From the Mayor's Desk: 03-07-2007

[Guest Perry Mason]

It's good to see that Mayor Santos understands the situation and quickly sees through the weak attempts to dismiss Paszkiewicz's actions by his apologists. I'm proud to be a Kearny citizen under his leadership.

P.S. Obviously, the link in the quote tag will not remain active for very long, so I copied the entire thing here.

P.P.S. There is also an interesting bit written by Pat Sandle, a former teacher of mine: http://www.theobserver.com/currentissue/khs.shtml

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He's smoothing for the law suit coming.

When the "victim" is paid and the BOE goes to the town for the $$$$, Al will be in the " I told you so" seat. When he has to deny the taxpayer -voter the cutback in the funding to the BOE-like he does every year anyway- he can do the Pontius Pilate and say he washed his hands of it. He's off the hook this year.

Sneak in a few extra million for some pet projects too Al.

Al is saying in his column what the "victim" and his family have wanted all along--a public apology from the teacher and the BOE.

The BOE knows if they do that they are opening the speech can with the union and the teacher. The union will get involved making it even more interesting. More interesting than the "victims" advocates from Somerset county advancing lawsuits because they could't get the meeting minutes from the BOE fast enough. Why are so many outsiders getting involved? That is what is turning people off to the "vic" and his concerns. Most entities crumble at the " threat " of a lawsuit.

I'm glad KBOE is not. There is much more involved here then the "vic",his father and there many tales from the peanut gallery- both local and long distance.

The BOE will never discuss the action they took against the teacher.

That is the law.

For the whole bunch of you that keep touting the law that is it. No one will ever know.

[Guest Guest]

God you are so stupid.  You really reflect well on the town of Kearny.

There is no issue with whether people believe in God or not.  You are free to believe in whatever you want to believe.  I believe in a God.  I don't believe in Jesus.  I don't care what people believe as long as they don't try to 1) tell me it's the only truth, and 2) preach it to my kids in public school.

The Mayor made a bold statement and just earned my vote again.  Deal with Pascewicz the right way and this issue will die.

But as long as ignorant people like "Guest" above are around, it will always come back.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Too bad he can't make such bold statements on your property taxes.

[Guest Guest]

Ad Hominem - no reaction to this point, huh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not everyone has Strifey's kind of time on their hands. Your push broom is calling you Stifey.

[Guest Guest]

I don't S**K (edit: oh, come on, that's not even a swear) up to anyone. Ever. I'm surprised you wouldn't have gathered that by now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course no one knows who you are either.

[Guest Guest]

It may shock some of the guests to hear it, but most of Paul and Matthew's supporters are believers too... many of them Christians.

They're just not theocratic lunatics like Mr. P and his crowd.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would love you to back that one up. Really, thank you, for calling everyone that doesn't agree with you a lunatic. It just makes you sound like one yourself.

[Strife767]

I like your sentiments Strife but don't correct someone's grammar with a sentence that ends in a preposition. Bad form.

Actually, that's kind of a 'grammar myth.' There is no rule against ending sentences with prepositions.

http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/arti...026513/8910.htm

[Strife767]

Al Santos. Worst mayor. Ever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Failed impression--there should be a period after "worst" too.

Guess that's just your way of whining because Santos doesn't see things your way.

[Strife767]

Of course no one knows who you are either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One wouldn't have to.

[Strife767]

Not everyone has Strifey's kind of time on their hands.  Your push broom is calling you Stifey.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Grow the hell up, seriously. Child.

[Guest TruthHandler]

A statement on property taxes? That's good irony since most of your property taxes are levied by the Kearny Board of Ed.

[Guest Guest]

I would love you to back that one up.  Really, thank you, for calling everyone that doesn't agree with you a lunatic.  It just makes you sound like one yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If one reads some of the posts rabidly supporting the preacher-teacher or happened to see portions of the Feb. BOE meeting on the local news, it is pretty obvious which camp had the lunatic fringe. It is this lunatic fringe who will cause all of our taxes to go up as I doubt any insurance company will pay damages on a court decision when the BOE could have settled this last Fall. And trust me, the BOE will lose.

[Guest Guest]

I would love you to back that one up.  Really, thank you, for calling everyone that doesn't agree with you a lunatic.  It just makes you sound like one yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If one reads some of the posts rabidly supporting the preacher-teacher or happened to see portions of the Feb. BOE meeting on the local news, it is pretty obvious which camp had the lunatic fringe. It is this lunatic fringe who will cause all of our taxes to go up as I doubt any insurance company will pay damages on a court decision when the BOE could have settled this last Fall. And trust me, the BOE will lose.

[Guest Guest]

Actually, that's kind of a 'grammar myth.' There is no rule against ending sentences with prepositions.

http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/arti...026513/8910.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I knew that Strife. Just teasing you. I also knew you'd be bright enough to call me on it too!

