Libyan Lunacy

 I find it curious regarding the Libya situation that the press is reporting that Moammar Khadafi (Gadafi, Gaddafi, Kadafi) is attacking "civilians." Well...it's a civil war...of course he is. By definition, anyone not in the Libyan military, and not on the government side, is a civilian. It seems like the more common term for a person who fights against their government to be called a rebel or domestic terrorist. But I have some questions about these "civilians." Mainly because, from the pics and video I have seen, they are certainly the most heavily armed civilians I have ever seen. They have tanks, armored personnel carriers, rocket launchers, grenades, and heavy machine guns. Even for the U.S., that's pretty beefy weaponry for a civilian. Given the fact that Khaddafi has kept his country impoverished for many years, where did the average Mohammed on the street get the money to afford these toys? Has someone from the outside supplied the people with weapons? If so, why? What are these rebels wanting? How did this uprising start? What was the defining event that caused it? Who is leading the "civilians?"

Khaddafi, who is not necessarily trustworthy, says Al-Quaeda has taken over certain areas of his country and is fomenting this rebellion. This could be a lie, but let's look at that statement. Has this happened before? We know in Afghanistan the Taliban have taken control of certain regions of this nation. In Iraq there are many areas still under control by Islamist insurgents. So is it really that far fetched to believe that this couldn't be occurring in Libya? If that is the case, wouldn't Khaddafi be justified in fighting against insurgents who have stirred up rebellion among the people? And...by our supporting these unknown factions, aren't we fighting on the side of potential terrorists?

I think there are alot of questions that need to be answered here, certainly before we commit American lives to this conflict. Unfortunately, it appears that it is too late as the Obama administration has jumped into the fray, going   against the advisement of their military advisors. More questions. Should the president have sought congressional approval as he sought U.N. approval? What is his motivation for involving the U.S.? Did the relationship of Obama's mentors with Khaddafi play a role in his hesitation to act? What are our interests there? How long will we be there? What is the "end game?"  

Some are equating our involvement to President Bush's decision to attack Iraq. Not comparable in my view. With Iraq, there were over 48 separate violations of U.N. sanctions by Saddam Hussein. Long periods of national debate were spent on the subject before we got involved. Bush sought and got the approval of congress, a Democratic congress I might add. He did not worry about U.N. approval but was undoubtedly upholding the enforcement of their sanctions, which they themselves would not do. With Libya, we have a civil war that is only a few weeks old. Up until this point, the U.N. considered Khaddafi to be a peachy guy, even allowing Libya to hold a spot on the U.N. Human Rights Commission. He was a tyrant, although a very benign one. So there is a sudden and mysterious uprising, The Arab League speaks out, and suddenly the U.N. is moving with unprecedented speed toward taking military action against their buddy Moammar. Hold the phone! With Saddam, it took the U.N. years of debate and mountains of sanctions before action was taken against a dictator who abused his people, and even then not by the U.N. but by the U.S.. Hmmm...something's different here and it doesn't smell right.

Stay tuned kiddos...this is gonna get really messy before it gets better. And...oh yes...there will be blood! Blood that will be on American hands. Shouldn't we have a better idea of why and what for before we commit ourselves to killing people of a foreign nation? Just a thought.

Why Do I Have To Learn This?!

I have four children. Two of them are already out on their own and serving in the military. My oldest daughter is in high school and my youngest, God bless her, is just starting her public education experience in the first grade. It seems like every year, starting somewhere in their middle school years, I have to answer the question, "Why do I have to learn this?!" This frustrated query usually comes in regards to a class like Algebra, Spanish, or Biology. My response has usually been, "Well...you never know when you might need this." or "So you'll be a more well-rounded person." The truth is, I've always felt pretty much like a liar by telling my children this. Think about it. How many people honestly use anything more than basic math in their daily lives? How often have you had to know how to translate grams into moles to get through the day? I know everybody just waits for the day that some traveler from France or Germany will walk into their business so they can break out what little they remember from high school language classes and have a fluent conversation. The point is, very little of what we force our children to learn in school is of any practical use to them, other than to get their high school diploma.
To alleviate the problem of parents having to lie to their children, to ease the frustrations of our nations over-homeworked students, and for Pete's sake, to save education dollars, I have come up with a practical proposal to fasttrack our public education system. Here it is:


- Grades K-6 remain the same, teaching our kids the three Rs: Reading, Riting, and Rithmetic.
-Grades 7-9, we drop any foreign language classes, limit the math and sciences to basic levels, and concentrate on American and World History, U.S. Government, English, and the Arts.
- Grades 10-12 is where the biggest changes take place. Starting in grade 10 our children will choose one of several options based on what they wish to do with their future. As it is, we are already having our kids prepare for ACTs and SATs at this age and by the 11th grade they are deciding on colleges. This will also help prevent kids who have no motivation and just wish to float through high school from using up valuable time and resources in classes that could better serve other children who actually have an interest. Here are just some rough ideas of what different tracks could be offered.


The College Track - For those kids who wish to pursue careers that require a college education, this track would be heavy on math, science, English, and history. Counselors would be required to load a student's schedule with classes that will be needed for the student's choice of career or college major.


The Vocational Track - This track would actually be made up of a number of sub-tracks designed to teach a student what they need to know to enter the particular career of their choice. For instance, students who wished to become construction workers or mechanics would have mostly shop classes along with learning Business Math, and Communications. Students wanting to start their own businesses could be taught Business Math, Accounting, Advertising, Human Resources, and Product Development. Basically, this track would be like your average votech school, just done at an earlier age. Teach the students what they need to know to do the jobs they want, and leave out the classes that don't apply to them.


The Military and Law Enforcement Track - Here students would be taught in a JROTC or junior law enforcement setting. They would learn History, appropriate Math and Science skills, Discipline, Ethics, Communications, Martial Arts, Weapons Training, etc... When a student knows in the 9th grade that they have a passion to become a police officer or a Marine, why torture them with uneccessary classes? Give them the training they need to enter these career fields fully prepared and highly qualified.


The Homemaker Track - This one may be the most controversial in today's politically correct climate, but I have to believe there are still women out there who just want to commit their lives to being married and raising a family. Teach these bold young women things like Budgeting, Cooking, Home Repair, Child Development, First Aid, Child Psychology, and the Arts. It is my belief that a certain percentage of young women feel pressured by society to ignore their God-given tendencies in favor of having to pursue a professional career. Good wives and mothers are the lynchpins of healthy societies. Why not prepare them early, if that's what they so choose?


These are just a few of the ways our educational system could be better tailored to meet the needs of our society and the desires of our young people. You'll notice I don't mention foreign language classes very much. If needed, these classes can be taken in college. For the most part, very few Americans use a foreign language in their profession. One reason for this is that most nations around the world require their students to learn English as it is the international language of business. Companies that do require their employees to know a foreign language don't rely on the employee's rememberance of high school classes. They have them taught through immersion schools or enroll them in programs like Rosetta Stone. High school foreign language classes are, in my opinion, a waste of the student's time and a waste of the taxpayer's money.
There are many classes that we now require of our students that are totally unnecessary. Only a handful of the students that take them will ever actually make use of them. Yet we waste countless dollars forcing them on our children and end up making alot of child psychiatrists very wealthy. We can do better by the youth of our nation if we stop pushing them through the same old cookie cutter we call public education and begin to start teaching them what they really need to know.