Apparently, We Love Blowing Sh!t Up.

Read the Story Here:Operation Odyssey Dawn: U.S. Launches Military Strikes in Libya

On Saturday, March 19th, the U.S. launched an attack against Gadhafi's air defenses from an aircraft carrier stationed in the Medierranian Sea to protect the U.N. sanctined "no fly zone" around Libya. Missiles were launched in the name of "support operations" to protect French and other military air operations following numerous impositions of sanctions against Gadhafi and Libya.

I am SO MAD about this!!!! We shouldn't even have gotten involved in this in the first place. We have two other unsuccessful wars already in the region and if the U.N. wants to do something about Gadaffi, why are WE the ones footing the bill??

I know we fired 122 missiles...those missiles cost roughly $500,000 each.

That, my friends is = $61,000,000 total.

In other words, the cost of firing those missiles could have paid fully for yearly salaries and full benefits for 813 teachers!!!! We have got some seriously misplaced priorities when we'd rather bomb other countries than educate our own citizens.

Perhaps I would feel differently about this IF:

If we weren't so selective in deciding precisely who receives our support (think Sudan).

If we weren't fracking BROKE as a nation due to our military operations in the first place.

If we hadn't already lost so many of our soldiers in the past decade.

If we didn't already have two failing wars under our belt.

If the U.N. would foot part of the bill.

Now generally speaking, I am a huge human rights activist. However, I do not feel our involvement in the region is appropriate. I understand we have an interest in the outcome and that it would be prudent of us to help these revolutionaries as opposed to be on the receiving end of their resentment, if they are successful on their own, for supporting their tyrannical leaders in the first place. Every country has had a revolution and has been left to its own devices to sort out for themselves, a government that reflects the will and wishes of the people. By middling in that process, we are not allowing things to take their course and will end up resented for that anyway.

So why bother??

This is not an argument for intervention, but rather a damn good argument against it. If we had never bothered to take sides in these matters, we wouldn’t be back-peddling against our own current. I continue to think about all the self-sustaining, peaceful, nations who keep to themselves and only have excellent education, modern infrastructure, wonderful healthcare, and happy citizens who have some of the highest approval ratings of their government in the entire world, as a result.

Hope in February's Unemployment Numbers

Read the story here:Unemployment Rate Falls in February, U.S. Adds 192K Jobs

Unemployment numbers from February indicate a small decrease in overall U.S. unemployment figures dropping to 8.9% from a steady 9% throughout most of the winter season. The private sector added 192,000 jobs last month, almost double the monthly average from all months last year. Job growth occured in sectors such as healthcare, construction, and office administration. The last time the U.S. saw this number of jobs added was in 2006 however, the percentage of American's seeking work remains at just 64.2%, a very low rate comparable to March of 1984.

To me, this seems like news to expend a little bit of hope over. It's not that unemployment is significantly down but more so that job growth is significantly up. I was curious as to how this data played out so I made myself a graph I'd like to share:

It may be difficult to read the legend so let me fill you in: Everything in BLUE represents 2008 so you can blame all that mess on the Bush Administration. The rest of the bars you can blame on the Obama Administration as he took office January 20, 2009 with RED = 2009, GREEN = 2010, and PURPLE = 2011. I'm sure everyone noted that the positive gains were all post-Bush. ;) Or, here is another way you can look at the data. The purple chunks represent a chronological timeline beginning with the same time period, January 2008 moving through to today's data, February 2011. The green line is the number of jobs either added or lost during that time:

So in short, we have been on nothing but an upwards trend with jobs starting with Obama's move into office. Don't get me wrong, I think there are a lot of measures this administration could have taken that would have pulled us out of this crap a lot faster, but the numbers don't lie and we are seeing improvement.

Before I get too high up on my horse, I would like to mention the one factor that could either plop us straight back into the middle of this recession, or pull us straight out - gas prices. There is speculation on both sides of this and I tend to agree with the former in that this is going to harm, not help our situation. Those who say the rise in gas prices may help believe that it could significantly impact other countries who pay a lot more for oil than we do here and as a result, manufacturing jobs may start coming home where oil is cheaper to use. I can't say I'm that optimistic. We, as a country, have very limited alternatives for the ground transportation of products that doesn't involve a couple of tanks of gasoline. True we may pay less per gallon for it, but due to the size of our country, the overall costs of ground transportation are stunning and definetly higher than our Chinese counter-parts who have the option of using a mag-train, therefore negating the rise in oil.

I do think this is a positive trend and overall good news so keep your chin up 99er's!

Tennessee Proposes Felony Charges for Freedom of Religion

Read the story here: Tennessee Considers Bill That Makes Following Shariah A Felony

The Tennessee State legislature is currently considering a bill that would make observing some versions and portions of Shariah a felony. The bill is backed by a conservative advocacy group with ties to the same group attempting to block the so-called "Ground Zero" mosque and represents yet another attempt to limit religious freedoms for Muslims in the US. Muslims fear that this could fundamentally fracture the way they worship due to the obtuse nature of the proposed regulations. Proponents of the bill say this measure gives them powerful counter-terrorism tools and that it simply attempts to outlaw the most extreme Islamic practices - peacefully practicing Muslims would be exempt from these laws.

