until people feel things are cheap enough they want to buy and companies cut back on production.
When prices are increasing across the board due to monetary inflation- it is hard to tell where consumer demand lies. So if it were completely up to the banks they would start raising interest rates which sends the signal to people who have debt to pay it down and for those who don't to save their money.  Eventually the money supply will shrink and prices will start to drop.
Fractional reserve banking is still dangerous as a bank that makes the wrong call they won't be able to cover their depositor's money.
There have been two extreme ways to deal with the risks of fractional reserve banking-the newest is a central bank and the older has been to ban fractional reserve banking.
The argument for a central bank is that you need a lender of last resort backed up with tax dollars the problem with this answer is that it basically ends up centralizing interest rates. Now if the central bank has interest rates set to low and refuses to increase the rate- now the market gets confused. The low interest rates send the signal to borrow money but because the average person has little to no money in the bank they are not in a position to buy big ticket items or to fund the long term investments and thanks to the inflation it becomes hard to tell what prices are increasing because of consumer demand.
The reason that a lot of people like Ben Bernanke   object to the idea of falling prices is on the notion that they will inevitably ruin the ecconomy- as people will stop buying things and stop paying on their debts and will start hoarding money and some will bring try to sell the fact it lower real wages.
The alternative view simply calls stuffing your cash is a mason jar a form of savings- and expect to see the consumer base for a particular product to expand as prices fall.
In the next part I will talk more about where fear of falling prices will lead some people.

living wage part III regulations

A lot of times the opponents of regulatory reform appear to hold the view that the regulatory process involves climbing the top of Mount Rushmore where they fast and pray until Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR write the new code on a stone tablet that is delivered by a bald eagle and can never be altered lest the nation faces plagues and famines of epic proportions and we should never question them.

While this is a bit of a joke the fact remains that the opponents of regulatory reform- argue there is no problem with how regulations are written, claim line of the code will pass a cost risk analysis and seem to believe business might lose money if they hurt their customers.

First the regulatory agencies that enforce the regulations and benefit from a larger code are the same people writing the code. The basic process goes as following they propose a regulation, have a hearing where different people comment- some times people with in the industry the regulation will affect will come out in favor as they believe it will eliminate competitors then finally the agency implement the regulation. The fact this happens was shown quite clearly when Mitt Romany said we need regulations to prevent people from opening banks in their garage.

As regulations are the law of the land this violates the constitution which requires that congress make the laws and for the president to sign or veto them and creates a conflict of interest as the more an agency regulates the easier it will be for them to request more money from congress. Right now the first step to fixing this problem is the REINS act which would require congress to vote on a regulation if it is expected to cost more than $100 million.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/01/12/the-reins-act-increasing-the-accountability-of-our-elected-officials/

There might be good arguments for some regulations- but just because those exist does not mean every regulation falls into those categories so we need to remove some regulations.

so we have the cost of existing regulation- and the ways they hurt the average consumer.

The first way is by making it harder to enter a field- this could be done by limiting licenses, fees, or by limiting how a company could distribute their product.

A few examples of the last are the fact there are laws in some states that prevent car companies from owning their own dealership, next we have regulations that prevent a new cable company from opening up in your town.

There are also some regulations in 36 states called Certificate of needs laws which basically state that in order to open a new clinic or hospital you would need to get the permission of existing health care facilities. The argument given for the CON laws is that limiting the supply of health care options will some how decrease prices by eliminating duplication. While economics 101 states that restricting supply of anything leads to higher prices.

(http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/con-certificate-of-need-state-laws.aspx,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinerestrepo/2014/10/29/certificate-of-need-bureaucrats-blocking-your-health-care-options/)

No matter what level of government has imposed these regulations- you need to ask what is the real problem if someone tried to run a particular industry from their house? If they risk blowing up the neighborhood there might be some logic be hind that. If the business is just loud and bothers the neighbors that is fine- but if your argument for a regulation banning someone from selling home made cookies is the possibilities of food poisoning- that is a little harder to accept because in improperly sanitized industrial kitchen will result in you being as sick as an improperly cleaned home kitchen.

Bernie Madoff ran his scam from a push office

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/bernard-madoff-s-office-f_n_229278.html

and there are people running small banks and savings and loans in Europe from offices that barely above their garage.

like his documentary the bank of Dave show or RT report show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fIGZOe-Oa0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gyy6q9vrKpU

Next there are regulations which limit growth- the regulations with small business exemptions will often fall into this category. People argue the exemptions need to exist because specific regulation is expensive and only a company with 50 employees would have the money to afford it. This creates the situation where a company with 49 employees will not hire employ number 50- unless they know they can cover the cost which the big business in a field won’t have to worry about small fast growing innovative companies from challenging them. So if you honestly think a regulation is to expensive for a small company- then you need to explain why it isn't to expensive for the consumers and if you honestly think a company that grosses $1 billion dollars should not do some thing then why is it fine for 1000 companies that gross $1 million to do the same thing?

