My Photo

April 2015

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    


« Agenda21 – drones overhead, black boxes in cars, … | Main | TechTest welcomes TechTestJr »

24 April 2012


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Courtroom Evidence – the Z/M case (updated 28apr12):


Steven Frisch

"Reason and logic have always had a low survival rate in courtrooms, especially where poorly understood evidence of a technical nature is presented by self-serving lawyers to innumerate juries.". George Rebane

Now I am not going to weigh in on that statistical validity of the forensic examination of the voice recording, I will leave that to a defense attorney to bring up in the course of the actual trial.

But the quote above is another matter. It makes me wonder what part of the constitutional right to trial by jury Mr. Rebane does not understand? How does this quote square with Mr. Rebanes stated Tea Party values of constitutional governance and rights? Just what part of the constitution do you wish us to be governed by Mr. Rebane?

George Rebane

StevenF 706am - The assessment of the nature of judicial proceedings in a court, and our "constitutional right to trial by jury" are two orthogonal concepts. I spoke only to the former. Furthermore, "Tea Party values of constitutional governance and rights" is orthogonal to the other two, thereby allowing all three to be profitably discussed independently. However, not being able to discern this, or purposely attempting to confound them, leads to the perpetually fruitless disconnect between progressives and classical liberals in such discussions.

Finally, there was no hint of choice of governance, by our Constitution or otherwise, in this piece. From an ideological perspective, the independent reader should carefully note Mr Frisch's tack viz the posted analysis of how courtroom evidence is (mis)understood, especially as it concerns expert testimony.

Ryan Mount

My word, first good Ben over on RL's Blog, now here with Mr. Rebane. I'm breaking out my reference materials today. :-)

Mr. Rebane, with all due respect (and I mean that truly), what does "the assessment of the nature of judicial proceedings in a court, and our 'constitutional right to trial by jury' are two orthogonal concepts" mean? I beg, in the formal sense, your pardon.

My intuition tells me you are asserting that the [Constitutional] ideal of a court room is different than the actual court room? If yes, then that's no surprise. There is a show element certainly to this with actors, etc. Anyone who's been through the Court system can attest to this.

I also wonder if you're implying, again my intuition not your explicit statement, that Progressives are more prone to show part and less aligned with, well, the facts or the law. If not, I beg your pardon.

Scott Obermuller

Hey - you kids heard it right the first time. The right to a jury trial is in the Constitution. George never said it wasn't or that he some how wants it suspended for certain cases. What goes on in those trials is a different matter. I have spent many a happy hour as a juror in various civil and criminal proceedings and have come to be amazed at what goes on in those hallowed halls. Further, I have read about many cases in which the jurors came away stunned by what they are subjected to. In one case as a juror, I began to form the opinion that the "expert witness" for the defendant should himself, be put in jail. My wife was thrown out of a jury pool because she honestly answered the question "do you believe there are frivolous law suits?" She expected in raising her hand to answer in the affirmative, all hands would rise. Only one other gentleman did as well. He went also. The rest of the jury pool either lied, or actually believed that there was no such thing as a frivolous law suit. I hope I'm never in the position to have to answer to 12 such folk in my life. Although, I would be getting my Constitutional right to a jury trial.

Steven Frisch

That's right Scott and George, you guys are being pretty clear--the rights are in the constitution but the people are too stupid, too self-interested, too unreliable to exercise it, or for you to trust it.

I think you said it all.


"Now I am not going to weigh in on that statistical validity of the forensic examination of the voice recording, I will leave that to a defense attorney to bring up in the course of the actual trial." -Frisch

Sorry, but to date, there is no forensic examination that has been admitted into evidence, so no need for any cross examination.

Speaking of evidence, Steve, how's that science report going?

George Rebane

RyanM 1101am - Thanks for asking. I try to first define any 'big words' I may subsequently use, especially if needed in their formal sense. Orthogonality was defined here -

As a matter of course, readers are always advised to search RR for any high-falootin concepts or verbiage in my posts. I probably tire too easily in having to sing the same song over and over again, therefore the attempts to cover it once and then get on with the program.

