Teachers Teach Because They Can’t Do Anything Else?

        “Those that can, do. Those that can’t, teach.” It is amazing how often this quip will fall from the lips or pen of critics of public education. These philosophers pontificate that public schools are nothing more than jobs programs for those who would otherwise be out of work and on the streets if they were not employed as teachers. These critics theorize that the only reason anyone fights for the continued existence of the public school system is to protect the employment of these otherwise useless individuals. The fact that opponents of public schools must resort to such preposterous and outlandish statements only proves how ludicrous their stance is.

        The evidence against the notion that teaching is a profession for those who could not otherwise succeed in any other form of employment is overwhelming. My own personal experience provides for proof that I could indeed find other, more lucrative employment. At one point in my life I had thought to pursue a career in law. I scored a 159 on the LSAT and was accepted to several law schools and even had financing arranged. Instead, I decided to remain a teacher, thinking that I can make more of a difference in the world in the classroom over the courtroom.

        My situation is far from unique and actually more the rule than the exception. Many of my colleagues come to teaching leaving successful careers in other fields. They also seem to become some of the best teachers and are more likely to remain teachers longer than those fresh out of college. In fact, the younger teachers are more likely to leave teaching within their first five years. This group accounts for the highest rate of turnover in the teaching profession.

        One must also consider the skill set required to be successful in the classroom and how easily those skills are applied to the business world. A teacher typically engages in light bookkeeping duties, records management, data analysis, literary interpretation and criticism, behavior modification, implementation of technology resources, filing, activity planning, developing long range goals, and document production. And that only describes what goes on in a single week. An individual could easily find employment in any field with such talent.

        Finally, to make a broad generalization about the entirety of a profession is not only faulty reasoning, it is plain rude. For every perceived bad teacher, there are 100 others working hard to teach their students. 1 in 5 of those teachers will easily spend an extra two hours or more day on campus either before school or after school grading papers, tutoring students, or engaged in other activities meant to improve instruction in their classroom. Even the teachers who leave at the dismissal time will typically still take papers home to grade or will spend a few hours on the computer creating study guides or other class documents. Most all other professions leave their work in the office.

Forgotten Facts about Iraq

            The constant nattering about President Bush lying or misrepresenting reports about WMDs to start an unjustified war in Iraq are getting old and stale. Liberals and Democrats continually proclaim the United States presence in Iraq to be wrong and unwarranted since there were no WMDs found. Of course this line of thinking ignores the possibility that weapons were destroyed or removed prior to the US invasion but that is not the scope of this discussion nor will the continual bickering bring about any constructive results. If the Democrats even think about using this to draw up articles of impeachment, they will discover that the facts will totally destroy their arguments.

One does not need to quote a single Democrat to explain and justify why the United States had Casus Belli to go to war with Iraq. An argument could be offered that the United States should have still not gone to war over “trivialities” but to do so would have led to additional attacks on American interests. Jihadists, Islamofascists and other states wishing to see an end to the United States would have viewed a lack of retaliation by the United States as a weakness, unwillingness, or inability to defend itself, its allies or any other nations appealing to the United States for protection.

The most compelling evidence for casus belli would have to Iraq’s violations of United Nations Resolution 687 and the resulting Resolution 1441. Iraq’s refusal to abide by the provisions of 687, for example not making reparations to Kuwait, required a response by the United Nations or failing that by members of the UN Security Council. A total lack of response by the UN was sending the world the message that the United Nations was nothing but a paper tiger and a meaningless organization. A willingness to apply consequences for failing to follow the rules is a necessity for any system of justice to work.

There are also the matters of Saddam’s Geneva Conventions violations to consider. There is ample evidence that Saddam ordered the use of chemical agents on the Kurds in the Anfal Campaign in 1988. Not only was this action a violation of the Geneva Conventions, it also constituted a violation of chemical warfare agreements previously signed by Iraq and most of the United Nations member states. Saddam’s government was also responsible for the torture of captured American Air Force pilot Captain Richard Dale Storr and possibly the disappearance and death of Navy Pilot Captain Scott Speicher. Taken together, these matters warranted the arrest of Saddam Hussein. Since he was unwilling to give himself up and his people unable to hold him accountable for his actions, an invasion was the only answer.

A third issue for consideration of casus belli was the $25,000 rewards offered to the families of Palestinian bombers by Saddam. This was clearly an endorsement of acts of aggression against an ally of the United States of America, Israel. The United States has a responsibility to act in the interests of its ally, especially since the United Nations would not act on behalf of the member state of Israel, which merely seeks to defend its sovereignty and existence.

  Finally, there is the matter of Saddam Hussein authorizing an assassination attempt to be made against George Bush Senior. Targeting a former head of state of a nation for murder can only be interpreted as an act of war, regardless of any justifications made for the assassination. If the United States had attempted such an action against the leader of Country X, the Democratic apologists would be out in droves to defend Country X’s right to declare war against the United States. They would also demand the immediate impeachment of the President and want to turn him over to the World Court for trial.

In conclusion, the facts of the case clearly give the United States casus belli. The actions of Saddam Hussein were more than criminal; they were acts of war and were justly treated as such by President Bush. While it may be perceived that the President made the possibility of the WMD’s the focus of his justification for war, it was never the sole reason. Nor did the war become unjustified when no WMD’s were discovered. Opponents to the war in Iraq would be far better served to make a case based on the morality of acting on the casus belli instead of trying to criminalize the actions of the President.      

Neoliberalism

I think it is time to coin a new phrase  - Neoliberalism. It can be used to describe those in Washington who are clearly by their own admission certainly not Conservatives but fail to meet any of the descriptors of a Classical Liberal. Democrats may claim to be liberals and have the moniker slung at them but they are actually nothing of the sort.

A classical liberal would have far more trust in the ability of the individual to determine how to spend his or her money. One would also be opposed to the entitlement state so loved by the Democrats and their cronies. In fact, most of the planks of the Democratic Party’s platform are in direct opposition of what Liberalism was once all about.

Of course, I do realize that there is the term “modern liberalism” but I think my word is far more fitting as it alludes to a more negative connotation, implying that those to whom the moniker is applied do not have a true understanding of what a Liberal really is.