*************************************************
 
subbing, rudin
HISTORY DENIERS
 
**************************************************************************** 

Let's Hear About How
Sacramento mayor anne rudin
Came To The Room Where Our Graduate Student Was Subbing
And HINTED That She Was Part Of A Feminist Conspiracy
Against Him.
All Right.
That's exactly what happened.
You stated it well.
She HINTED it.
Our Graduate Student remembers her statement,
probably not exactly word for word,
but CERTAINLY he remembers the exact idea she expressed.

Anyway, yesterday we got off into a discussion
about how people say things obliquely instead of directly nowadays,
how they hint things
instead of just saying things straightforwardly.
Like the principal did where he did his student teaching.
She just hinted about it when she became aware
of the harassment of Our Graduate Student
by teachers and others.

That's Right.
Then we jumped ahead to
the "false positive" dna results
that made Our Gradute Student a murder suspect for a decade
and explained how that MAY be part of a conspiracy.
He didn't learn about that "false positive"
until the Fall of 2008
when Neil Katz of CBS News called him and informed him of it.
And, we say "MAY" be part of a conspiracy because,
even though Our Graduate Student
can now prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that there has been a conspiracy against him
for almost three decades,
he cannot say for certain in all cases
WHICH events can be attributed to the conspiracy.
SOME events
(U.S. Senator barbara boxer trying to frame him,
yolo county education administrator trying to entrap him)
are ABSOLUTELY part of the conspiracy.
Some events MAY be part of the conspiracy
("false positive" dna results
that made him a murder suspect for a decade
without him knowing it and, so, unable to refute it.)
There's a whole list of events, now,
over the past three decades,
for Our Graduate Student to re-evaluate and present
now that he has clearly uncovered a conspiracy.
Some high profile contacts
which he dismissed in the past as coincidental,
(bella abzug coming to sac state,
sacramento mayor anne rudin coming to his classroom)
can be re-evaluated now
in light of the conspiracy against him that he has uncovered.

At the other end, some events,
like the two movies discussed in the last chapter,
are "head scratchers".
They just leave you wondering, almost at a philosophical level.
As tenuous as the connection appears to be for events like that,
it is important to present them as part of the story
for the reader's consideration.

The case for the conspiracy can be proven beyond reasonable doubt
without presenting the tangential incidents.
But, we are telling here the WHOLE STORY.
For the reader to emphasize the supplementary incidents
rather than the main, concrete, absolute incidents
which prove the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt,
would be a kind of "intentional misundertanding."
And I know my good readers don't want to be like
the shallow, FAKE liberal fascists who do that kind of thing.

That would be a kind of "history denying."
Richard Dawkins, in his 2009 New York Times bestseller,
"The Greatest Show On Earth, The Evidence For Evolution,"
uses the name 'history-deniers' (p. 7)
for those people who deny evolution.
Similarly, in a collegial nod and salute to Mr. Dawkins
(after all, imitation is the highest form of flattery)
Our Graduate Student uses the name 'history-deniers'
for those people who deny the conspiracy against him,
a conspiracy committed by feminist and liberal
educators and politicians at the highest levels,
emanating out of sacramento, ca.

Evolution is a fact.  It was not always a fact.
Before 1838, it was not even an idea in Darwin's mind (p. 17).
On page 18, Dawkins continues that Evolution's
"elevation from hypothesis towards fact...has continued until,
today, there is no longer a doubt in any serious mind,
and scientists speak, at least informally,
of the fact of evolution."

"In the rest of this book, I shall demonstrate
that evolution is an inescapable fact, and celebrate..." (p. 18).

Similarly, throughout this book,
Our Graduate Student will demonstrate
that the aforementioned conspiracy against him is an inescapable fact,
and celebrate...