WRT your point about the fate of reason and logic in courtrooms, that has been well known since before Roman times. The obvious problem is that lawyers on either side subscribe to a utility function from which 'justice' is absent, and comes along for the ride only if it satisfies their prime objective which is to prevail.

I don't know that progressive lawyers show any more zeal to prevailing than do conservative lawyers - in matters of law and public policy both, no doubt, feel that they are pursuing goodness and light and the American Way. You may have been more astute to notice a bias in such matters.

Douglas Keachie

It will be so simple for Zimmerman to clear up the voice print situation. Set up the same cell phone, put him in the position he was in at the location of Trayvon's death, presumably on his back, and have him repeat his claimed "help, help, help," and then do a comparison of the resultant recordings. Should be a piece of cake to do, and would go a long ways towards establishing that he was not the aggressor. Wonder why he hadn't done this already? Does he know the results in advance?


There is no "voice print situation". The only voice analysis Zimmerman will have to contend with at trial is the work procured by the prosecution, and we don't know what that might be.

Douglas Keachie

OK Greg, let's try "speech spectrograph," from Yale, clear back in 1970. Would care to take a guess at how much more accurate the science is now?: Handwriting samples can be compelled, and I suspect speech samples can be compelled too.

Douglas Keachie

BTW, you may not know who, doing what, may be, but I actually have some notions, based on family connections. But, I can't tell!

Douglas Keachie

And BTW, I did searches for George's connections to the science, and was unable to find any.


There is no "voice print situation". The only voice analysis Zimmerman will have to contend with at trial is the work procured by the prosecution, and we don't know what that might be.

Douglas Keachie

One word, repeated three times, by supposedly Mr. Z(according to his already made statements) will be a subject of speech pattern recognition, most likely using the very graphics generated by software of the apecies Greg works on, using mathematical comparisons of high precision.. I'll bet $100 on it, loser to pay "Dogs Run Free" "we don't know what that might be" but, risk adverse as I am, I'll bet Greg that this happens, umless of course Z recants his previous statements and throws himself on the mercy of the court. Dogs Run Free is a great program. Repeating your mantra of total agnosticism on this issue doesn't make it an impossible to prognosticate situation.

Scott Obermuller

Steve - I know you are leading the charge to let everyone possess machine guns as per their Constitutional rights. Correct? Or do you not trust those red-necked, pea-brained, pot-bellied militia types? Could it be that it's you that doesn't want to honor the Constitution because you don't trust the citizens? George and I are merely pointing out that obtaining a fair, and speedy trial by a jury of our peers is not just a matter of going through the motions. We of course, honor our protections and rights and by extension point out that the operation of a modern trial can often become so warped that the original right is reduced to a travesty of justice. These days, anyone can buy an "expert witness" that will back up the contention of the one who pays the fee. Of course, there's nothing new here. Even Billy Shakespeare didn't like lawyers. Anyone who wants further info, I would suggest Googling "fully informed jury". Trusting fellow citizens with my Constitutional rights begins with citizens that understand the original intent of the Constitution. If they haven't the education or they don't agree with the Constitution (Oblabber) I certainly don't consider them worthy of being my judge or my peers.


Keach, you just don't get it. There is no evidence that you have found, it's all hearsay. There most probably will be a trial, and the probability you will discover what is needed to understand the events and the applicable law is virtually zero.

Douglas Keachie

Dearest Greggie,

Searching this page for the word "evidence" one finds probably over twenty occurrences. None of them were mine. My offer of the bet stands. Do you accept? If not, why not? It would be an easy $100 to a worthy charity, and out of my pocket, based on your discounting of what I HAVE referenced, by apparently claiming it is unknowable at this time.

BTW, thanks for all the hints, examples, and practice in making WaFfLe STATEMENTS.

Douglas Keachie

Scott "I certainly don't consider them worthy of being my judge or my peers. "

TS Elliot, they are your fellow citizens, who earn the wages and go to the schools the wealthy chose to provide this country with, and to whom we have given tax breaks for the last ten years. Man up and live with it.

Scott Obermuller

"Man up and live with it." - OK, we'll put Doug down as wanting all of those wage earners to have the right to own machine guns. Or don't you trust them? Did you pay 100% of your wages to the govt or did you get a tax break as well? If you are going to quote me, please don't use a partial quote and then fabricate who it is I'm talking about. Their wages and the school they went to have nothing to do with the type of citizen I mentioned in the original line.

