Let's see what's been going on:

Putin is trying to resurrect the Soviet bear by stealing an election in the Ukraine. All those years of KGB training weren't wasted.

The Dutch are now legalizing killing children. For those occasions when you meant to get an abortion that day, but went shopping instead.

The UN oil-for-food scandal goes all the way to the top, in France. Well, practice really does perfect.

Speaking of the French, seems their troops shot up a bunch of people in the Ivory Coast, with nary a word of condemnation from the UN or the rest of Europe. You scratch my back...

Baseball are using steroids. Really? I thought when you hit 35 homeruns a year your whole career, then start hitting 60 per year the last two, it was luck.

Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda #2, says if we start treating Muslims with more respect, they'll leave us alone. Well, since the violence thing didn't work, now he'll try the Monte Hall approach. Hey, Aymie, Bush won.

A California school has declared the Declaration of Independence vilates the separation of church and state. Had to happen sometime. Next, the Constitution will be declared unconstitutional because it would make life so much easier for the left.

Donald Rumsfeld has decided to stay on. Good news for the US, bad for terrorists. Should make for fun listening to Al Gore as well.

Guy who wins millions on Jeopardy, loses during sweeps week. Don't know the answer, but I think the question is, "Who is Mr. Nielsen?" Or maybe it was "Who are Guido and Frankie?"

Intel reform bill is stalled due to immigration issue. Seems there is at least one committee chairman that can't be bullied, threatened or bribed.

Federated department stores are now banning employees from saying "Merry Christmas". Great business decision especially considering the presidential election.

And I thought the world would get boring after the election.

A principal in Northern California (there? I'm shocked!!) has banned a teacher from handing out the Declaration of Independence to his fifth grade class. The story has made national headlines, not in the least because of the supposed role religious voters had in the presidential election.

What I offer here is a defense of the principal. Anyone reading my blog the past year will have have no doubt where I stand on the issue, and it is most definitely not with the principal. However, her defense is simple: ignorance.

But first an illustrative story. Back in the summer of 1994 I began work on a teaching credential at California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks, California. In one of the first sessions of the first of many classes I would take, the teacher made this bold pronouncement:

"The Constitution guarantees every child the right to a free and public education."

Most of the class nodded in agreement, or acceptance, I wasn't quite sure at the time. Knowing this to be completely wrong as the Constitution actually makes no mention whatsoever of education, I raise my hand and ask a very simple question:

"Where?"

Before I continue, I must mention that this professor never failed to remind us every single class that she was a "Latina". No, not Latino, but Latina. Which I imagine was a good thing too because, given her brown complexion, thick dark hair, accent, and Hispanic surname, we'd never have known.

She stops and gazes around with a most perplexed look upon her face. I offer some help by asking if she meant the Supreme Court's Brown decision. She replied no, that it was in the Constitution, she just didn't know where, but she was sure it was in there.

Suffice to say, I learned many things that day, not the least of which was if I ever wanted to finish my credential, just shut my mouth. I spent another two years finishing up the credential and coaching football. And in all my experiences, I learned that she was not the exception, she was the rule.

So, where does that put the prinicpal of Stevens Creek Elementary School? The Commission on Teacher Credentialing has a credential teacher credential lookup service. Oddly enough, hers is not listed. A google search for her turns up nothing.

The requirements to be an elemntary school teacher are as follows:
1) bachelor's degree
2) Pass the CBEST (California Basic Assessment Educational Skills Test)
3) Prove subject matter competency
4) Pass the RICA (Reading Instruction Competence Assessment)
5) Complete an English Language Skills / reading instruction course
6) U.S. Constitution requirement which can be met with college courses or an examination

And that's basically it. So, let's make a few assumptions here based upon experience and general knowledge which could prove totally incorrect with this principal.

Most elementary school teachers have a bachelor's degree in either elementary education, liberal studies, or English. There might be a few humanities majors, including history, but most of those will be psychology or something related.

Administrators will have a Master's in Administration and an accompanying administrative credential. Most administrators will have started in the classroom, usually at the level they are administrators for. Thus, an elementary administrator will have taught elementary school.

So, most likely, Principal Vidmar was an elementary teacher prior to becoming an elementary administrator, and most likely, she was an education, liberal studies, or English major. Her post-graduate work will be in Education and education administration. It is probable that her history instruction was not more than a single class as an undergaruate. Thus, her understanding of the history of the America would likely be fairly limited.

Her response was based as much on total ignorance as politics. No doubt she is a strict adherent to the principal of "separation of church and state." But the sad fact remains she has no knowledge of our history and the ideas that founded the country.

She could no more identify the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution, or Rousseau's Social Contract evidenced in the Declaration from the the right to free speech in the first ammendment. She has absolutely no clue who founded this country, why, or from where they came. She believes what she wants to believe, based on what she's been told, concurring with what little she knows.

Sadly this is the state of public education. And its not just in the blue states either.

