Attempted intimidation

[Guest Dingo Dave]

You're losing it, Dingo.  You may have rabies, hanging around with all those dogs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you even bother to take a look at the link I provided?

[Guest Guest]

He has answered that question many times, and so have he. He is making the point that citizenship requires action, not merely reciting something because everyone else does.

If you look honestly at history, you will see that he is absolutely right to do it. A nation that confuses reciting a pledge with the real work of citizenship --- reading a newspaper, being aware of the issues, voting, conserving energy when we're at war for oil --- is in deep trouble, and in danger of losing its democracy. The reason is that democracy cannot survive the loss of personal freedom, and cannot operate properly if its citizens are ignorant --- it never has, and it never will, and all the rah-rah pseudo-patriots who don't understand that are doing more damage to our country than all the protesters combined. So my questions for you: what newspaper do you read, how well do you know the issues, etc.

That doesn't mean that those who stand for the pledge are wrong --- they're expressing patriotism as they see fit --- or maybe they're just going along. The point is, you can't tell who the real patriots are by who stands for the pledge. Any phony can do that. We can only judge patriotism by how citizens act to support and honor their country and its people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Standing for the pledge is part of supporting and honoring this country and its people.

[Guest Paul]

Standing for the pledge is part of supporting and honoring this country and its people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes it is, if people are doing it for the right reasons, and if it's not all they're doing to support and honor their country, and participate in our democracy. However, not standing for the pledge is also part of supporting and honoring this country and its people if one is doing it to make the point that standing and reciting a pledge is not enough. That is the point Matthew is making, and it is an expression of patriotism. He's asking people to think instead of merely recite. In a democracy, thinking, and then acting on that thinking, is a patriotic act.

[Guest Guest]

To be honest, Paul, I'm having difficulty understanding your seeming obsession with this forum. I've supported you in the past, but the sheer abundance of things you've posted here make me wonder if such information couldn't be committed elsewhere. As a major player in this important (albeit hopeless convolted by this point) issue, I was under the impression that you'd have less time to spend on the internet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think partially, he's committed to getting this right, and partially, he's doing what he can to deflect the criticisms aimed at Matthew.

[Strife767]

Standing for the pledge is part of supporting and honoring this country and its people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pff.

Anyone can stand up and recite a bunch of words. But not everyone has the guts to stand up to a popular figure who is violating the Constitution, and bear undeserved abuse as a result.

[Guest Paul]

I think partially, he's committed to getting this right, and partially, he's doing what he can to deflect the criticisms aimed at Matthew.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is correct, and a very good way of putting it. Thank you.

[Guest Sgt Rock]

He has answered that question many times, and so have he. He is making the point that citizenship requires action, not merely reciting something because everyone else does.

If you look honestly at history, you will see that he is absolutely right to do it. A nation that confuses reciting a pledge with the real work of citizenship --- reading a newspaper, being aware of the issues, voting, conserving energy when we're at war for oil --- is in deep trouble, and in danger of losing its democracy. The reason is that democracy cannot survive the loss of personal freedom, and cannot operate properly if its citizens are ignorant --- it never has, and it never will, and all the rah-rah pseudo-patriots who don't understand that are doing more damage to our country than all the protesters combined. So my questions for you: what newspaper do you read, how well do you know the issues, etc.

That doesn't mean that those who stand for the pledge are wrong --- they're expressing patriotism as they see fit --- or maybe they're just going along. The point is, you can't tell who the real patriots are by who stands for the pledge. Any phony can do that. We can only judge patriotism by how citizens act to support and honor their country and its people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you look honestly at history, you will see that he is absolutely right to do it. A nation that confuses reciting a pledge with the real work of citizenship --- reading a newspaper, being aware of the issues, voting, conserving energy when we're at war for oil

After that war for oil crack it is now confirmed to me what your agenda is....

I wish they still had the draft....

[Guest Guest]

Yes it is, if people are doing it for the right reasons, and if it's not all they're doing to support and honor their country, and participate in our democracy. However, not standing for the pledge is also part of supporting and honoring this country and its people if one is doing it to make the point that standing and reciting a pledge is not enough. That is the point Matthew is making, and it is an expression of patriotism. He's asking people to think instead of merely recite. In a democracy, thinking, and then acting on that thinking, is a patriotic act.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, so he's doing this to get the rest of us think. Now I get it. It's a good thing we have him around.

[Guest Guest]

To get a full flavor of the attempt to intimidate the student, which ran throughout the October 10 meeting, you have to listen to the entire recording so that you get everything in context. This isn't just my impression, by the way: everyone I've spoken to about it heard the same thing, and heard it clearly. Much of it consisted of trying to make the student feel guilty for exposing the teacher's improper behavior, and much of it was accomplished by tone of voice and placement of the statements: interruptions, for example. Most of it is passive-aggressive, which is a standard technique used to manipulate others. Here are some of the more egregious examples of Mr. Paszkiewicz's attempt to intimidate Matthew, in response to a request on another topic. You also have to remember that there is a power relationship between the teacher --- who is sitting right next to the student in the meeting and physically larger than the student --- and the student.

a. [October 10, 2006, 2:25-2:33 - Paszkiewicz] “I’m thinkin’ I created a safe environment for a kid that loves history. All the while what were you doin’? You were writing this letter.”

b. [October 10, 2006, 2:38-2:47 - Paszkiewicz] “I almost feel like I was set up. I feel like there was deception. If you want to talk about trust, I was devastated by it.”

c. [October 10, 2006, 9:38-9:52 - Paszkiewicz] “Do I cut out Social Darwinism because you don’t like it? Do I cut out the social gospel because you don’t like it? Do I cut out Josiah Strong because the book holds him out as a prominent figure, but he was a preacher, so you don’t like it? What do I do, cut holes in my textbook?”

d. [October 10, 2006, 12:19-12:28] “A letter like this, Matt, I’m talking to you as a man. This paints me out to be a Nazi. I’ve got four kids, one has a kidney disease.”

e. [October 10, 2006, 13:08-13:13] “I want you to understand how damaging something like this could be. Now maybe you don’t care . . .”

f. [October 10, 2006, 13:24-13:53] “But this letter’s gonna be in somebody’s file forever. Now what you’re saying here contradicts all of those people that I mentioned, some of which have gone on to become teachers, and have written me notes that I am the reason why.  But all of that could be ended. I’m the only income-earner in my household and I’ve got four kids, why, I gotta tell you, because you just don’t like some of these issues. . .”

g. [October 10, 2006, 21:38-22:08] “Students in the past have loved the class . . . One of their favorite things were debates that we would do. There’s no possible way I’m doing a debate in that class now, because a political issue is going to be mentioned, and somebody is going to ask me ‘what is your opinion, Mr. Paszkiewicz,’ and I’m going to get crucified.”

In other words, "I have to change my behavior now, the students don't like it, and it's your fault." But the fact is, he has to change his behavior because his bosses reminded him that his behavior was improper. Shame on him, and shame on Mr. Somma for allowing it to happen like this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shame how the LaClairs can criticize one their children’s teacher and making a mock of the town they live in for mentioning religion in class, but somehow its ok for their other child takes the scholarship money (nearly a full scholarship) for attending a college in New Jersey whose affiliation is with the United Methodist Church.

Shame on the LaClairs.

[Guest Paul]

Shame how the LaClairs can criticize one their children’s teacher and making a mock of the town they live in for mentioning religion in class, but somehow its ok for their other child takes the scholarship money (nearly a full scholarship) for attending a college in New Jersey whose affiliation is with the United Methodist Church.

Shame on the LaClairs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Drew ended its affiliation with UMC, it's a private college even when it was affiliated, and the one has nothing to do with the other. Not to mention that your characterization is not only off-base, but outside the stadium.

[Strife767]

Shame how the LaClairs can criticize one their children’s teacher and making a mock of the town they live in for mentioning religion in class, but somehow its ok for their other child takes the scholarship money (nearly a full scholarship) for attending a college in New Jersey whose affiliation is with the United Methodist Church.

Shame on the LaClairs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For the last damned time, this issue isn't, and never was, any sort of anti-religion crusade. It's always been about defending the Constitution and calling a teacher who violated it on it.

There is no 'shame' or hypocrisy in what you just said above, except in the minds of the ignoramuses who seem incapable of truly understanding the issue, instead going off on their persecution complex and perceiving an attack on their religion that isn't there.

[Bryan]

Can't answer his post, huh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dingo Dave's post needed answering? You take that "Dr. Rex Curry" stuff seriously, eh?

Notice anything about the website Dingo Dave linked? Looked a bit cheesy, didn't it? Dig around on "Rex Curry" and you'll see more of the same (I get a kick of the pages trumpeting the fact that Wikipedia entries recognize Curry's groundbreaking work--so what?).

Curry wants us to believe that the Nazis thought American kids reciting the pledge was an idea worth ripping off? Get serious. Even if it were true that there is no solid evidence in support of a "Roman" pledge, it is more likely by far that the Nazis picked it up from the Italians, and the Italians consciously were reviving aspects of their Roman past under Mussolini.

If Mussolini was inspired by Hollywood, it doesn't change the fact that in the minds of Italians he was returning Italy to past glory.

[Guest Guest]

You're losing it, Dingo.  You may have rabies, hanging around with all those dogs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If only you would lose your stupidity and your ignorance.

[Confused in VA]

Shame how the LaClairs can criticize one their children’s teacher and making a mock of the town they live in for mentioning religion in class, but somehow its ok for their other child takes the scholarship money (nearly a full scholarship) for attending a college in New Jersey whose affiliation is with the United Methodist Church.

Shame on the LaClairs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With all due respect Guest. I'm not sure I follow your thought. I may or may not agree with the approach of the situation by the LaClairs, but they have been very clear that this is not an attack on religion, but an issue with where the conversations took place and the person involved in the conversation. Where siblings choose to go to school is of no relevance to this discussion.

I fully support debate and thought-provoking conversation, but I cannot tolerate a sibling being pulled into this situation, nor the suggestion that the parents pushed their child to attend a religiously affiliated school due to money. Truth be told, if a child is offered "nearly a full scholarship" chances are that similar offers were also available from other schools.

Honestly- does it matter? Why overtly insinuate that the LaClairs are anti-religion? Why involved a sibling in this discussion?

[Guest Guest]

Why does junior live here if he wont stand for the pledge?????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because he has the RIGHT to!

Much to the dismay of the neo-Nazi-cons the Bill of Rights stll applies here.

[Guest Paul]

If you look honestly at history, you will see that he is absolutely right to do it. A nation that confuses reciting a pledge with the real work of citizenship --- reading a newspaper, being aware of the issues, voting, conserving energy when we're at war for oil

After that war for oil crack it is now confirmed to me what your agenda is....

I wish they still had the draft....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If "they" still had the draft, we probably wouldn't have the war. There has been no hint of any commonly shared willingness to sacrifice throughout this fiasco. What makes you think most people would have tolerated this idiotic war had their kids been on the line to fight it?

[Guest Paul]

With all due respect Guest.  I'm not sure I follow your thought.  I may or may not agree with the approach of the situation by the LaClairs, but they have been very clear that this is not an attack on religion, but an issue with where the conversations took place and the person involved in the conversation.  Where siblings choose to go to school is of no relevance to this discussion. 

I fully support debate and thought-provoking conversation, but I cannot tolerate a sibling being pulled into this situation, nor the suggestion that the parents pushed their child to attend a religiously affiliated school due to money.  Truth be told, if a child is offered "nearly a full scholarship" chances are that similar offers were also available from other schools. 

Honestly- does it matter?    Why overtly insinuate that the LaClairs are anti-religion?  Why involved a sibling in this discussion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because some people have to be right. They don't care who they hurt, and they don't care about the facts. All they care about is walking away with the sense that they were right.

[Guest Paul]

Shame how the LaClairs can criticize one their children’s teacher and making a mock of the town they live in for mentioning religion in class, but somehow its ok for their other child takes the scholarship money (nearly a full scholarship) for attending a college in New Jersey whose affiliation is with the United Methodist Church.

Shame on the LaClairs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This was not merely mentioning religion in class. It was proselytizing, and in an extremely offensive way to boot. Shame on you for defending it.

Not that anyone knows who you are. You made sure of that. If you're proud of what you're writing, why don't you tell us who you are?

[Guest Guest]

With all due respect Guest.  I'm not sure I follow your thought.  I may or may not agree with the approach of the situation by the LaClairs, but they have been very clear that this is not an attack on religion, but an issue with where the conversations took place and the person involved in the conversation.  Where siblings choose to go to school is of no relevance to this discussion. 

I fully support debate and thought-provoking conversation, but I cannot tolerate a sibling being pulled into this situation, nor the suggestion that the parents pushed their child to attend a religiously affiliated school due to money.  Truth be told, if a child is offered "nearly a full scholarship" chances are that similar offers were also available from other schools. 

Honestly- does it matter?    Why overtly insinuate that the LaClairs are anti-religion?  Why involved a sibling in this discussion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What it is about is ethics. It is about Paul LaClair standing in front of the community and shouting more than once that his rights have been violated for a teacher discussing religion in class and taking scholarship from an Atheist Association hiding behind the name of Thomas Jefferson and sending his other child to a religious university that has given his family scholarship funds.

I for the life of me cannot see how that is not ethical? And you wish me to call this family patriotic? A parent does foster and guide the child in these cases and it seems irresponsible how if the family's beliefs are that strong that they would let that child attend. Perhaps there are other ulterior motives that are not being shared?

[Guest Guest]

Yes it is, if people are doing it for the right reasons, and if it's not all they're doing to support and honor their country, and participate in our democracy. However, not standing for the pledge is also part of supporting and honoring this country and its people if one is doing it to make the point that standing and reciting a pledge is not enough. That is the point Matthew is making, and it is an expression of patriotism. He's asking people to think instead of merely recite. In a democracy, thinking, and then acting on that thinking, is a patriotic act.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So if junior decides to burn the American flag on the steps of Kearny High, we should also salute him because its our patriotic dute? There comes a point where people need to be responsible for their actions. There comes a point where ethics should be brought to the forefront. Secret recordings to me does not seem ethical. Not confronting the teacher when the occurance occured does not seem ethical. Please stop calling him a patriot. You are tarnishing the name with people of this country who really cared about it. I do not need this boy defending my rights as you try to spin it.

[Guest Guest]

Drew ended its affiliation with UMC, it's a private college even when it was affiliated, and the one has nothing to do with the other. Not to mention that your characterization is not only off-base, but outside the stadium.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ohh don't let the word get out that UMC stands for United Methodist University and absolutely NOT, I just called the university and DREW did not END its affiliation with them. Because if it ever did get out would Matthew lose his schlarship with the Athiest Organization? Does that mean of you say the words United Methodist Church you will burn in hell ? You couldn't even type the words United Methodist Church but had to write UMC. How completely childish and unopenminded you are.

[Guest Guest]

Pff.

Anyone can stand up and recite a bunch of words. But not everyone has the guts to stand up to a popular figure who is violating the Constitution, and bear undeserved abuse as a result.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Undeserved? He was mostly to himself way before this instance occurred. There has been no abuse toward him that I have seen. Or else it would be posted here. Its nothing other that what he has caused for himself. Otherwise don't you think Paul would have it splattered all over here?

[Guest Guest]

For the last damned time, this issue isn't, and never was, any sort of anti-religion crusade. It's always been about defending the Constitution and calling a teacher who violated it on it.

There is no 'shame' or hypocrisy in what you just said above, except in the minds of the ignoramuses who seem incapable of truly understanding the issue, instead going off on their persecution complex and perceiving an attack on their religion that isn't there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only an ignoramuse would keep posting the same subtext each time he posts one of his countless responses to anything anyone posts here.

[Guest Guest]

Drew ended its affiliation with UMC, it's a private college even when it was affiliated, and the one has nothing to do with the other. Not to mention that your characterization is not only off-base, but outside the stadium.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the discussion goes on and on. So only Paul LaClair can decide what is inside or outside the discussion of the issues here? KOTW is an open forum for discussions on the topics on the town and because its not an attack by you on Mr. P, that does not mean it cannot be discussed here. I do love how you try to manipulate each person's post here. This is not your courtroom. It's a public forum.

[Stixx3969]

What it is about is ethics.  It is about Paul LaClair standing in front of the community and shouting more than once that his rights have been violated for a teacher discussing religion in class and taking scholarship from an Atheist Association hiding behind the name of Thomas Jefferson and sending his other child to a religious university that has given his family scholarship funds.

I for the life of me cannot see how that is not ethical?  And you wish me to call this family patriotic? A parent does foster and guide the child in these cases and it seems irresponsible how if the family's beliefs are that strong that they would let that child attend.  Perhaps there are other ulterior motives that are not being shared?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It still doesn't mean that Mr. "P" didn't screw up.