Dissecting the Doofus

[Strife767]

I would put Autonomous on any troll list before 2smart4u, at least his posts

  are witty and sensible.

73546[/snapback]

Maybe a small child would have reason to find an incessent mantra of "Kool-aid" this and "Kool-aid" that to be witty, but most of us are a little more complex than that, I'm afraid. The vast majority of "2smart4u"'s posts are sophomoric personal comments about people he's never met, in response to normal, thought-out posts.

You say a lot more about yourself than you probably realize by showing your support for his tripe.

[Guest Guest]

Maybe a small child would have reason to find an incessent mantra of "Kool-aid" this and "Kool-aid" that to be witty, but most of us are a little more complex than that, I'm afraid. The vast majority of "2smart4u"'s posts are sophomoric personal comments about people he's never met, in response to normal, thought-out posts.

You say a lot more about yourself than you probably realize by showing your support for his tripe.

74763[/snapback]

Maybe it's time for another visit from ad infinitum.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=81768

[Guest Guest]

Well, here we are, nearly a year after the story of one of the worst examples of malfeasance in the annals of educational history broke into the news, still arguing over it as though the conduct of this teacher could somehow be defended. I'm actually starting to think maybe there is a hell and we've all gone there, doomed to spend eternity watching fools try to defend the indefensible.

OK, if we're going to do it, let's at least do it right. Let's go over what Mr. Doofus actually said, line by line and point by point.

As an overview, any competent educator listening to what Mr. Doofus did in that classroom (and in the meeting in Somma's office, too) would say that this was an immature teacher who let his personal agenda completely obscure his job as a teacher, including most especially his obligations to his students (both intellectually and ethically). He completely forgot the lessons of his classes in education (or maybe never learned them in the first place), used a gentle tone of voice to disguise the fact that he was bullying his students intellectually, and allowed the students to make a few comments to give the impression that he was allowing an even-handed discussion; when what he was really doing was taking control of the class to give long-winded explanations promoting fundamentalist Christianity.

Any competent educator would immediately identify the following sins by this teacher, leaving the issue of church-state separation completely aside.

1. Competent teachers do not lose control of themselves. They do not allow, much less encourage, their classes to become vehicles for their own agendas.

2. Good, fair and honest teachers do not pretend to hold a free-form discussion, whether on or off the curriculum, and then take control of the discussion whenever they want to. If they're going to lecture, then lecture, but don't pretend you're doing something else; and if it's a lecture, it must be within the curriculum, which this was not. It's appropriate to field questions within the subject matter the teacher is being paid to teach, but don't go outside your field and presume to give long answers to students' questions, all the while pretending you're just having a open discussion with no right or wrong answers. If the discussion is outside the curriculum, which this certainly was, they can't have it both ways, pretending to conduct an open discussion, but then dominating the discussion with long-winded speeches promoting their own views.

3. Good teachers don't undermine what other teachers in the approved curriculum are doing. It's amazing that Mr. Doofus wasn't fired for what he said about science, the educational system and all his fellow educators, leaving the church-state problem completely aside. This guy is no educator. He's a jerk.

4. Good teachers set good examples intellectually and ethically. This jackass did enough things wrong in a single day to supply an education class an entire semester's worth of material of what not to do.

5. Ethical teachers do not lie about their own conduct in an attempt to get one of their students to back down from an accusation, especially when that accusation is true. This alone should have gotten Mr. Doofus fired.

So what the hey, let the games begin. We'll start with the class of September 14, 2006. I'm taking from the transcript, which I've read, and the recordngs, which I've heard.

The "discussion" begins with Mr. Doofus expounding on his views toward Halloween. While there's nothing in these first few minutes that explicitly crosses the church-state line, it's obvious that Mr. Doofus is itching to open up a discussion that will allow him to promote his religious views. Consider the following:

He was discussing the historical root of the "holiday" (an inaccurate term, not significant), then gratuitously interjects this: "I just don't want my kids dressing up as anything evil." Great. Let's open the discussion of evil.

And in just a few moments, we have this, again from Mr. Doofus. ". . . so we try to set up an alternative counterpoint of salvation . . ." So much for a student introducing the subject of religion or religious dogma. It began with the teacher, and there it is.

Then after a few minutes, he interjects his personal religious views again; and again, it's completely gratuitous, aimed toward the promotion of his own religious views: "Anyway, my kids are home schooled . . ." Great. Your public school students really needed to know that, Mr. Doofus. Why not just come right out and say that you don't believe in the system you're supposed to be a part of --- you know, the one that puts bread on your table, Mr. Hypocritical Doofus, who would really like to teach in a fundie school but can't because it doesn't pay enough. Great job of teaching students how to backstab their eventual employers, Mr. Hypocritical Doofus.