Douglas Keachie

Scott, the Constitution doesn't allow you to pick and choose your jury. Read the damn thing!

Douglas Keachie

Goodnight, Scott!

Steven Frisch

"If they haven't the education or they don't agree with the Constitution (Oblabber) I certainly don't consider them worthy of being my judge or my peers."

The problem with this Scott is that we are part of a society, bound together by a common covenant, ruled by a constitution, and subject to the same laws. Now I am sure that you would consider me in the "Oblabber" camp. But I am an American, and so is Obama, and a citizen, and a registered voter, and qualified to sit on a jury, and to judge you. One could just as easily say, "If they don't share my culture (or race, or religion, or gender, or socio-economic class, or ideology) I don't consider them worthy to be my judge or peers". And if we accept that the entire construct collapses.

You don't get to drop out of the are part of a society.....

This mind set, the mind set that says "I get to pick and choose which parts of the bargain or social contract I am going to follow" is anti-thetical to American values, our constitution, and our history. Those of us who are standing up for the constitution, and trying to better our nation every day, are the patriots.

George wraps himself in the flag while tearing down our nation every single day.

Douglas Keachie

Good morning Scott, here's your jury. Good luck!

Consitutional Jury

Douglas Keachie

"Oh no! Mr. Zimmerman," or Scott's probably view of the media:


Brad Croul

“the evidence by which Zimmerman’s claim of justifiable homicide will stand or fall”

If, Mr. Z saw no crime being committed, and only called 911 to report some suspicious character in a hoodie in the neighborhood, was told by the 911 operator to not engage the suspected perp, but took off after Mr. M, and engaged or otherwise confronted Mr. M - who had the right to “stand their ground”?

So, who harassed whom? Who started the fight? If you confront someone (without any authority to do so), and someone stands their ground, then gets the better of you, and you shoot them; is that justifiable homicide?

Didn’t OJ walk because of a bunch of statistical BS over DNA evidence thrown at the jury by the Dream Team?

Did OJ do it?

George Rebane

DougK 1109pm - Your logic is showing again. Nowhere did ScottO demand to select his own jury. All he did was assess the level of peerage with him that is exhibited by the cohort which wind up on juries (and perhaps from which juries are selected). Selection and assessment are orthogonal.

SteveF 633am - suffers from a logic deficit equally with DougK. And both of them continue to have the usual progressive handicap of not being able to hang on to the topic very long, choosing to go after individuals instead.

Scott Obermuller

Pick and choose from the Constitution? Where have I done that? Let's look at the left here. Freedom of speech? Absolutely, with no need to have any special training, skills, education or govt permits. But wait - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Oops - So who is picking and choosing here? How about this one? "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Execution by hanging and being shot were common in the day they wrote this. If they thought these methods of putting convicted criminals to death were cruel and unusual, they would have specifically prohibited them. But today the left is picking and choosing by claiming that execution of any kind is cruel and unusual.
As George pointed out, I wasn't demanding to pick my own jury. Please go back and carefully re-read what I had written. I do fear that day when I am subjected to the 12 howling apes shown so well in the photos above.

Scott Obermuller

"George wraps himself in the flag while tearing down our nation every single day."
Any actual examples, Steve? Or is criticism of the folks in govt not allowed anymore?
I do hope you realize you have parroted a line from the Nixon admin.

Douglas Keachie

"Anyone who wants further info, I would suggest Googling "fully informed jury". Trusting fellow citizens with my Constitutional rights begins with citizens that understand the original intent of the Constitution. If they haven't the education or they don't agree with the Constitution (Oblabber) I certainly don't consider them worthy of being my judge or my peers. "

Ah so! You are merely expressing your displeasure of having such a jury, but in no way intend to avoid such a jury? (except of course using every device in the book that your attorneys can come up with).