Three days ago, I write:

What does it mean if we delay the Iraqi elections? It means that violence and terror are effective means at achieving a desired outcome. The terror will be emboldened and violence will only escalate and worsen if they discover that will deligitamize the elections. This puts the control of Iraq's future in the hands of the terrorists.

For the Shia and the Kurds, it means that once again, the 20% of the population can control the other 80% through violence and intimidation. The surest way to lose the support and the faith of the Shia and the Kurd will be to delay elections.

Today, Amir Taheri writes:

But postponing elections for fear of terrorist attacks means only one thing: Terrorism works...
Arab Sunnis must understand that they can't revive their domination of Iraqi politics, not six months from now or ever. The old Iraq of domination and despotism must be buried. A similar change was made in Afghanistan, where the Pushtuns, who had held exclusive sway for two centuries, ended up accepting a new pluralist system in which power belongs to the people as a whole.

Thanks.

The sentencing phase of the Laci Peterson trial is beginning and the jury is going to be shown never before seen photos of Laci when she was a child. In addition, "Witnesses are pretty much allowed to say whatever they want".

Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his wife and unborn son in a horrific crime that shocked the nation. There is no doubt that the murders were thoroughly planned out and pre-meditated. I can't imagine a more horrific crime and I still have trouble believing that someone without any history of criminal activity or violence could carry out such a grotesque act. But a jury found him guilty.

There is no doubt that he should receive the death penalty. However, the sentencing phase is being corrupted with the testimony and pictures. He should be judged alone on what he did, not who he did it to.

Apparently, Laci was the nicest, sweetest person in the world. But, what if she had been a tramp in high school, became pregnant, and dropped out? What if she had had an affair and the child she carried was not Scott's? Would that have made her brutal murder less revolting, less grotesque?

I understand that crime has far more than a single victim. Violent crime affects all associated with thte victim. Laci's parents will never know Connor, never get to hug or kiss him, never see him grow up, never give him candy, never hand him back to his mommy with a dirty diaper. And neither will Scott's parents. Laci's parents will never hugor hold their daughter again, and most likely, never will Scott's either.

But all this is moot. The only thing that should matter is the nature of the crime and not the nature of the victim. This is not to minimize the loss to Laci's family, or trivialize her. The loss was a tradegy. What would also be a tradegy would be for a victim's troubled past play a role in a reducing a sentence for an equally heinous crime.

Free speech applies to even the most hateful of speech (unless you're at UNC-Wilmington). Justice is, and always should be blind, for botht criminal, and the victim.

Professor Reynolds is posting about Walmart's disappointing sales. There are a variety of reasons for this, but one the news will not pick up on, nor report if they did.

A long time ago I was an economics major. There is a simple reason really why Walmart's sales are slow during a busy holiday season. In economics there are many types of goods, but I want to focus on three of them: complementary, substitute, and inferior.

A complementary good is one that goes with another, like gas and cars, or simple, like fries and a coke to a hamburger. As one might expect, complementary goods are price sensitive. In other words, as the price of gas goes up, fewer large cars would be sold. Likewise, if more computers are being sold, more software, a complementary good, would be purchased.

A substitute good is one that is a replacement for another, for example a Chevrolet for a Ford, or even simpler, a burger for a burrito. These too are price sensitive. If the price of hamburgers rises, due to mad cow disease scare, then people will buy more chicken.

In both those instances, the only thing that changes is the price. The last good however, an inferior good, is not price sensitive. By definition, it is a good whose demand actually decreases as incomes go up. What changes is something other than price, and usually that is people's income. So as people become wealthier, they buy more expensive items.

It is easy to see what type of goods Walmart typically sells. Inferior has no meaning regarding quality, and certainly inferior goods can be every bit as good, or better than, their more expensive counterparts.

A simple example would be watches. A $20 timex and a $500 Tag Huerer do the exact same thing. However, which of the two are going to more impress sales associates, faculty peers, or the neighbors? Thus, the Timex is an inferior good, no judgement passed on the qaulity.

It is safe to assume that anyone buying a $500 Tag could buy a $20 Timex, but certainly not the other way around. The demand for Tag's only increases as peoples' ability to spend increases. Of course, inferior goods could be based on other criteria, such as tastes or preferences. Take a t-shirt with "VonDutch" printed on it, it goes for $25, same t-shirt sans printing, $5. Obviously, the "aura" of wearing 50 cents of screening adds to one's social standing.

So, Walmart is being faced with two problems. One, it is seen as an inferior good, and as peoples' incomes rise, they shop at the higher end mall stores. Second, Walmart also sells tons of complementary goods, which add to the bottom line. But the main items aren't being purchased at Walmart, neither are the complementary goods.

Back in college we called this the K-Mart phenomena. K-Mart actually does better as the economy does worse, and so too does Walmart. Walmart has been hurt by online sales and anti-Walmart sentiment. But the bottom line is the economy is healthier and growing well, consequently more people are working and making more money. And that's why they aren't shopping at Walmart.

And, the news media isn't going to report that.