Last time I checked, freedom of religion in this nation was a constitutionally guaranteed right. But that was yesterday. I feel pretty confident issuing the prediction that this will not stand up in The Supreme Court, which is where it will end up if this passes and we are talking about Tennessee here, but then again this court has already committed greater atrocities against established precedent. However, I would certainly call this easily unconstitutional, so instead of talking about the varying loads of legal cases that back this up, I’d like to first of all explain what Shariah law actually is.

Shariah law is the sacred law of the Muslim religion that derives from the Qur’an and the teachings of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Since most of us are familiar with the basics of Christianity, it is very similar to the moral code of conduct Christians derive from both the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. Also, just as with Christianity, there are several different sects and degrees of belief including fundamentalists, traditionalists, and modernists. Shariah law typically addresses secular issues such as crime and money but also addresses personal conduct in matter of sexuality, morality, prayer, etc.

“Nadeem Siddiqi, a 35-year-old American Muslim entrepreneur … said Shariah governs his life."Shariah is how I know how to fast in the month of Ramadan; how I wash before my prayers," he said. "It also directs me in how much charity I need to give to the poor. It orders me to be honest and fair in my business dealings."

Now that we have established that there is nothing fundamentally extremist about the nature of Shariah law, next I want to look at what the proponents of the bill are saying. What could possibly lead them to want to ban portions of someone’s moral compass?

Tennessee republican Sen. Bill Ketron who sponsors the bill:

"[the bill condemns those] who take Shariah law to the other extreme."
"a powerful counterterrorism tool."

Clearly, this represents a broad misunderstanding of not only Shariah, but also of the US Constitution. We do not ban portions of someone’s religion in this country, be it extreme or benign. Regardless, associating terrorism with Shariah law is nothing short of attacking the Muslim religion as being held responsible for the attacks on September 11th. Conservatives have long insisted that they are not blaming Islam as a religion for these attacks – this proposal strips away any slimy film of that notion. Shariah in practice does not mandate Jihad, just as Christianity in practice does not impose a 10 year debt-forgiveness schedule. Anyone who’s had a credit card or a mortgage for 11 years is painfully aware of that fact!

The thing you must remember is that when it comes to protecting our freedom of religion, an attack upon one religion, any religion, is an attack upon all of them. Sure it's on Islam now, but who is to say that your belief system, or lack thereof, isn’t next on the list? Now would be a good time to practice some personal Shariah and treat others as you would have them do unto you.

EU Bans Gender Discrimination on Insurance - So Why Haven't We?

Read the story here: EU Court Bans Insurance Sex Discrimination

In summary, the highest court in the EU recently ruled that Insurance companies including medical, car, life, and other policies, cannot charge men and women differently for insurance. Historically, both in the US and the EU, women have paid more for insurance with these companies citing that their female customers indeed do cost them more money and therefore, it is only fair that their premiums reflect their higher costs. However, the court ruling lays down that charging different rates on the basis of sex is blatent discrimination and has now made the practice illegal. Insurance companies have responded threatening higher premiums for everyone now to cover the higher costs of female customers.

My Take

So why hasn't the US done the same? Insurance companies insist that it is statistically possible, and easy, to prove that women cost them more when utilizing insurance. On the surface, this seems easy enough to believe. Our medical costs are generally higher due to the ability to birth a child, life insurance would pay out at a higher rate due to a higher life expectancy than men, and when a woman carries homeowners insurance in her name only the assumption that she is single and therefore less apt to fix or repair a house problem so she lets the insurance take care of it instead. Albeit sexist in nature, these things are statistically true.

The problem with statistics is that they are a one sided view of a large population and can be easily manipulated to reflect a desired outcome of information. I could go on all day about wrongful statistical implications so let's take a different approach with an example of medical insurance and spare some wind.

Meet Jane Doe and John Everyman. Jane, being a woman, pays significantly higher premiums for her medical insurance. Jane is an empowered single woman who is the picture of health - she exercises daily, eats well-balanced meals, and takes excellent care of herself. She does not plan on having children. John Everyman however, sits on the couch drinking beer and eating potato chips in front of the TV all day. He is quite sedentary and quite often ill. John, being a man, pays lower insurance premiums than Jane. The point is this: while is is possible to prove statistically that women (plural) cost more in medical insurance, Jane Doe will not cost her insurance company more than chronically ill John Everyman and yet, still pays more for coverage. It is discrimination on the basis that being a woman does not make her "everywoman" and ignores Jane's individual case scenario and lifestyle which are HUGE factors in long-term costs to insurance companies. In short, its a cop-out excuse.

The Solution

Instead of simply generalizing on a statistical basis, why can companies not do a comprehensive interview of the individual and adjust their policy accordingly? It is not being a woman that makes medical insurance high for women, its the ability to birth children. If a female client does not plan to or better yet, medically cannot have children, why should she pay more? Same goes for homeowners insurance. What if a woman is currently paying a higher rate on her homeowners insurance but does construction for a living? Basically, I'm simply suggesting that if insurance companies really want to use the excue of charging people fairly for policies they need to get to know their clients as individuals and be able to take into account certain factors within their lifestyle that could substantially influence the probability of a high cost customer. If they're willing to collect the infomation, a small investment into a database could give them more accurate and less discriminatory information that could even save them money in the long run. No more excuses.