Now I understand, you want a jury that will take into account the following, from your "fully informed jury" site:

"It certainly does! At the time the Constitution was
written, the definition of the term "jury" referred to a
group of citizens empowered to judge both the law and
the evidence in the case before it. Then, in the February
term of 1794, the Supreme Court conducted a jury trial
in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford1. The
instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the
Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true
power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is
presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is,
on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best
judges of law. But still both objects are within your
power of decision." (emphasis added) " have a
right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both,
and to determine the law as well as the fact in

So of course you are just fine, Scott, with a jury of 12 that concludes that the SYG law is a total travesty, and upps the ante for Mr. Zim to first degree murder. Look at the red box on the opening page:

refusing to enforce a corrupt SYG law would leave no other option than to look into 1st degree murder.

Douglas Keachie

Scott, the apes in the jury box are being contemplative and deliberative. The howling "oh NO! Mr. Bill" apes are my view of your view of the media. Suggest you look up Koko, the gorilla who can communicate quite nicely, thank-you, before you conclude apes can't contemplate or deliberate. Glad you like my choices of imagery!

George Rebane

BradC 855am - "If you confront someone (without any authority to do so), and someone stands their ground, then gets the better of you, and you shoot them; is that justifiable homicide?" Most people would not call that justifiable homicide the way you phrased the scenario.

From your scenario the implication is that the initial 'confrontation' was illegal and physical. 'Standing their ground' appears also to be physical. And most certainly 'getting the better of you' is definitely physical and may even be life threatening.

However, if the unauthorized confrontation was only verbal with no threat of physical force implied, and standing your ground then became physical during which the originally confronted got the better of the confronter in a manner that was life threatening, then we have a totally different situation.

I suppose that these are just two possible scenarios in the range of possibilities that will be sorted out in the trial.

Brad Croul

Then, there could be the wrinkle that Mr. Z verbally confronted Mr. M, and M did not choose to comply with Z. If Z grabbed M's shirt, or told him, "stop or I'll shoot", and M pushed back is Z standing his ground?

We may never know the truth if there were no other witnesses. We only have the word of an aggressive (in that he did not comply with the 911 operator and took off after M), gun-toting, neighborhood watch volunteer who, apparently, felt empowered to do whatever he wanted to.

Douglas Keachie

Coming back to earth, one must remember that Ms Ferguson, Nevada county Assistant district Attorney Anna Ferguson, may have much more bearing on what will happen to you should you try to stand your own ground:

"Police found nine pot plants at the scene, Evans said. Police have been called out to Beck's property in the past for reports of attempted theft of marijuana, investigators said at the scene Sunday morning.

Shelton was pronounced dead at the scene.

Beck is recovering from three gunshot wounds, one to his abdomen and one to each leg, at Sutter Roseville Medical Center, according to a family member. Beck was in serious condition Tuesday, hospital spokeswoman Robin Montgomery said.

Police found evidence of three guns at the scene - the shotgun used by Beck, the AR-15 assault rifle used by Shelton and a .22 caliber rifle or gun, Evans said. Beck's wounds were inflicted with bullets from a .22 caliber gun, Evans said.

"That's probably why he's still alive," he said.

At least one other suspect fled the scene, investigators said.

If an accomplice is captured by police, he or she could be charged with Shelton's killing, Ferguson said. A co-conspirator can be charged with murder if anyone - an intended victim or not - is killed during the commission of a felony.

"It's the felony-murder rule," she said. "Because they came onto the property with guns, it was foreseeable someone could be killed. Even though the pot grower was able to shoot, the intruder could possibly be charged."

Ferguson also anticipated possible misconceptions people might have about home invasion and the law: If a person's home is being invaded, she said, that does not give him the right to kill a burglar or trespasser.

However, if it is proved that a deadly weapon was being brandished at a victim, she said, then killing may be legally justified.

"It does appear that the use of deadly force was justified in this case," she added."

From The Union, Oct 3, 2007

Douglas Keachie

"The assessment of the nature of judicial proceedings in a court, and our "constitutional right to trial by jury" are two orthogonal concepts."

In Psych 1A, we called this, "compartmentalized thinking."

No Constitution, no court system.

The two are indeed connected. You seem to find it more convenient to separate damn near everything into separate disconnected piles, kinda like my first wife and her way of budgeting while taking the whole household into deep debt. "this pile is for the new sewing machine, that pile makes the minimum on the credit card."