Then there are regulations designed to counter the negative effects of older regulations which we see with net neutrality- supporters point to the regional cable monopolies to say we need it instead of going after the regulations which created the monopolies in the first place.

The benefits of deregulation might even show up on one of the favorite memes in support of raising the minimum wage- the one that claims Australia has a minimum wage of $14 US and the unemployment rate is about the same as ours.

In the 1980’s and 1990’s the Australians and New Zealanders did tax and regulatory reform-and the country did not fall apart so bad that Mad Max is a documentary and they aren't dropping dead left and right due to air and water pollution down under.

The goal of regulatory reform should be sliming the code down so the rules are the same for every company in a field and to eliminate the parts of the code where the costs out weigh the benefits.

So if $14 in Australia bought roughly what it does in the US and the unemployment rate uses the same calculation methods that the US does- then you should consider that this is because the tax and regulatory reform freed up enough cash to enable companies to pay $14- and as I stated before if you can make a profit starting people at $15 and charging today’s prices then the same process could bring down prices and given the choice I would rather see prices drop and wages stay the same over seeing wages increase and prices staying the same as the first will help savings go farther.

Sadly there a lot of politicians and economists who would rather have the higher wages which leads to the next topic monetary reforms.  

Living wage part II-Tax reforms and subsidies

I am discussing these two in the same entry as a lot of subsidies come in the form of tax credits. First let’s talk about tax reform by starting with the poster boys Warren Buffet and Mitt Romney.

A lot of people will claim tax reform will only benefit the rich- however Warren Buffet claims he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary

The tax issue is one of the reasons I can’t stand Warren Buffett- he goes on TV screaming his taxes are to low and asking for the “Buffett Rule” while in private he seems to believe the real Buffet rule- is “if you are Warren buffet you don’t pay taxes http://nypost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-hypocrite/.”

I digress- the two of them both have such low tax rates because they are able to structure their business in such a way to avoid as taxes as best as they can. I don’t blame someone for wanting to do that so my biggest issue with Mitt was the fact when he had a chance to address the issue- he avoided details and seemed to quite ignorant on the subject.

He was proposing to reduce loopholes and and deductions and lowering the right. When Obama claimed that this had never been done before- Mitt could have- stated that both JFK and Ronald Reagan did that.

I consider this to be the bare minimum that needs to be done with tax reform ideally we should go farther- and adopt something a long the lines of a flat tax or sales tax.

Examining the pros and cons of those tax proposals is beyond the scope of this post- as this is about why it needs to be done.

The first issue when discussing tax return is simplicity- I don’t care if some one like Warren Buffet or Mitt Romany- only pay 10% in taxes but I do care how they get that rate and this is the first failing of our current tax system. The amount of loopholes, credits and deductions- the argument for the lot is to shape behavior and some are designed to favor certain industries- which is the case with the green energy and renewable fuel mandates.

Subsidies no matter what their form is- are designed to give a boost to economic activities that would otherwise be unprofitable or less profitable.

Let's take the green energy mandates- the stated goal is to make America carbon neutral by encouraging bio-fuel, wind and solar power with subsidies.

A person's choice to buy any of these products should be based completely on their advantages and disadvantages compared to the alternative and not a government subsidy or tax credit. Some time the reason their supporters give in congress is terrifying for example this lobbyist stating one of the goals of the ethonal mandate is to increase the price of corn- then he tries to argue it does not effect people because it was feed corn and not sweet corn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyNRl-YzX4Q

If the price of corn were to drop- then perhaps you might be able to cut the budget for food stamps- by making it so fewer people will qualify. I could hear some people screaming this might harm the US farm industry- but if the bottom falls out of the corn market- perhaps farmers will change crops

or may be some one will find away to make corn based bio-fuel profitable. I don't know what is possible- but I do know when the economics side is market driven- people will save money some how.

This might be cheap food, cheap fuel or ideally both.

The next area to simplify the tax system is removing the progressivity. The main arguments for a progressive tax system are the ideas- that the rich benefit proportionality more from the government than other people and the idea the government should be redistributing income with out thinking that policies like a fiat currency and low interest rates are leading to inequality, or asking the question do people drop in and out of income brackets or the negative effects of catering to envy- like reduced investment, reduced savings, both of which can lead to reduced employment or the possibility that increased taxes might just lead to increased prices.

The charts that show a growing income inequality tend to claim that this trend has existed since the 1970’s- they will normally blame taxes and come out to support a tax system that did not exist back then- perhaps there are other issues could be causing the situation as I fail to see how this complex tax code helps the poor or how taxing someone else more would help me either as I expect them to pass the cost of their higher tax rates to everyone else

a living wage - introduction

While I am opposed to a $15 minimum wage- I would love to see everyone get a living wage.