Just a little diversion.

Carry on.

[Strife767]

I knew that Strife. Just teasing you. I also knew you'd be bright enough to call me on it too!

Just a little diversion.

Carry on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know, I had the feeling, reading the last bit of your previous post. Still, I decided it was worthwhile enough to point out, considering that misconception is fairly widespread. *chuckles*

Good to know that not every "Guest" post directed at me on this forum is someone engaging in childish insults etc.

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE(Mayor Al Santos @ http://www.theobserver.com/currentissue/mayor.shtml)

Understanding and respecting the role of God in government and public education is critical to a country and community as richly diverse as ours. Public officials have an obligation to uphold the promises contained in our nation’s Bill of Rights and to lead their communities in abiding by the constraints they impose. I am writing to offer my thoughts on the public debate arising from statements expressing personal religious views made by a Kearny High School teacher during a school history class. I write not only as Mayor of the Town of Kearny, but also as a lawyer and as a person who believes in God.

I listened to portions of the recordings in this controversy.  Several of the teacher’s classroom statements were his personal and deeply held religious views. To label the statements mere “opinions” is to devalue their meaning and be disrespectful of the speaker. To justify them as answers to a student’s questions is to argue unconvincingly that the form in which the statements were made can excuse their substance. To question the student’s motivation is to engage in an exercise that will not change the plain meaning of the teacher’s statements.

Respecting Religion, the Rule of Law

We must begin from a position of genuine respect for the religious views of any individual. There must be respect and tolerance across the divide separating those believing in God and those who do not believing in God and those who do not. Similarly, there has to be understanding and respect between persons of faith since our society includes many different — and often conflicting — interpretations of God.

The United States Constitution’s First Amendment includes two clauses on religion. One protects private speech endorsing religion, while the other forbids government endorsement of any particular religion. A public school teacher is a government participant hired by a board of education and paid with public funds.  The First Amendment precludes a teacher from endorsing religion in a public school classroom. Simply stated, a public school teacher may not teach what devotional or religious ideas are true or false. As explained by the United States Supreme Court: 

“The Court has been particularly vigilant in monitoring compliance with the [First Amendment’s] Establishment Clause in elementary and secondary schools.  Families entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family.  The State exerts great authority and coercive power through mandatory attendance requirements, and because of the students’ emulation of teachers as role models and the children’s susceptibility to peer pressure.” 

This does not mean that devout persons are not welcome in government or public education. It also does not mean that religious perspective can never be expressed in a public forum. But it does mean that a public school teacher should not cross the lines drawn by the Supreme Court. 

We must always remember that we are a nation governed by the rule of law and our Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The United States Supreme Court is the final say on all matters of Constitutional Law, not just the outcomes we happen to like. If a citizen disagrees with the Supreme Court, his only responsible options are either: (1) obey the law; or (2) support an amendment to the Constitution to overturn the Court’s decision through a two-thirds vote of the Congress and then approved by three-fourths of the states; or (3) engage in civil disobedience and accept the legal consequences of disregarding the law.  As for my position, I must state that I do not condone the disregarding of the law of the land.

Bringing Our Community Together

This matter has brought critical and, in many instances, unfair attention to our community and public school system. It has also created ill will among citizens, thus tearing at the very fabric of our community. Hoping this controversy will subside and eventually go away without taking any public action with respect to it is both wishful thinking and a leadership failure by those who run the Kearny public school system. We should repair the damage by implementing the following: 

1. I believe that the Kearny Board of Education must publicly repudiate the teacher’s statements at issue because they were made with the intent of endorsing a religious view in a public school classroom setting.   

2. I also urge the Kearny Board of Education to sponsor a community discussion on “God and Public Education” in the Kearny High School auditorium. Invite legal experts from area law schools to lead the discussion on what the freedoms and constraints of the First Amendment are and what they mean in application. Invite all members of our community to participate in the discussion in a way that is respectful of speakers having differing views. This meeting should explore the ways in which religious and non-religious persons can be accommodated without infringing upon anyone’s freedom or religious values. In short, turn what happened in one Kearny classroom into a learning tool that will be a model for other communities. 

I hope you consider my thoughts and suggestions in the spirit that they are intended — that is, to bring our community together and to promote the best interests of the Kearny public school system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is what we get from a Charlie Brown look alike mayor. How can he make recommendations by only listening to portions of the tapes?

How does someone run a town with stating that "We should repair the damage by implementing the following:

1. I believe that the Kearny Board of Education?"

That is not implimenting anything just stating a belief?

The "Respecting Religion, the Rule of Law " sounds like something he copied out of a textbook and if so where is his point of reference?

"I must state that I do not condone the disregarding of the law of the land. "

This is just our fearful mayor trying to cover his butt.

"To question the student’s motivation is to engage in an exercise that will not change the plain meaning of the teacher’s statements." This sounds like he agrees that the teacher was being manipulated into this topic but doesnt want to make a public commitment on it.

[Strife767]

This is what we get from a Charlie Brown look alike mayor.

1. What is wrong with you, seriously? How old are you?

2. Associating Santos's physical appearance with his statement is just absurd, and you appear all the more moronic for the above.

How can he make recommendations by only listening to portions of the tapes?

Not 100% of the recordings are incriminating, you know. Just hearing the first quote in my signature all by itself would probably be enough to make his mind on the matter, imo.

How does someone run a town with stating that "We should repair the damage by implementing the following: 

1. I believe that the Kearny Board of Education?" 

That is not implimenting anything just stating a belief?

Yeah, way to ignore the context. He was giving his stance, which was this:

"...the Kearny Board of Education must publicly repudiate the teacher’s statements at issue because they were made with the intent of endorsing a religious view in a public school classroom setting."

The "Respecting Religion, the Rule of Law " sounds like something he copied out of a textbook and if so where is his point of reference?

...wow.

Are you aware that before Santos became mayor, he was an attorney of Constitutional law? Bet you feel real smart now.

"I must state that I do not condone the disregarding of the law of the land. "

This is just our fearful mayor trying to cover his butt.

What are you talking about? Fearful of what? Paszkiewicz violated the Constitution and Santos realizes/acknowledges it.

"To question the student’s motivation is to engage in an exercise that will not change the plain meaning of the teacher’s statements." This sounds like he agrees that the teacher was being manipulated into this topic but doesnt want to make a public commitment on it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, it actually sounds more like an admonishment of people who try to justify Paszkiewicz's obviously unconstitutional actions with completely irrelevant questions of ulterior motives etc. As has been said countless times, even if the most extreme accusations of 'entrapment' and 'manipulation' and whatever else were true (which they obviously aren't), it WOULD NOT CHANGE A THING. Understand? Paszkiewicz WILL be held accountable for what he said, and that's that.

[Stixx3969]

This is what we get from a Charlie Brown look alike mayor.  How can he make recommendations by only listening to portions of the tapes?

How does someone run a town with stating that "We should repair the damage by implementing the following: 

1. I believe that the Kearny Board of Education?" 

That is not implimenting anything just stating a belief?

The "Respecting Religion, the Rule of Law " sounds like something he copied out of a textbook and if so where is his point of reference? 

"I must state that I do not condone the disregarding of the law of the land. "

This is just our fearful mayor trying to cover his butt.

"To question the student’s motivation is to engage in an exercise that will not change the plain meaning of the teacher’s statements." This sounds like he agrees that the teacher was being manipulated into this topic but doesnt want to make a public commitment on it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What did you expect him to say?

[Guest Paul]

This is what we get from a Charlie Brown look alike mayor.  How can he make recommendations by only listening to portions of the tapes?

How does someone run a town with stating that "We should repair the damage by implementing the following: 

1. I believe that the Kearny Board of Education?" 

That is not implimenting anything just stating a belief?

The "Respecting Religion, the Rule of Law " sounds like something he copied out of a textbook and if so where is his point of reference? 

"I must state that I do not condone the disregarding of the law of the land. "

This is just our fearful mayor trying to cover his butt.

"To question the student’s motivation is to engage in an exercise that will not change the plain meaning of the teacher’s statements." This sounds like he agrees that the teacher was being manipulated into this topic but doesnt want to make a public commitment on it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Al Santos is a Constitutional lawyer who undestands these issues. While I don't speak for him, I've never known him to be anything less than sincere. He is one of those rare individuals who has gone into public service at a personal cost to himself. So while people who may disagree with him can paint him as they wish, most people in Kearny seem to recognize that he has done an excellent job. He single-handedly transformed the City Council into a respectable functioning unit, instead of the mud-wrestling forum it used to be. And I don't see evidence of the corruption that characterizes Hudson County politics at so many levels. The mark of a true professional is evident at every level.

As for this: "This sounds like he agrees that the teacher was being manipulated into this topic but doesnt want to make a public commitment on it." No, it sounds like what it is: the teacher's comments are relevant, the student's questions and comments are not. That's the law. It continually amazes me, and many others, that Mr. P's defenders and apologists continually overlook this simple fact.

[Calybos]

"To question the student’s motivation is to engage in an exercise that will not change the plain meaning of the teacher’s statements." This sounds like he agrees that the teacher was being manipulated into this topic but doesnt want to make a public commitment on it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or that he recognizes such comments for what they are--a red herring by Mr. P's desperate defenders.

[Guest Guest]

You know, I had the feeling, reading the last bit of your previous post. Still, I decided it was worthwhile enough to point out, considering that misconception is fairly widespread. *chuckles*

Good to know that not every "Guest" post directed at me on this forum is someone engaging in childish insults etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Widespread misconceptions? Not with all the critical thinkers around here!

I better check what Revelations has to say about dangling participles.

[Guest The Tao of Charlie Brown]

This is what we get from a Charlie Brown look alike mayor.  How can he make recommendations by only listening to portions of the tapes?

How does someone run a town with stating that "We should repair the damage by implementing the following: 

1. I believe that the Kearny Board of Education?" 

That is not implimenting anything just stating a belief?

The "Respecting Religion, the Rule of Law " sounds like something he copied out of a textbook and if so where is his point of reference? 

"I must state that I do not condone the disregarding of the law of the land. "

This is just our fearful mayor trying to cover his butt.

"To question the student’s motivation is to engage in an exercise that will not change the plain meaning of the teacher’s statements." This sounds like he agrees that the teacher was being manipulated into this topic but doesnt want to make a public commitment on it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your points are easily dismissed:

Listening to "portions" of the tapes: The transcripts and tapes have been discussed ad nauseum over the last 4 months. There is no doubt as to what was said. To imply something was missed after all this is grasping at straws.

"Just stating a belief": Public acknowledgement or apology is a concrete step that can be 'implemented'.

Respecting Religion, the Rule of Law: Quibbling over sub-headings?? I doubt Santos coined "respecting religion" or the "rule of law" but joining the two phrases was very effective.

Not condoning the "disregarding of the law of the land": That's reads more like a sharp criticism of the teacher except you missed that altogether.

"Agrees that the teacher was being manipulated": You should re-read that sentence. Santos disarms the pro-teacher argument about the student's motivations by saying it's irrelevant to the fact that a wrong was committed by the teacher.

[Strife767]

Widespread misconceptions? Not with all the critical thinkers around here!

I better check what Revelations has to say about dangling participles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Guest]

Your points are easily dismissed:

Listening to "portions" of the tapes:  The transcripts and tapes have been discussed ad nauseum over the last 4 months.  There is no doubt as to what was said.  To imply something was missed after all this is grasping at straws.

"Just stating a belief":  Public acknowledgement or apology is a concrete step that can be 'implemented'.

Respecting Religion, the Rule of Law:  Quibbling over sub-headings??  I doubt Santos coined "respecting religion" or the "rule of law" but joining the two phrases was very effective.

Not condoning the "disregarding of the law of the land":  That's reads more like a sharp criticism of the teacher except you missed that altogether.

"Agrees that the teacher was being manipulated":  You should re-read that sentence.  Santos disarms the pro-teacher argument about the student's motivations by saying it's irrelevant to the fact that a wrong was committed by the teacher.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you Paul LaClair for that wonderful explaination. Going by the name The Tao of Charlie Brown doesnt really flatter you. The writing style is identical to the much earlier comments by someone named Paul I think? My comments can be dismissed? Sounds very lawyerish to me. "ad nauseum" another word commonly used by Paul.

So I guess this is another one of your supporters? Oh I get it now. Did you ever wonder how many of your so called supporters originate befind the same keyboard. Ad hominum. I might as well be talking to Paul here.

[Strife767]

Thank you Paul LaClair for that wonderful explaination. Going by the name The Tao of Charlie Brown doesnt really flatter you.  The writing style is identical to the much earlier comments by someone named Paul I think?

No, it's just that the literate/intelligent tend to have similar writing styles.

My comments can be dismissed?  Sounds very lawyerish to me. "ad nauseum" another word commonly used by Paul.

Ad nauseum.

Am I Paul now too? Do you even know what "ad nauseum" means? I bet you don't even know how to pronounce it.

So I guess this is another one of your supporters?  Oh I get it now. Did you ever wonder how many of your so called supporters originate befind the same keyboard.  Ad hominum. I might as well be talking to Paul here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you make a habit of talking to yourself on the Internet?

[Guest The Tao of Charlie Brown]

Thank you Paul LaClair for that wonderful explaination. Going by the name The Tao of Charlie Brown doesnt really flatter you.  The writing style is identical to the much earlier comments by someone named Paul I think?  My comments can be dismissed?  Sounds very lawyerish to me. "ad nauseum" another word commonly used by Paul.

So I guess this is another one of your supporters?  Oh I get it now. Did you ever wonder how many of your so called supporters originate befind the same keyboard.  Ad hominum. I might as well be talking to Paul here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not Paul. In fact, it was the first time I chimed in here on this. I'm not sure when ad nauseum became legal-speak although it does presume a certain basic knowledge of the Latin and English languages. If only lawyers know how to use Latin phrases and basic verbs like 'dismiss', and if there's only one lawyer in the Kearny universe posting on this web site, then your charge might hold water.