Scott Obermuller

Yes Doug, a jury (under FIJ) could throw out SYG. I am aware of that. So? No, they can't charge Mr Zimmerman with 1st degree murder. The jury will hopefully hear actual evidence in the case and make a decision on that. As to your charge that I would want to avoid being judged by 12 apes that can contemplate, well you are correct. Or 12 humans that have the contemplative powers of an ape. As to my view of "the media", I assume you mean the news media and it does represent my view of some of the news media. The latest, best example of this was an AP story on Yahoo news that stated as fact that the Republicans were "anti immigration". This was a blatantly false statement presented as news. Many in the news media are howling, idiot apes.

George Rebane

ScottO 1105am - the AP story you cite is an intended victim of bad semantics (as has been pointed out numerous times on RR) when it uses 'immigration' to carpet bomb the range of possible meanings and misunderstandings that have now attached themselves to that term.

Immigration is a two-party process, a contract entered into by the entering immigrant and the welcoming government. It has nothing to do with illegal border crossings and entering another country by stealth. But calling an illegal alien an illegal immigrant gets the march on the ignorant listener in whom images of Ellis Island are invoked.

Calling Republicans "anti immigration" is perpetrating a fraud about a party that has done more to promote immigration to serve American interests than any political organization in this country. That is why AP (aka All Propaganda) is a prominent member of the lamestream.

DougK 1100am - In reasoning identifying orthogonal parts of a proposition or hypothesis is part of the scientific method called analysis. Analysis always precedes synthesis, else it is difficult to understand what parts and how things should then fit together. However, this process is hard, and not everybody has the temperament or ability to follow such a course of discovery.

Douglas Keachie

Republicans have been pro immigration for as long as I can remember, and in history books that have them bringing across illegal union busting workers back in the teen and twenties. get yourself a copy of this:

Douglas Keachie

Let's see, using George's carefully compartmentalized definition of immigration (apparently "legal" immigration only), would anyone out there have any reason to say that one party or the other was more "pro immigration?" Please list reasons.

Douglas Keachie

Handi-dandy chart of legal immigrants:

Douglas Keachie

Handi-dandy chart of number of person born in USA per year:

Douglas Keachie

"proposition or hypothesis" I' curious, which one is the Constitution and which one is the court system?

Douglas Keachie

Scott, so you geta fully informed jury that tosses a law and then what is left? "No, they can't charge Mr Zimmerman with 1st degree murder." Maybe they can't, but someone else can, because his complaint about double jeapordy can then be tossed by and activist judge and yet another jury acting as Supreme Court. Is not that the short definition of "fully informed jury" or does it only work if Tea party values are being protected?

Douglas Keachie

Handi-dandy chart of the 2.5 billion in taxes paid by illegal immigrants, in Calfironia alone:

Scott Obermuller

Doug, your views on FIJ don't seem to be well thought out or showing any real education on your part about the subject. Your wildly incorrect views are not an accurate assessment of what FIJ is about. Judges and D.A.s are not involved. It is important to remember that any juror can effect the same course of action by simply ignoring the evidence and finding the defendant not guilty based on a quiet belief that the law the defendant is being charged with is wrong. Taxes paid by illegal aliens? Hello? Doug, can we focus here?

Douglas Keachie

Not sure which story you are referring to,possibly this one where the reporter didn't keep on writing out the entire phrase, "illegal immigration."

Republicans have far outpaced Democrats in pushing tough anti-immigration laws, posing potential political problems in some states for GOP candidates including Mitt Romney. The Republicans' aggressive stand has alienated many Hispanic voters, one of the electorate's fastest-growing segments.

President Barack Obama won two-thirds of the Hispanic vote in 2008, and hopes to do better this fall. In the GOP primary contests, Romney took the harshest anti-illegal immigration stance among the top contenders, but he has had little to say lately on the issue. Romney has not taken on stand on legislation proposed by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., that would allow some undocumented immigrants a chance at visas to remain in the United States.

More than a decade ago, Republicans were making inroads among Hispanic voters. President George W. Bush, a former Texas governor, favored comprehensive immigration reform that could have established pathways to legal status for millions of illegal immigrants. But staunchly anti-illegal immigration forces gained influence in the GOP, and the reform plans were dropped.