"some theories are beyond sensible doubt,
and we call them facts." (p. 10)

"We are like detectives who come on the scene
after a crime has been committed.
The murder's actions have vanished into the past.
The detective has no hope of witnessing the crime
with his own eyes...What the detective does have
is traces that remain, and there is a great deal to trust there.
"There are...letters, diaries" (p. 16)

Of course, Dawkin's is making a comparison
to explain the process of the discovery of evolution.
There was no actual crime committed in Dawkin's analogy.
Similarly, this book describes a process of discovery,
but in this case an actual crime has been committed.
It is not a murder committed by Our Graduate Student, though.
That is not the crime we have discovered.
The crime that has been discovered by Our Graduate Student,
who is both detective and victim,
is The Conspiracy against him
by sacramento's liberal fascist educators and politicians.
If any murder has been committed,
it has been character assassination.

Of course, there will always be the history-deniers.
Despite the overwhelming evidence for evolution
and for the heliocentric theory of the solar system,
and for the historical fact of The Holocaust,
and for the nearly 30 years
of harassment and persecution of Our Graduate Student,
there will be history-deniers defying common sense.
As Dawkins quotes Bertrand Russell (p. 13),
"We may all have come into existence five minutes ago,
provided with ready-made memories,
with holes in our socks and hair that needed cutting."

Our Graduate Student's narrative
is a narrative of the discovery process.
He has already stated on his blog
that His 1982 Newsletters apparently became
"the script for the rush limbaugh program."
He has already documented how
U.S. Senator barbara boxer tried to frame him
with bankruptcy fraud,
and how yolo county education administrator
elizabeth ruport, in collusion with someone "high up"
(in ruport's words)
in califoria's teaching credentialing bureaucracy,
tried to entrap him into committing fraud
in his credential renewing process.
He has told us how schwarzenegger blindsided him
with a very unfair and unbalanced selective political prosecution,
trying to brand him as a "felony fugitive".
But, apparently, like the idea of evolution in 1859,
Our Graduate Student's ideas are hard to accept.
They upset people's apple carts.
They cause Cognitive Dissonance.
They deflate comfortable MYTHOLOGIES.
Nobody wants to believe.
It's too discomforting to believe Our Graduate Student.
So, like Darwin and scientists for the past 150 years,
Our Graduate Student,
through a process of discovery and analysis,
has built a more complete picture.
He sees now how bella abzug's visit to sac state in 1982,
and sacramento mayor anne rudin's
visit to his classroom in about 1988 were part of the story.
He realized that he has to amass and present
and overwhelming amount of evidence
to show, beyond any reasonable doubt.
that the liberal sacramento educators and politicians
and their friends have conspired against him for almost 3 decades.
There is no ambiguity
to the evidence presented above in this paragraph.
But we will present much more evidence
throughout this story of three decades.
Some of that evidence will be ambiguous
and possibly merely coincidental.
Our Graduate Student cannot be sure, himself, in all cases,
whether specific incidents are part of the conspiracy.
Some evidence is weaker than other evidence.
The fact that there is ALSO weak evidence
in addition to the overwheliming evidence
does not weaken the case at all.
It just strengthens it a little bit.
Do not fall for the fallacy
that additional, supplemental weaker evidence
must necessarily weaken the case.
On the contrary, they SUPPORT the case,
albeit weakly.
Get your head straight on that.
Don't be a history-denier.

Dawkins gives an excellent example
of that kind of fallacious thinking
employed by the history-deniers
and it is simply too good to omit here.
On page 145, Dawkins writes,
"Let us again make use of our analogy of the detective
coming to the scene of a crime to which there were no eyewitnesses.
The baronet has been shot.
(Or, in our case, Our Graduate Student's
reputation and character have been assassinated)
Fingerprints, footprints, DNA from a sweat stain on the pistol,
and a strong motive all point toward the butler.
(Or, in our case, the liberal sacramento
education political Conspiracy)
It's pretty much an open and shut case,
and the jury and everybody in the court
is convinced that the butler (The Conspirators) did it.
But a last-minute piece of evidence is discovered...
before the...inevitable verdict of guilty...
the baronet had installed spy cameras"

Dawkins describes the Kafkaesque and Orwellian logic that ensues.
The spy cameras were not everywhere.
"One of them shows the butler in the act of opening
the drawer in his pantry, taking out a pistol,
loading it, and creeping stealthily
out of the room with a malevolent gleam in his eye.
You might think that this solidifies the case
against the butler even further..."
Dawkins goes on in his analogy
to describe how the prosecutor argues that
there are "gaps" in the video sequence,
since video cameras were not present EVERYWHERE.

This a common argument of the history-deniers, explains Dawkins.
"We don't need fossils
 - the case for evolution is watertight without them;
so it is paradoxical to use gaps in the fossil record
as though they were evidence against evolution.
We are, as I say, lucky to have fossils at all." (p. 146)

Similarly, when Our Graduate Student presents evidence
in this narrative of three decades,
do not mistakenly interpret additional evidence,
which admittedly is not as strong and compelling,
to be evidence against The Conspiracy.
We are lucky to have this additional evidence at all
and, taken in its entirety, over three decades,
it, too, is strong and compelling.
The two movies Our Graduate Student saw are anomalies.
They're odd, and he recognizes them as such.
It seems to be unbelievable that
they would have anything to do with him.
But, still, the similarity, the resemblance, the timing are uncanny.
He has made the decision to tell the WHOLE story,
as much as space and memory and reading comprehension will allow,
because, APPARENTLY,
telling only the compelling part,
the part about california's top politicians GUNNING FOR HIS ASS,
isn't quite enough for our history-deniers.

I'm With Ya.
Tell Me About mayor rudin.
All right.
Well, Our Graduate Student decided to sub
because, like everybody else, he needed to work
and he was told that "getting out there" was a good idea.
It was, a little bit.
But, in retrospect, he wouldn't have done it.
Subbing is a very different game from teaching.
Our Graduate Student was an excellent math and science teacher,
and probably would have been a good social studies teacher, too,
given a little practice.
But, anyway, he jumped into subbing
and did a lot of it during the next three years.
He subbed in maybe a dozen districts
all around the sacramento radius,
from poor inner-city to affluent suburbs,
from kindergarten to 12th grade,
from special ed, to P.E., to advanced science.
There were many instances that made him feel and think
that he was being set up, engineered, played with.
For brevity, I'll just mention one,
so we can quickly cover the mayor rudin case, and move on.

Our Graduate Student was active in the Victory '88 Campaign,
the Republican presidential campaign,
and had been invited to join the group
welcoming Vice Presidential Candidate Dan Quayle
at Sacramento Airport.
Our Graduate Student (a veteran of 60's protests, remember)
pretty much single-handedly shut down
the antics of liberal hecklers who were there to
humiliate Dan Quayle before a compliant liberal media.
So, then Our Graduate Student gets a subbing assignment
where the lesson plan left by the teacher
instructs him to play videos mocking Vice Presidents.
There. That's your example.
That kind of stuff happened all the time.
We could go on forever about it.
Moving on to mayor rudin...

So, another time the sac city school district sub dispatcher
calls him up and gives him an assignment at an elementary school.
The school advises him to bring his class
down to the assembly room at a certain time, and he does.
Nobody's there, so he seats his little kids
(first or second graders) in the tiny little seats
and he sits in one of the regular seats up front, and waits.
Some administrator or teacher comes down and tell him
"those seats are for grown-ups and dignitaries"
and she points to the little kiddie seats
and tells him to sit in one of them.

Was She Being Rude And Insulting.
It certainly seemed so.
She could have been polite and collegial.
There was plenty of time to do so.
I mean, she wasn't busy. There wasn't anything going on.
They were just waiting.
She could have introduced herself
and welcomed him to the school.
So, yes, by telling him to sit in the little kiddie seats,
she seemed to be insulting him.
I mean, they could have both sat there
in front of the children
and then both get up together
when the mayor and principal arrived.

So, anyway, he goes and sits down with his class
in a tiny, little kids' seat.
Those regular seats, by the way, were not on the stage,
but were right on the floor in front,
so it's not like Our Graduate Student had put himself on stage.
It was a rude remark, but Our Graduate Student
was not inclined to interpret everything as an intentional insult
in those days.
He was collegial and gave people slack.
It wasn't much of an assembly.
It seemed like just a few classes, primary age (grades 1 - 3).
It wasn't an entire school assembly.
So sacramento mayor rudin shows up
and the other visitor is a former boxer,
a mexican american kid who was known in sacramento.
So, they're just babbling away and congratulating one another
and Our Graduate Student remembers only one remark.
It was a remark by mayor rudin, and it went something like,
"Some people think we're just a scheming, contriving girl's club,
AND MAYBE WE ARE."
She said it like a little girl,
like a little girl sticking her tongue out at ya, sayin',
"na, na na na na !"

Wasn't The Mayor A Distinguished Person ?
I Mean, After All,
She Was The Mayor Of A City.
Well, the comedian Pat Paulson
had come out to sacramento years earlier
and he told some funny joke which I can't remember exactly
about how he "couldn't stop laughing"
when he saw who was running for mayor.

But, getting back to her comment,
It just seemed like an unprofessional thing to say
for the mayor of a large city
in the largest state
in the most powerful country of the world.
So, she was just saying that "they" (whoever "they" were)
were just a bunch of sassy, plotting girls
like she and "they" were a bunch of children.
But, Our Graduate Student never even IMAGINED, at that point,
that there was a Conspiracy against him.
He didn't think supposed grown-ups,
let alone city and state and national leaders,
would be that childish.
Also, he didn't think anybody was out to get him
because HE HADN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG !
That was why he had distributed copies of His 1982 Newsletters
to FACULTY MEMBERS at sac state in 1982.
He was being COLLEGIAL, not a troublemaker,
and was trying to have an intelligent dialogue
with people he thought were grown-ups and professionals.

Indeed, over the years,
when they would often treat Our Graduate Student
like he was a dangerous person,
he would often wonder why.
He had never done anything but write Newsletters,
and he had never advocated violence.
Finally, he concluded that there were two possible reasons.
The first was that it was part of their FAKE Mythology
to portray him as a bad person in every way.
The second reason is that they must have known
that the normal, average person
who was wronged as severely as they wronged him,
would be furious with them and possibly violent.
It was their guilty conscience, in part.
If somebody did to them what they did to Our Graduate Student,
they would have plotted and committed violence
in retaliation.
Because they were
harassing, threatening, and attacking him.

So, that was it.
He just thought that it was a coincidence
that the sacramento mayor just
 happened to show up
at the school where he was called in to sub that day
and that his class just happened to be
one of the few classes called to the assembly room.
He brushed off the insulting remark
by that teacher or administrator,
and he also brushed off the remark by the mayor
that they were "just a club of scheming girls."
"So what if it was
directed at me," he thought.
"She was probably just teasing or joking."
Our Graduate Student just couldn't imagine
that they would be so childish and petty
as to continue punishing him for doing nothing wrong,
for trying to be a good citizen
and good member of the university community.
He wouldn't have been subbing if he thought so.

But, in retrospect, just as with the bella abzug thing,
which at the time he thought was just coincidence,
he is now absolutely certain
that that whole sub assignment that day
was a setup for the mayor to come to the school
to mock him or warn him or whatever it was.

Anyway, my dog is whining now
because she wants me to take her out for a run.
Tomorrow we'll finish up the subbing
with the story of the attack on Our Graduate Student
at an inner-city high school in stockton, ca.
It may have been a setup, as well.
In those days, stockton was often described,
even on national tv, I believe,
as the most violent city in the nation.

OK
Very Easily.
 
OK
Very Easily.