Then he starts talking about Kearny, how he doesn't lock his own doors because of what a great town Kearny is. And then we get the explicit introduction of fundamentalist Christian religious dogma with this statement by Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus: "The highest value in public education is tolerance. But tolerance of what? Deviant behavior? There are a lot of things I don't want my kids tolerating. Ethnic diversity? Yes. Deviant sexual behavior? No. Things like that, and that's all being taught right from kindergarten on up. I still believe in the concept of sin, man's fallen nature . . ."

And there you have it, the introduction of Christian dogma into the discussion by whom? Matthew? No. Another student? No. Who, then?

Why, none other than Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus himself. He was just itching to have that discussion opened, the class was going on for about five minutes, no student formally brought up religion, so Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus, having grown impatient after five minutes, decided to open it himself.

So what's wrong with what he said?

1. He's promoting religious dogma in a public school.

2. He's telling students in a public school that the entire educational system, of which he and they are parts, is corrupt. That's disloyalty, just for starters.

3. He's telling his students that the public schools are teaching deviant behavior, including deviant sexual behavior. There's no other way to interpret "that's all being taught right from kindergarten on up."

4. He's promoting a myth. "Man's fallen nature" is a myth. It is part of the creationist story, directly opposed to nature through evolution, and therefore a direct violation of the prohibition of promoting creationism instead of evolution. It's hardly subtle at this point, even though he's not explicitly using the terms "evolution" and "creation" yet. He'll get to that shortly. But don't let anyone tell you that he didn't introduce the subject. He did, it was entirely gratuitous, and Matthew had absolutely nothing to do with it.

This explanation of why he doesn't lock his doors then turns into a long, uninterrupted speech, in which Mr. Doofus goes on to say the following: ". . . you surrender your kid to the state from preschool on up through 12th grade, and Mom and Dad are trying to tell you that the Bible is God's word, and their lives are deeply rooten in faith. But yet the "smart" people --- and I say that in quotations becasue they're not all really that smart --- the teachers that you're exposed to from kindergarten through 12th grade, never once will you see them crack open a Bible, never once will you hear them quote it, never once hear a prayer uttered from their lips." So who brought up the Bible? Why, Mr. Proselytizing Doofus, of course. Not Matthew, not some other student. Mr. Proselytizing Doofus, and none other.

Now what else is wrong with those entirely gratuitous remarks?

1. Mr. Doofus is interjecting his personal views into what is supposed to be an open discussion. A good teacher would remember that he is the authority figure there. He can't have it both ways: an open discussion on the one hand, and a lecture on the other.

2. He's mocking and demeaning all the other teachers those students have ever had from kindergarten on up. That's the implication, and it's clear.

3. He's advocating for the Bible. It's not allowed.

And we've only gotten onto page 2. There are 18 pages of this drivel.

So why not? Let's have some fun.

Paszkiewicz's remarks were taken out of context? I don't think so.

Shall we pick this thread back up again?

[Bryan]

Paszkiewicz's remarks were taken out of context? I don't think so.

Paul LaClair:

As for Paszkiewicz, he did deny making many of the statements, until Matthew produced the recordings, at which point he essentially admitted he had been caught, saying "you got the big fish."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=39353

Even Matthew LaClair seems to disagree with that take.

Matthew LaClair:

Now, you would think that if Mr. Paszkiewicz was upset that his comments had been taken out of context, he would be delighted to see that there were recordings of the class that would vindicate him and prove that I was not telling the truth.

That certainly did not occur. Mr. Paskiewicz and Mr. Somma immediately started discussing whether the recordings were legal and admissible (I guess they meant in court, though I hadn’t said anything about court), and Mr. Paszkiewicz decided that he should say no more without his union representative. That was excellent self-counsel, which he promptly ignored. The last thing he said in that meeting was “To be honest with you, Matt, I’m disappointed because I think that you got the big fish. You’re trying to hurt somebody, maybe you are an atheist, you got the big Christian guy that’s a teacher, known and loved for 15 years and I brought him down – that’s my gut feeling.” I felt terrible.

http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1773

Regardless of Matthew's view, the context strongly indicates that Paszkiewicz was expressing (not for the first time in that meeting) the view that young LaClair was out to get him. And regardless of how Matthew wraps himself in the Constitution while justifying his actions, Paszkiewicz's suspicion appears fully vindicated by the subsequent events.

Matthew somewhat botched the quotation, by the way. Here is a more accurate transcription:

I just feel—to be honest with you, Matt, I’m disappointed because I think that, uh, you know, you got the big fish, you know, you’re trying to hurt somebody that uh, you know, maybe you are an atheist, you got the big Christian guy that’s a teacher, known and loved for fifteen years, and Matt brought him down. That’s my gut feeling.

Shall we pick this thread back up again?

Up to you, Champ. Do you think it makes more sense for Paszkiewicz to be "disappointed" that he's supposedly been caught, or "disappointed" because his student is gunning for him?

[Guest Keith]

Paul LaClair:

As for Paszkiewicz, he did deny making many of the statements, until Matthew produced the recordings, at which point he essentially admitted he had been caught, saying "you got the big fish."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=39353

Even Matthew LaClair seems to disagree with that take.

Matthew LaClair:

Now, you would think that if Mr. Paszkiewicz was upset that his comments had been taken out of context, he would be delighted to see that there were recordings of the class that would vindicate him and prove that I was not telling the truth.

That certainly did not occur. Mr. Paskiewicz and Mr. Somma immediately started discussing whether the recordings were legal and admissible (I guess they meant in court, though I hadn’t said anything about court), and Mr. Paszkiewicz decided that he should say no more without his union representative. That was excellent self-counsel, which he promptly ignored. The last thing he said in that meeting was “To be honest with you, Matt, I’m disappointed because I think that you got the big fish. You’re trying to hurt somebody, maybe you are an atheist, you got the big Christian guy that’s a teacher, known and loved for 15 years and I brought him down – that’s my gut feeling.” I felt terrible.

http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1773

Regardless of Matthew's view, the context strongly indicates that Paszkiewicz was expressing (not for the first time in that meeting) the view that young LaClair was out to get him. And regardless of how Matthew wraps himself in the Constitution while justifying his actions, Paszkiewicz's suspicion appears fully vindicated by the subsequent events.

Matthew somewhat botched the quotation, by the way. Here is a more accurate transcription:

I just feel—to be honest with you, Matt, I’m disappointed because I think that, uh, you know, you got the big fish, you know, you’re trying to hurt somebody that uh, you know, maybe you are an atheist, you got the big Christian guy that’s a teacher, known and loved for fifteen years, and Matt brought him down. That’s my gut feeling.

Up to you, Champ. Do you think it makes more sense for Paszkiewicz to be "disappointed" that he's supposedly been caught, or "disappointed" because his student is gunning for him?

Even if a student was "gunning" for him, maybe he shouldn't have given him so much ammunition.

[Guest Guest]

Even if a student was "gunning" for him, maybe he shouldn't have given him so much ammunition.

Bryan will always distort and re-invent any situation to his liking. So will Paszkiewicz.

The point is that if Paszkiewicz had thought the recordings vindicated him, he would not have been talking about getting a union rep involved, wouldn't have been trying to blame a student for hurting him and wouldn't have said "you got the big fish," regardless of what he said around it. Paszkiewicz is a master mental contortionist, just like Bryan, and he was trying to blame Matthew for his own actions. The fact that he thought he had to do that is what tells the tale. He may not have intended to admit he had been caught, but his words, spoken in an unguarded moment, betrayed him. He admitted his guilt by his words and also by his reaction. He knew at some level that he had been caught, else he would have invited everybody, "by all means, listen to the recordings because they will put everything in context and vindicate me." He would have been happy to see the recordings. That fact that he said "you got the big fish" in any context, and was not pleased to see the recordings, seals the deal on the admission of guilt.

[Bryan]

Bryan will always distort and re-invent any situation to his liking. So will Paszkiewicz.

Well, now that we have the fallacy of poisoning the well out of the way ...

The point is that if Paszkiewicz had thought the recordings vindicated him, he would not have been talking about getting a union rep involved, wouldn't have been trying to blame a student for hurting him and wouldn't have said "you got the big fish," regardless of what he said around it.

So it's impossible that Paszkiewicz was simply dissappointed that Matthew had an agenda to get him? On what basis? Or do you intend to argue your point by simply ignoring the counterargument?

Paszkiewicz is a master mental contortionist, just like Bryan, and he was trying to blame Matthew for his own actions.

Sorry--the irony in your statement was just so outstanding.

If he was trying to blame Matthew for his actions, doesn't it still make sense to interpret "you got the big fish" in the manner I suggested? Or does that argument only apply when it is convenient for you?

The fact that he thought he had to do that is what tells the tale. He may not have intended to admit he had been caught, but his words, spoken in an unguarded moment, betrayed him.

"... master mental contortionist ..."

He admitted his guilt by his words and also by his reaction.

Seriously, you have to be blinded by bias to hold the opinion that Paszkiewicz admitted any guilt by saying "you got the big fish." Paszkiewicz frankly admitted making some statements and denied some others (based on Matthew having taken them out of context). If he's a master mental contortionist why not deny everything?

He knew at some level that he had been caught, else he would have invited everybody, "by all means, listen to the recordings because they will put everything in context and vindicate me." He would have been happy to see the recordings. That fact that he said "you got the big fish" in any context, and was not pleased to see the recordings, seals the deal on the admission of guilt.

I failed to notice any statement on Paszkiewicz's part that indicated any displeasure about the existence of the recordings. You should stop for a moment to consider how Matthew appeared to the school officials after pretending to be uncertain about what Paszkiewicz had said "Just say you didn't say them --and I will omit them" (a close paraphrase, if not quoted accurately from memory). Matthew proved at that instant that his participation in the meeting was in bad faith.

The real master mental contortionists will not be able to conceive of that, I expect.

This is from very early in the meeting transcript:

"I almost feel like I was set up. I feel like there was deception. If you want to talk about trust, I was, I was devastated by it."

That thread recurs throughout the meeting, and it is overwhelmingly likely that it explains the "big fish" comment in the context I supplied. You're blind if you don't see it, and Paul LaClair either carries the same type of bias due to blindness (understandable since his son was involved in this) or else is simply an utterly despicable liar. LaClair's willingness to make accusations based on his bias also makes him despicable, but at a much more respectable and understandable level.

[Guest Keith]

Well, now that we have the fallacy of poisoning the well out of the way ...

So it's impossible that Paszkiewicz was simply dissappointed that Matthew had an agenda to get him? On what basis? Or do you intend to argue your point by simply ignoring the counterargument?

Sorry--the irony in your statement was just so outstanding.

If he was trying to blame Matthew for his actions, doesn't it still make sense to interpret "you got the big fish" in the manner I suggested? Or does that argument only apply when it is convenient for you?

"... master mental contortionist ..."

Seriously, you have to be blinded by bias to hold the opinion that Paszkiewicz admitted any guilt by saying "you got the big fish." Paszkiewicz frankly admitted making some statements and denied some others (based on Matthew having taken them out of context). If he's a master mental contortionist why not deny everything?

I failed to notice any statement on Paszkiewicz's part that indicated any displeasure about the existence of the recordings. You should stop for a moment to consider how Matthew appeared to the school officials after pretending to be uncertain about what Paszkiewicz had said "Just say you didn't say them --and I will omit them" (a close paraphrase, if not quoted accurately from memory). Matthew proved at that instant that his participation in the meeting was in bad faith.

The real master mental contortionists will not be able to conceive of that, I expect.

This is from very early in the meeting transcript:

"I almost feel like I was set up. I feel like there was deception. If you want to talk about trust, I was, I was devastated by it."

That thread recurs throughout the meeting, and it is overwhelmingly likely that it explains the "big fish" comment in the context I supplied. You're blind if you don't see it, and Paul LaClair either carries the same type of bias due to blindness (understandable since his son was involved in this) or else is simply an utterly despicable liar. LaClair's willingness to make accusations based on his bias also makes him despicable, but at a much more respectable and understandable level.

I bet you could even find a way to defend a pedophile.

[Guest Guest]

If he's a master mental contortionist why not deny everything?

How a man like this justifies himself is a very good question, one you're in no position to evaluate, Bryan, since you think the same way he does: to be specific about that, you frame reality around your wish, instead of framing your view of reality around what you can observe of and deduce from it. And like him, if anyone threatens you, you lash back. Apparently you and Paszkiewicz have found that to be the most effective method of throwing the burden off yourselves. So getting through all that muck is not easy, but let's at least try to answer your question.

Mr. Paszkiewicz seems to place great importance on self-justification. He wishes to believe he is doing what is right. Tragically, he and you are so accustomed to suppressing everything you do not wish to acknowledge, accept or believe that your mental processes are quite literally divided between what you know consciously and what you have suppressed. So Paszkiewicz may have consciously recalled some things, may have begun to recall others but suppressed the recall and may have suppressed other things from his memory before the meeting began. In the case of the infamous statement about "you belong in hell," his stammering gives him away. At some level, he knew he wasn't being honest. That much is obvious.

What you have to understand if you're going to make sense of this is that a master mental contortionist has to fool himself first. He gets good at it. There's no other way to explain his thinking, or yours.

[Guest Guest]

I failed to notice . . .

No doubt.

[Bryan]

I bet you could even find a way to defend a pedophile.

Wow you sure showed me. Way to go.

Semper Fi. Marines.com

[Bryan]

No doubt.

... and no doubt what I failed to notice was so obvious that you are prevented from cutting and pasting it into your reply.

Or is it that you're just as pathetic as the rest of the sock puppets that populate KOTW?

[Guest Keith]

Wow you sure showed me. Way to go.

Semper Fi. Marines.com

I appreciate the sarcasm, but I'm serious. You get off on defending the indefensible don't you? Maybe you could fascinate us all with your theory on how Hitler was just a misunderstood genius. What the preacher/teacher did was wrong.Period. It doesn't matter if Matt had an agenda or not, Mr. P. was the teacher, the authority figure and was trusted to not to do what he was doing. You can peel it apart in any number of ways but it doesn't make it right.

By all means keep it up Bryan. I don't know about the rest of the "sock puppets" on here but I for one always look forward to your blustery attempts to brow beat those who don't conform to your world.

[Bryan]

I appreciate the sarcasm, but I'm serious.

You are mistaken. You are not serious.

You get off on defending the indefensible don't you?

I never defend anything that I consider indefensible. To act otherwise would be to deliberately contradict myself.

Maybe you could fascinate us all with your theory on how Hitler was just a misunderstood genius.

Hitler was a genius, albeit an evil genius. And not very good at war strategy, when it came to that. Germany could have won WW2 simply by attacking Russia differently (even as stupid as the timing was). Hitler's strategic meddling was the primary key to Germany's military failure on the Eastern front.

What the preacher/teacher did was wrong.Period.

That's the argument I keep seeing, but it's just not that convincing. It kind of smacks of argument by assertion, don't you think?

It doesn't matter if Matt had an agenda or not, Mr. P. was the teacher, the authority figure and was trusted to not to do what he was doing. You can peel it apart in any number of ways but it doesn't make it right.

I don't argue that Matthew's actions justify any of the classroom actions of Mr. Paszkiewicz (which are justifiable in their own right with minor exceptions). On the other hand, Matthew's behavior, including his speech, sheds a great deal of contextual light on quite a number of things that were said.

By all means keep it up Bryan. I don't know about the rest of the "sock puppets" on here but I for one always look forward to your blustery attempts to brow beat those who don't conform to your world.

You probably don't detect the irony of attacking me based on zero substance while claiming that I browbeat others. Review what you wrote. You've got a straw man plus ad hominem at best--the kind of thing browbeating is made of.

[Guest Guest]

Apparently someone hasn't had enough of this.

[Guest Guest]

Well, here we are, nearly a year after the story of one of the worst examples of malfeasance in the annals of educational history broke into the news, still arguing over it as though the conduct of this teacher could somehow be defended. I'm actually starting to think maybe there is a hell and we've all gone there, doomed to spend eternity watching fools try to defend the indefensible.

OK, if we're going to do it, let's at least do it right. Let's go over what Mr. Doofus actually said, line by line and point by point.

As an overview, any competent educator listening to what Mr. Doofus did in that classroom (and in the meeting in Somma's office, too) would say that this was an immature teacher who let his personal agenda completely obscure his job as a teacher, including most especially his obligations to his students (both intellectually and ethically). He completely forgot the lessons of his classes in education (or maybe never learned them in the first place), used a gentle tone of voice to disguise the fact that he was bullying his students intellectually, and allowed the students to make a few comments to give the impression that he was allowing an even-handed discussion; when what he was really doing was taking control of the class to give long-winded explanations promoting fundamentalist Christianity.

Any competent educator would immediately identify the following sins by this teacher, leaving the issue of church-state separation completely aside.

1. Competent teachers do not lose control of themselves. They do not allow, much less encourage, their classes to become vehicles for their own agendas.

2. Good, fair and honest teachers do not pretend to hold a free-form discussion, whether on or off the curriculum, and then take control of the discussion whenever they want to. If they're going to lecture, then lecture, but don't pretend you're doing something else; and if it's a lecture, it must be within the curriculum, which this was not. It's appropriate to field questions within the subject matter the teacher is being paid to teach, but don't go outside your field and presume to give long answers to students' questions, all the while pretending you're just having a open discussion with no right or wrong answers. If the discussion is outside the curriculum, which this certainly was, they can't have it both ways, pretending to conduct an open discussion, but then dominating the discussion with long-winded speeches promoting their own views.

3. Good teachers don't undermine what other teachers in the approved curriculum are doing. It's amazing that Mr. Doofus wasn't fired for what he said about science, the educational system and all his fellow educators, leaving the church-state problem completely aside. This guy is no educator. He's a jerk.

4. Good teachers set good examples intellectually and ethically. This jackass did enough things wrong in a single day to supply an education class an entire semester's worth of material of what not to do.

5. Ethical teachers do not lie about their own conduct in an attempt to get one of their students to back down from an accusation, especially when that accusation is true. This alone should have gotten Mr. Doofus fired.

So what the hey, let the games begin. We'll start with the class of September 14, 2006. I'm taking from the transcript, which I've read, and the recordngs, which I've heard.

The "discussion" begins with Mr. Doofus expounding on his views toward Halloween. While there's nothing in these first few minutes that explicitly crosses the church-state line, it's obvious that Mr. Doofus is itching to open up a discussion that will allow him to promote his religious views. Consider the following:

He was discussing the historical root of the "holiday" (an inaccurate term, not significant), then gratuitously interjects this: "I just don't want my kids dressing up as anything evil." Great. Let's open the discussion of evil.

And in just a few moments, we have this, again from Mr. Doofus. ". . . so we try to set up an alternative counterpoint of salvation . . ." So much for a student introducing the subject of religion or religious dogma. It began with the teacher, and there it is.

Then after a few minutes, he interjects his personal religious views again; and again, it's completely gratuitous, aimed toward the promotion of his own religious views: "Anyway, my kids are home schooled . . ." Great. Your public school students really needed to know that, Mr. Doofus. Why not just come right out and say that you don't believe in the system you're supposed to be a part of --- you know, the one that puts bread on your table, Mr. Hypocritical Doofus, who would really like to teach in a fundie school but can't because it doesn't pay enough. Great job of teaching students how to backstab their eventual employers, Mr. Hypocritical Doofus.

Then he starts talking about Kearny, how he doesn't lock his own doors because of what a great town Kearny is. And then we get the explicit introduction of fundamentalist Christian religious dogma with this statement by Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus: "The highest value in public education is tolerance. But tolerance of what? Deviant behavior? There are a lot of things I don't want my kids tolerating. Ethnic diversity? Yes. Deviant sexual behavior? No. Things like that, and that's all being taught right from kindergarten on up. I still believe in the concept of sin, man's fallen nature . . ."

And there you have it, the introduction of Christian dogma into the discussion by whom? Matthew? No. Another student? No. Who, then?

Why, none other than Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus himself. He was just itching to have that discussion opened, the class was going on for about five minutes, no student formally brought up religion, so Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus, having grown impatient after five minutes, decided to open it himself.

So what's wrong with what he said?

1. He's promoting religious dogma in a public school.

2. He's telling students in a public school that the entire educational system, of which he and they are parts, is corrupt. That's disloyalty, just for starters.

3. He's telling his students that the public schools are teaching deviant behavior, including deviant sexual behavior. There's no other way to interpret "that's all being taught right from kindergarten on up."

4. He's promoting a myth. "Man's fallen nature" is a myth. It is part of the creationist story, directly opposed to nature through evolution, and therefore a direct violation of the prohibition of promoting creationism instead of evolution. It's hardly subtle at this point, even though he's not explicitly using the terms "evolution" and "creation" yet. He'll get to that shortly. But don't let anyone tell you that he didn't introduce the subject. He did, it was entirely gratuitous, and Matthew had absolutely nothing to do with it.

This explanation of why he doesn't lock his doors then turns into a long, uninterrupted speech, in which Mr. Doofus goes on to say the following: ". . . you surrender your kid to the state from preschool on up through 12th grade, and Mom and Dad are trying to tell you that the Bible is God's word, and their lives are deeply rooten in faith. But yet the "smart" people --- and I say that in quotations becasue they're not all really that smart --- the teachers that you're exposed to from kindergarten through 12th grade, never once will you see them crack open a Bible, never once will you hear them quote it, never once hear a prayer uttered from their lips." So who brought up the Bible? Why, Mr. Proselytizing Doofus, of course. Not Matthew, not some other student. Mr. Proselytizing Doofus, and none other.

Now what else is wrong with those entirely gratuitous remarks?

1. Mr. Doofus is interjecting his personal views into what is supposed to be an open discussion. A good teacher would remember that he is the authority figure there. He can't have it both ways: an open discussion on the one hand, and a lecture on the other.

2. He's mocking and demeaning all the other teachers those students have ever had from kindergarten on up. That's the implication, and it's clear.

3. He's advocating for the Bible. It's not allowed.

And we've only gotten onto page 2. There are 18 pages of this drivel.

So why not? Let's have some fun.

You would have to be completely delusional to think Paszkiewicz wasn't preaching.

[Guest Guest]

You would have to be completely delusional to think Paszkiewicz wasn't preaching.

That's your opinion.

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE (Guest @ Dec 29 2008, 11:11 PM)

You would have to be completely delusional to think Paszkiewicz wasn't preaching.

That's your opinion.

Yes, and it's also my opinion that you have to be a moron not to see it.

Kearny has more than its fair share of morons. That's my opinion too.

[WilliamK]

That's your opinion.

Mine too.

[Guest Guest]

I bet you could even find a way to defend a pedophile.

The people will leave the pedophile stuff to Keith, thank you. We do not need that sort of stuff from this hick.

[Guest Guest]

The people will leave the pedophile stuff to Keith, thank you. We do not need that sort of stuff from this hick.

*****'s undergoing therapy for his "fondness" for *******. He's had a couple of relapses but making progress.

[Guest Guest]

Now wait a minute. Mr. Doofus just told these students that children must agree with their parents on matters of religion until they are 18. Doofus' exact words were: "Until you're 18, you have to agree." Yet here he is telling his student to ignore his mother's teachings. So if there was ever the slightest doubt that Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus was misusing the classroom to promote his own religion, these remarks, taken together, put an end to any such doubt. They are irreconcilable to each other, completely contradictory. If it's about his kid and his beliefs, the child must agree until age 18 or have his backside broken. But if it's someone else's kid with different religious beliefs (even Christian beliefs, since the male student is a Christian!), well, now that's a different story. Other people's kids are free to ignore their parents' teachings. Let's all bow down to Mr. Proselytizing Hypocritical Doofus.

After all, that's the organizing principle here. David Paszkiewicz gets to speak for everyone. If something fits with his view of God and the Bible, it's good. If it doesn't fit, it's bad. Nice, neat, simple, but you can't do that in a public school.

There's no defending this hypocrisy, or this promotion of personal religious opinions not only to the exclusion of non-Christian views, but to the exclusion of Christian views he doesn't agree with. Go ahead, tell me he didn't make this all about his personal beliefs.

Sounds like Bush.

No wonder the country's a mess.

[Guest Guest]

Well, here we are, nearly a year after the story of one of the worst examples of malfeasance in the annals of educational history broke into the news, still arguing over it as though the conduct of this teacher could somehow be defended. I'm actually starting to think maybe there is a hell and we've all gone there, doomed to spend eternity watching fools try to defend the indefensible.

OK, if we're going to do it, let's at least do it right. Let's go over what Mr. Doofus actually said, line by line and point by point.

As an overview, any competent educator listening to what Mr. Doofus did in that classroom (and in the meeting in Somma's office, too) would say that this was an immature teacher who let his personal agenda completely obscure his job as a teacher, including most especially his obligations to his students (both intellectually and ethically). He completely forgot the lessons of his classes in education (or maybe never learned them in the first place), used a gentle tone of voice to disguise the fact that he was bullying his students intellectually, and allowed the students to make a few comments to give the impression that he was allowing an even-handed discussion; when what he was really doing was taking control of the class to give long-winded explanations promoting fundamentalist Christianity.

Any competent educator would immediately identify the following sins by this teacher, leaving the issue of church-state separation completely aside.

1. Competent teachers do not lose control of themselves. They do not allow, much less encourage, their classes to become vehicles for their own agendas.

2. Good, fair and honest teachers do not pretend to hold a free-form discussion, whether on or off the curriculum, and then take control of the discussion whenever they want to. If they're going to lecture, then lecture, but don't pretend you're doing something else; and if it's a lecture, it must be within the curriculum, which this was not. It's appropriate to field questions within the subject matter the teacher is being paid to teach, but don't go outside your field and presume to give long answers to students' questions, all the while pretending you're just having a open discussion with no right or wrong answers. If the discussion is outside the curriculum, which this certainly was, they can't have it both ways, pretending to conduct an open discussion, but then dominating the discussion with long-winded speeches promoting their own views.

3. Good teachers don't undermine what other teachers in the approved curriculum are doing. It's amazing that Mr. Doofus wasn't fired for what he said about science, the educational system and all his fellow educators, leaving the church-state problem completely aside. This guy is no educator. He's a jerk.

4. Good teachers set good examples intellectually and ethically. This jackass did enough things wrong in a single day to supply an education class an entire semester's worth of material of what not to do.

5. Ethical teachers do not lie about their own conduct in an attempt to get one of their students to back down from an accusation, especially when that accusation is true. This alone should have gotten Mr. Doofus fired.

So what the hey, let the games begin. We'll start with the class of September 14, 2006. I'm taking from the transcript, which I've read, and the recordngs, which I've heard.

The "discussion" begins with Mr. Doofus expounding on his views toward Halloween. While there's nothing in these first few minutes that explicitly crosses the church-state line, it's obvious that Mr. Doofus is itching to open up a discussion that will allow him to promote his religious views. Consider the following:

He was discussing the historical root of the "holiday" (an inaccurate term, not significant), then gratuitously interjects this: "I just don't want my kids dressing up as anything evil." Great. Let's open the discussion of evil.

And in just a few moments, we have this, again from Mr. Doofus. ". . . so we try to set up an alternative counterpoint of salvation . . ." So much for a student introducing the subject of religion or religious dogma. It began with the teacher, and there it is.

Then after a few minutes, he interjects his personal religious views again; and again, it's completely gratuitous, aimed toward the promotion of his own religious views: "Anyway, my kids are home schooled . . ." Great. Your public school students really needed to know that, Mr. Doofus. Why not just come right out and say that you don't believe in the system you're supposed to be a part of --- you know, the one that puts bread on your table, Mr. Hypocritical Doofus, who would really like to teach in a fundie school but can't because it doesn't pay enough. Great job of teaching students how to backstab their eventual employers, Mr. Hypocritical Doofus.

Then he starts talking about Kearny, how he doesn't lock his own doors because of what a great town Kearny is. And then we get the explicit introduction of fundamentalist Christian religious dogma with this statement by Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus: "The highest value in public education is tolerance. But tolerance of what? Deviant behavior? There are a lot of things I don't want my kids tolerating. Ethnic diversity? Yes. Deviant sexual behavior? No. Things like that, and that's all being taught right from kindergarten on up. I still believe in the concept of sin, man's fallen nature . . ."

And there you have it, the introduction of Christian dogma into the discussion by whom? Matthew? No. Another student? No. Who, then?

Why, none other than Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus himself. He was just itching to have that discussion opened, the class was going on for about five minutes, no student formally brought up religion, so Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus, having grown impatient after five minutes, decided to open it himself.

So what's wrong with what he said?

1. He's promoting religious dogma in a public school.

2. He's telling students in a public school that the entire educational system, of which he and they are parts, is corrupt. That's disloyalty, just for starters.

3. He's telling his students that the public schools are teaching deviant behavior, including deviant sexual behavior. There's no other way to interpret "that's all being taught right from kindergarten on up."

4. He's promoting a myth. "Man's fallen nature" is a myth. It is part of the creationist story, directly opposed to nature through evolution, and therefore a direct violation of the prohibition of promoting creationism instead of evolution. It's hardly subtle at this point, even though he's not explicitly using the terms "evolution" and "creation" yet. He'll get to that shortly. But don't let anyone tell you that he didn't introduce the subject. He did, it was entirely gratuitous, and Matthew had absolutely nothing to do with it.

This explanation of why he doesn't lock his doors then turns into a long, uninterrupted speech, in which Mr. Doofus goes on to say the following: ". . . you surrender your kid to the state from preschool on up through 12th grade, and Mom and Dad are trying to tell you that the Bible is God's word, and their lives are deeply rooten in faith. But yet the "smart" people --- and I say that in quotations becasue they're not all really that smart --- the teachers that you're exposed to from kindergarten through 12th grade, never once will you see them crack open a Bible, never once will you hear them quote it, never once hear a prayer uttered from their lips." So who brought up the Bible? Why, Mr. Proselytizing Doofus, of course. Not Matthew, not some other student. Mr. Proselytizing Doofus, and none other.

Now what else is wrong with those entirely gratuitous remarks?

1. Mr. Doofus is interjecting his personal views into what is supposed to be an open discussion. A good teacher would remember that he is the authority figure there. He can't have it both ways: an open discussion on the one hand, and a lecture on the other.

2. He's mocking and demeaning all the other teachers those students have ever had from kindergarten on up. That's the implication, and it's clear.

3. He's advocating for the Bible. It's not allowed.

And we've only gotten onto page 2. There are 18 pages of this drivel.

So why not? Let's have some fun.

I can't believe this guy is a teacher. He never learns anything. Letting him teach kids is insane.

[Guest guest]

A blast from the past. KOTW from 2007. He this discussion is still great stuff.

[Guest Guest]

A blast from the past. KOTW from 2007. He this discussion is still great stuff.

And nearly six years later, Paszkiewicz is still lying about it, claiming that everything he said was in response to students' questions. As the opening post makes clear, that is just not true. So either Paszkiewicz is lying or he has completely lost touch with reality. Either way, he doesn't belong in a classroom - any classroom. And that's not even accounting for the FACT that he is ignorant and scientifically illiterate. He's a buffoon and a disgrace to the educational system. The comments on YouTube are pretty much on target, basically what he deserves, except for one thing. He deserves to be fired for a long list of reasons, his profound ignorance being only one of them.