Hispanic voters are especially important in a few battleground states that will help determine the Nov. 6 presidential election. They include Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado. Romney's problems with Hispanics also might tempt Obama's campaign to make a push in Arizona, usually a reliably Republican state.

A recent poll of Hispanic voters by the Pew Research Center found that 67 percent supported Obama, and 27 percent Romney.

A decision in the high-profile immigration case is expected in late June.

California, New York and nine other states with significant immigrant populations support the Obama administration. "

"Your wildly incorrect views are not an accurate assessment of what FIJ is about. Judges and D.A.s are not involved."

FIJurors just sort of hang out in a courtroom in outer space with no judges and DA's? My views have been formed by reading a couple of pages from the website, with special attention to the first item in the red box centered in lsrger tYpe. Since that did not meet your expectations, would you please summarize what you think I should have learned instead?

You brought up immigrants, I thought backgrounders would be interesting. To save a an exchange, yes the illegals in CA probably consume more than 2.5 billion in state services, don't have a number, does anyone? But remember, they are here become some folks in California feel the need for cheap labor, and I don't think it is the unions.

Scott Obermuller

Doug, I didn't bring up immigrants as a topic, I was responding to your false assertion that I imagined ALL of the news media (I'm still having to guess, since you said media) as howling apes. I corrected you with the fact that I view much (but not all) of the MS news media as howling apes as they are clearly not well educated and assert things as fact which are wrong or false. As an example, I mentioned an AP story I saw in Yahoo news that stated as fact that the Republicans were anti-immigrant. They clearly are not. Going off on a tangent about how much taxes illegal immigrants pay has nothing to do with what we were talking about. You may as well mention a study of what kind of car the average illegal immigrant drives and go off on a tear about that kind of car. I would suggest as a start that you stay away from sugary cereals. And yes, you do need to study the FIJ history and concept a lot more before posting about it.

George Rebane

DougK 601pm - your use of Republican favoring "tough anti-immigration laws" is the confusing example I have been referring to. Republicans favor the immigration of all kinds of people (including through H1-B visas) to bring their skills and stay. It is the Democrats who favor illegal aliens out of one side of their mouths to garner the Hispanic vote, and tough immigration laws to keep workers out who will compete with their bought and paid for union constituency. Real hard to have a reasoned conversation when the same word is used to mean different things in sequential sentences.

This practice is also the central feature of what is called Valley Talk (after the teen-agers of San Fernando Valley) who reduced themselves down to a very limited vocabulary that was informationally starved and could be understood only in the context of accompanying body language, tonal inflections, and facial expressions. English is a glorious and rich language, let's allow its wonderful lexicon a chance to lend nuanced and concise precision to our voiced thoughts.


George, how nice that Keachie has a blog to trash with such abandon.

Keach, 25 April 2012 at 10:07 PM, for the life of me I've not a clue what you're trying to say. Your insistence that because you didn't use the word "evidence" to describe what you imagine are the facts in the Z/M case that I shouldn't use the word is particularly bizarre.

On to the new topic. The political newspeak that conflates undesired (by most) illegal immigration with legal and desirable immigration is probably the single largest barrier to rational discussion of Federal immigration law and its fair application. It works to a partisan Democrat advantage, and so they will continue to muddy the waters.

Todd Juvinall

I say take the CalStrs pension funds and use them to pay for the incarceration costs of illegal aliens. Maybe that would get some attention from the bleeding hearts. LOL!

George Rebane

Gregory 1039pm - re 'conflating political newspeak'; agreed.

ToddJ 703am - re CalSTRS; we will all be asked by Moonbeam to contribute their pension funds through the new tax hike. My KVMR commentary tonight has more to say about it.

Douglas Keachie

Well my goodness, Greg, you have time and again concluded that I have been, effectively, "all wrong" when drawing conclusions about what you have said, for the simple reason, typically stated as, "I never said, yada, yada, yada." Well I never said "evidence." Turnabout is not fair play? heh heh hee! Very funny!