I would agree 100% with the notion that every full time employee should be able to make enough money to rent or buy a house buy enough food to feed themselves and take care of a dependent.

However- raising the minimum wage will not allow this and the only way to make this dream a reality is for people to have higher real wages which mean low unemployment and lower prices.

The notion that raising the minimum wage will result in a higher standard of living across the board is simply magical thinking.

First- in order for a higher minimum wage to mean anything for the bottom rung prices would have to remain the same or at least increase less than the minimum wage increase.

So when these posts pop up I start talking about regulations, taxes subsidies , tort and monetary reforms which the people supporting a higher minimum wage will automatically dismiss under the claim that would only help the rich then state that executives at McD’s make $8 million a year.

The supporters of a higher minimum wage seem to believe that if you simply raise the minimum wage- the executives will simply cut their own pay and it would be enough to cover the increase with out raising prices or cutting jobs which leads me to conclude that they believe that the bulk of a burger’s price is the CEO’s pay instead of the executives pay being a small cut of the burger’s price and selling millions of burgers.

If they made their money from mark up- then it would be reasonable to believe that they could make money if they cut their prices. If they made their money in volume – there would be little room to alter pay or other costs upward. As lower prices tend to attract more customers- a company that offers lower prices might be more profitable than one with higher prices. We must also remember that industries with high profit margins- no matter what the cost of entry is will attract new competitors who will bring down prices.

Another fact to remember as well- is that when the cost of running a business goes up- companies will find ways to cut costs, raise prices or go out of business- all of which harm the poor the most.

So any answer that increases the cost of business must be rejected- and we must look for other answers.

If the fast food giants are big because they keep their prices low- decreasing the cost of business will lead to lower prices. I will go though my next few entries addressing each point starting with subsidies and taxes, then monetary reform and finally tort and regulatory reform.

I am looking at these things- as all I would expect to happen with a minimum wage increase- is for people to loose their jobs and prices to increase unless something offsets the higher wages. So let’s look things that could lower the cost of business- there is a chance that it might not increase the buying power of $7.25- however if that does not happen the trade offs could be more raises, more well paying jobs and lower unemployment making it easier for people to climb the economic ladder- which is the common goal.  

Who should be on the $20 dollar bill?

http://www.womenon20s.org/candidates
There is a move to put a woman on the $20- Over all I don't have any objections as long as it is the right woman. My top two candiates are Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth.
Both Women were instrumental in  starting the underground railroad-  which helped a lot of people escape slavery and it was the nation's first civil rights battle.

Saint Patrick - a voice for liberty

As a paleo-conservative/libertarian and Christian who supports the free market and believes the non aggression principle ( all people should be free to make the choices they believe will benefit them with out threat of violence, coercion or fraud.) and Luke 6:3

Do to others as you would have them do to you.

are both the best summery of all moral code was greatly moved when I saw on a couple of websites that Saint patrick was a very vocal opponent of slavery.

(http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Mar1997/feature1.asp#F3 ,http://faithworks.crs.org/our-hero-st-patrick-of-ireland/ )



I know his history and how he was kidnaped and sold as a slave in ireland then escaped and returned as a priest. I am not surprised he would be an enemy of slavery. However reading it just made me feel blessed about him choosing to by my patron and reminded me why the theology of the icon and my belief in individual liberty walk hand and hand.

All arguments for liberty are based on the simple idea- being an individual human means we must be treated with some degree of dignity. The bible states we are created in the image and likeness of God.

Saint patrick knew and understood this- I'm not going to speculate what he would say about the world today only- that belief in the dignity of the individual is a corner stone of liberty.

Congenital Heart Defects (Why I care, and why YOU should)

If I’m posting this on time, then today should be February 6^th 2015. Tomorrow starts Congenital Heart Defect Awareness Week.

Faces of CHD:
from left to right, Bo, 1996-Still Alive,
Matthew, 1996-2003 (May his memory be Eternal),
Chelsea 1994-Still Alive

The definition of a Congenital heart defect is a structural problem with the heart or main arteries that develops before birth. Here’s the sad thing. Every year in the United States, 1 out of every 112 live births, or roughly 40,000 babies, are born with at least one heart defect. 1 in 5 of those 40,000 will require corrective surgery in their first year in order to save their lives.

CHDs and birth defects in general tend to come in clusters, so a child born with a heart defect, may have more than one, and/or also have other muscle problems, problems with the function of other organs, immune system problems, and the possibilities are actually endless.

There are 40 different known kinds of heart defects, ranging from those that don’t interfere with the function of the heart and amount to little more than an internal birthmark, all the way to those that require full heart transplants in order for the patient to have any chance of surviving to adulthood.

The scary thing about CHD is that it is more common and more fatal than all forms of pediatric cancer combined, and yet research into the causes, detection, and treatments of CHD as a whole, is disturbingly underrepresented in terms of government research funding.

What is sad, is that when we as people pay attention, we have proven we CAN save these children’s lives. In 1994 it was expected that 50% of CHD babies born that year would die before he or she reached their eighteenth birthday. In 2014 that rate had fallen to 35%, the reason? There are a few.

1.      Better and Earlier treatment. Thanks to advances in medicine that make life saving surgeries safe and possible earlier in life, and drugs and machinery such as the Berlin Heart, that help keep children healthier otherwise and alleviate the strain of everyday life on their hearts, therefore helping prevent further damage to the heart while they are waiting for surgery, fewer children are dying and/or suffering long-term damage before they can receive the treatment they need.

2.      Better detection: The fact is, that unless the required treatment IS a full heart transplant, lack of treatment options isn’t usually to blame for most CHD related deaths these days. More often than not, it is because the CHD isn’t detected and treated in time. There are a few ways of detecting CHDs, including prenatal ultrasound, neonatal ultrasound, detection of a heart murmur, labored breathing, cyanosis (lack of Oxygen which is apparent in a blue/grayish tint to skin around the mouth and fingernails), or the use of a pulseoximity meter. Pulsox is more accurate, cheaper, less time consuming and less invasive than almost any other method at our current disposal for detecting CHDs in babies that appear healthy. For this reason, most states now have it on their list of neonatal medical tests that are mandated by law. Of the 8 states that currently don’t, (Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Hawaii, and Mississippi) Mississippi has introduced legislation which if passed would require pulseox as a newborn screening, Hawaii has a similar bill already in the works, and in the remaining six that have yet to make laws requiring it, Wyoming and Kansas are currently considering it, and a majority of hospitals in all 6 states are using pulseox as a normal part of their own protocol.

Here’s a map detailing current Pulsoximeter legislations:

http://cchdscreeningmap.org/

Still the sad fact remains that of the 40,000 CHD babies born last year, 14,000 of them STILL will not live to see the big 18, and in the year 2015, that’s appalling. 

            If you would like to help, there are several ways to do it.

You could donate to the organizations where most of the funding for research is coming from.

http://www.marchofdimes.org/

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/

Here is a link that will help you learn more about pusloximeter screening and allow you to sign a petition to enact legislation in your state if it does not currently have one:

http://www.chfed.org.uk/campaigns/chf-pulse-oximetry-campaign/

Or, starting tomorrow, wear red, support the cause!

An Eye for an eye will make the world blind

http://news.yahoo.com/europes-muslims-feel-heat-backlash-paris-terror-123511491.html
After the Hebo massacre there has been an increase in the number of attacks on Mulsims and other people the attacker think looks Muslim.
These attacks whether or not they end with the loss of life should be considered just as much of an act of terrorism as the Hebbo shootings, as they are designed to terrorize and intimidate the local Muslim population.
This cycle of violence must stop- We need to take a moment and seek to be peace makers.
I've read places claim that there are sections of France Paris which are basically under Sharia law and that Kufari (non-muslim) enter at the risk of their own lives, Which I am inclined to believe is nothing but irrational anti-Muslim propaganda as studies show that at least around Paris when surveyed Muslims will state they consider themselves to be French, view religion as important and are appalled by violence.
http://www.euro-islam.info/country-profiles/city-profiles/paris/
Some people might try to say the 2005 riots disprove these studies -however the riots and high crime rates simply show there are some thugs in the community and the attacks mentioned in the article above show that Non-Muslim French have their share of violent thugs as well. The streets of Paris were designed so Napoleon could shoot cannons at rioters.
The problem is We have violent individuals committing acts of violence and not enough people preaching and practicing peace and tolerance. There are multiple reasons people turn violent and all should be discussed. Today is Martin Luther King Jr day and I believe we shouldn't simply think about the issues of race in the US but of all violence between people for reason of "race" religion and what have you and ask- what can we do as individuals to make things better.

Bishop IAKOVOS and Martin Luther King JR. 

Liberté, égalité, fraternité- what a crock

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-it-means-to-stand-with-charlie-hebdo/2015/01/08/ab416214-96e8-11e4-aabd-d0b93ff613d5_story.html?hpid=z2+

This article is talking about how France is turning into a totalitarian nightmare- with a national speech code as well as a national dress code. 

I don't see a big difference between the mentality of some one who would kill a bunch of offensive idiotic trolls for publishing an offensive magazine or a government agent who would fine them for publishing the same magazine.

I just wish more people would embrace the most famous quote attributed to Voltaire.

" I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."