Todd, as I've said before, the more you wish to demonize the occupation of teacher, the better your chances of attracting the better talent you think is out there, because unlike CEO's and most workers, these amazing super teachers thrive on less financial remuneration, and in fact would probably prefer no compensation at all, so has to preserve their precious bodily fluids. And there are millions of these folks out there, just waiting for a chance to join the ranks of under paid and under appreciated teachers of the USA. Sure works in Finland, doesn't it? You certainly don't want to join the ExxonMobile Science and Math folks, now do you?

In a more accurate assessment of the situation, it's all a propaganda effort to ease the destruction of public schools, except for the wealthy out of staters, who can then take advantage of socialized education for the rich. In addition, we can expect all classes normally taught in public schools to be offered online, with telephone assistance from India, for kids who have questions, unless they are rich and can afford USA speakers.

Of course those that go with the India version will have a decided advantage later on in life when dealing with the Indian and Chinese caretakers appointed by the UN to take care of the social collapse of the USA, after it was discovered not enough workers remained to pay for the incarceration of 40% of the population, for stealing food.

So keep it up, good conservative folks, you'll soon have the country you're working towards, where a scumbag with $200,000 in a Paypal account tells the court, by silence, that he is "broke." Way to go, Zimmerman, your roots run deep.

Douglas Keachie

For more on Exxon Mobil's campaign to "be nice," see:

Todd Juvinall

DougK, you need a sense of humor. Regarding teachers, I have great respect for teachers, the good ones. I am opposed to the teacher's unions. I am opposed to all public employee unions. So I am not picking on teachers exclusively. The unions are in control of policy and though many teachers are conservatives, almost 100% of the money the union confiscates is given to democrats. Is that fair Doug? No, the issue here is "fairness" isn't that your point too? So why does all the union money go to dems Doug? Is that "fair"?

Douglas Keachie

Sorry to disappoint you you Todd, most teachers are NOT conservatives, and every teacher in California has the right to opt out of the political side of the unions, and almost none do. At one point you were offered the option of joining either AFT or CTA, and I like many, joined both. Teachers who are conservative who are not smart enough to opt out of the political side, shouldn't be teaching.

The efforts of the rich to discredit unions and teachers is based on a simple desire to raid the piggy banks of the STRS, much as politicians of all stripes have raided social security. Ever think about this?

SocialSecuritySolvency copy

Douglas Keachie

"Under the Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Teachers Local 1 v. Hudson, public employees forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment must be notified of which part of their dues are spent on union activities unrelated to collective bargaining and be given an opportunity to opt out of paying for members-only events and union boss political activism. "

Yes I am aware of the CSEA upcoming hearing on this issue, but they are NOT teachers.

Bonnie McGuire

Regarding the Zimmerman/Martin case...I find the media led linch mob mentality disgusting. Without much information these people and their mindless followers began persuing and frightening innocent people. Martins death was terrible, but what was unleashed on that elderly couple and Zimmerman's family is disgusting. Frightening! Keachie...I love your photo of the monkey jury! Good ol' down to earth reality.

Douglas Keachie

Bonie, are you aware that while the courtroom worked to accomodate the family's claim of poverty in regards the bai at $150,000, Little Lord Zimmerman stayed mum about the $200,000 he knew he had already accumulated in his "donate to me" Paypal account?

Douglas Keachie

Juries are picked by both sides to be easy to sway, not their intelligence, for the most part. Stay out of the docket, at all costs!

Todd Juvinall

Keachie, wasn't it you who declared the Duke Lacrosse team guilty after the first new reports?

Douglas Keachie

I don't see no smoking gun. Your dudes claim there is a video, but then don't have a copy of it for the world to see. Come back when you've got a FULL copy of an unedited video. Cannot make an independent judgement with just statements from those with an ax to grind against Obama.

Douglas Keachie

Todd, don't recall making any statements about Duke team, GG should be able to dig it up, if I did. Can you tell me how the the Duke players collectively paid their lawyers?

Todd Juvinall

I would assume Keachie that you are equally outrages at what happened with the Duke Lacrosse team. Is that right? Please explain to us why you are and in as much depth and fervor as you have exhibited in the Z/M case. Just looking for consistency in racial outrage.

Douglas Keachie

Did anyone get killed on the Duke team?

Douglas Keachie

How honest does Zimmerman look now? Back in the clink!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad