Maybe from you, however, the majority of people in this area voted for his reelection. I welcome him!

Hey the man who wants to cut taxes to the middle class.. absolutely socialist.. call up hitler hes back in town

We don't need the "argumentum ad Hitlerium" argument here... the last person to cut the income tax for everyone-- not just the middle class-- was W. Before that, Clinton raised them, Bush 41 raised them, and Reagan lowered the marginal rates and reduced us to only two brackets.

You're welcome.

I'm with you A.S. Buffoon Obama is an idiot who has surrounded himself with morons. The financial papers have reported on numerous occasions how his "tax the rich" scheme will affect all taxpayers and especially the middle class. People either don't understand or lack the education to understand how ineffective the proposed scheme is. Under Obama you will be better off unemployed or on welfare. That way you won't be affected.

AS(S), I wasn't sure if I needed to include another s. If your embarrassed to be an american, then leave. We really didn't need another pot scrubber. bye-bye
republican=idiot

The pot-scrubbers are illegal aliens, and they're employed in the kitchens of Democrats who don't like having to pay the minimum wage their politicians imposed on everyone else.

I second that "you're welcome" & so does middle class America who now can lose their jobs & not lose their health care, are no longer in the insurance hell of pre existing conditions, still have a job thanks to Obama bringing the economy back to no longer at the brink of the depression Republican economics led us to.
General Motors is alive & Osama Bin Ladin Dead.
Obama now is making America safe from gun toting crazies.
Yes, you are more than welcome for thanking us for voting for Barack. We don't really need thanks. Having Obama at the helm is reward enough.

wheezer96 thinks Obama is an idiot, surrounded by morons. Those "morons" & the 'Idiot' made the big business manager Romney & his team of business genious
advisors look sick by totally out managing the campaign in all the swing states. That is one smart 'community organizer'. If Obama is so stupid, how come all the best Conservative minds have been working, with extreme motivation, to defeat him for over 4 years now, & with a super motivated base,& he still beat you? You people can't even prove he's a Kenyan. LOL

The sign about gangbangs and rape was my favorite intelligent sign.

I especially thought the sign about raping America was well timed given Geithner's declaration of Barry's new tax and spend proposals

That's why stupid people shouldn't breed.

These idiots wouldn't know socialism if Karl Marx himself came up to them and introduce himself. These people are jealous of others success...these are the same people who want free stuff. Take their free stuff and watch them throw a fit like a baby.

These are the same idiots who chastised George Bush for his actions, and they go and vote in a guy who's twice as worse than Bush...lol.

Jim, You have no clue what your writing about. Go read a book, if you know how. There's a reason why college grads vote dem. It's called critical thinking. We, as a majority, know how to. It's funny to us, when you write dems get handouts, when the facts are the opposite. The top takers are republicans. The southern whites TAKE more than the urban blacks. The old TAKE more than the young. White men are more likely to lie on the taxes. Get a clue IDIOT. Maybe you need a PELL GRANT to go back to school. I'm willing to prop you up withmy share of tax dollars.
Republican=stupid

Ooh, "appeal to popularity" and "appeal to authority" in one irrational post. Thanks! By the way, I'm a college graduate, although I probably graduated before you got your summa cum laude from community college.

Hi, Lisa. Had a Republican been elected, there would have an uproar the likes of which we haven't seen in many years. My thoughts on this visit: Better that he would be in DC leading rather than running around the country. Lost the election? Sour grapes? Hey, it is what it is... Just because the election is over, we cannot bury our heads in the sand and just let things happen to us. We need to keep informed and act when needed. That's what these folks did today.

Are you planning on dying before the end of the year? If yes, then you'll need to leave an estate of more than $5.1 million in order for the government to get any of it. As of now, that drops back to a paltry $1 million in 2013, but it will likely be adjusted as part of the fiscal cliff talks. Obama wants to lower the exemption to $3.5 million and raise the estate tax rate from its present 35% to 45%.

Those are the facts - so much better than your propaganda, don't you think Joe? And an issue that is totally irrelevant to the 99% of us who won't be leaving or getting estates in the millions of dollars.

Even liberal sites attributes $5.2 trillion in deficit spending to BHO. Bush's last deficit was $1.2 trillion, after the bail out spending. Right our fiscal ship? Raising taxes on successful families, even if he confiscates every cent, will be insignificant against such explosive spending. Also, perhaps you were out of the country during GWB's administration, because folks here saw hate and vile directed against him become acceptable dinner conversation. Pictures of GWN as a chimp were everywhere, yet I haven't seen pictures of BHO as an ape. Your concerns are misplaced.

SG124 I watched the money from Barry's last stimulus (quite a success wasn't it? Made the economy jump up and rev?). Perhaps not because it was wasted on who he helps - Solyndra comes to mind (close friends of the Obama's). Help the middle class? Horse hockey! I am much worse off than I ever was prior to Barry taking office the first time and all I see is more of the same.

You don't understand the hate for the man who has stood up to one podium after another condemning and even mocking anyone who opposes him? No other President in History has ever showed total disgust for the opposing party like he does or has shown such disrespect for Israels, Netanyahu and our Constitution. He constantly pits one group against the other, black and white, rich and poor, Dems and Republicans .We are not a people to him but different groups that he so intends on keeping apart, After all he must shore up the numbers of the black and poor for future votes. He is a despicable hate filled man, rejected by both of his parents, he has some serious mental issues.

waldo, miss a couple classes? It's called democracy.

Democrats like the "tyranny of the majority" as long as they are in the majority.

Patrick, look in the mirror for political ignorance. At no time was the US a democracy. The Founders did all they could to warn us of the dangers of democracy. History is replete with democracy gone wrong, and our recent decent into democracy is a troubling foreboding. Our system is not based on mob rule, or democracy. Our system is a Democratic Republic, or rule of law. History shows the Greeks and the Romans as fair comparisons to our greay experiment. In particular the Romans. Their early prosperity was destroyed as citizens became lazy and sought entitlements. They went from Republic, to democracy, to a tyranny of the elite with the rule of the Caesars. Sound familiar? It should. That exact process is the US today. As their government was allowed to grow their Liberty was allowed to waste.
The only politician I have ever heard speak of Solan, the father of Republican government, was JFK. Sadly "the majority" of voters and politicians in amerika today think he had something to do with the moon. Ignorance of history and the failure that follows, may be our tragic end as well.

That's why Solon has been dubbed The Lawgiver!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solon

"By giving common people the power not only to elect officials but also to call them to account, Solon appears to have established the foundations of a true republic."

Patrick, we are a republic, not a democracy.

What's that saying I always hear.......Socialism isn't for the Socialists........ask Putin, Chavez, etc.....

Hopefully we can get more people to wake up.....or maybe it will have to get worse here.....with more constitutional freedoms being taken away before THEY wake up!!!

John, your so dumb. 11 trillion of the 16 tril is attributed to Bush (2 wars, a tax cut, and prescription drugs). The logic behind a escalating tax is called democracy. Get an education. Read a book. Do something to increase your knowledge. Stupidity is infectious and your making people sick.

Just because a bunch of politicians implemented a progressive income tax doesn't make it correct. They are by-and-large not economic experts. In addition, just because a lot of people supported them, that does not make it correct. Popularity does not make something true, or else only Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber would be considered acceptable music.

"Just because a bunch of politicians implemented a progressive income tax doesn't make it correct."

Time to go back to school Stephen. A progressive tax is a core element to capitalist theory. Read "The Wealth of Nations" - the original work on capitalist economic theory.

That is the problem with you Tea Party Economists. You don't really have a clue what you are talking about.

2 Joannes, both stupid, We are socialists. You must have missed that class. Hospitals, military, schools, churches are bases on socialism. If the apocalpse happened today, we know socialist behaviors wouls emerge before capitalism. Educate yourself first, then make a smart comment
Republican=stupid

Patrick, please stop. You are simply getting more ridiculous with each post, and show that you don't even know the basics. Socialism is a government system that functions as the primary actor in (re) distribution of wealth. It has nothing whatsoever to do with our social responsibilities, or how we relate to or help one another.

Tim, how stupid you must feel again. Socialism is a also form of behavior, not just a form of gov't. You definately are not educated. You make the same dumb mistakes over and over. Tim, uneducated, white man=republican( you fit the demographics, regardless of your income)

HaHaHaHaHaHaHa! Patrick, thanks for the laugh, and for giving me the Facts. I feel so educated now.

Conservatives don't have a problem with charity or communal living; that's ridiculous. You clearly don't know the difference between people voluntarily living in a community (like the Amish or Hutterites) and people having a socialist government. A government can take your life, property, and freedom, while a commune can pretty much just kick you out. Charity is giving when you don't need to. Taxes are something you pay so you don't go to jail, and there's little you can do to ensure they aren't used for nefarious purposes in war and graft.

A biased blog, but with some good points:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/20/the-obama-hawaii-vacation-pricetag-much-ado-about-nothing/

Over two hundred executive orders say your wrong. The review of the morning "kill list" says your wrong. Not repealing the patriot act says your wrong. Signing NDAA says your wrong. You have to go back to FDR to find a president more destructive to our country than obama.

I hope you are wrong, but I am afraid you are right Smedley. The Banksters are pulling the strings, and the rest of the world knows it. Iceland got it right recently...maybe we can too. Where there is a will there is a way.

Since when do the borders keep people out?

FDR was full of crap when he said that, because what he feared was an uprising from the American people if he didn't give them something else to attack-- like the Republicans, German and Japanese Americans, rich people, the American Liberty League, Standard Oil, DuPont, etc. He wanted the people to fear these companies, instead of him, because when Americans are afraid of something they put an end to it.

Hi, Cassie. The protesters were there to make a statement, just as you made your own statement to them. The left is not accustomed to the right engaging in protests, which has always been a part of the liberal culture. While a community organizer in Chicago, President Obama taught the "art" of protest using Alinsky tactics. These tactics include large groups and general intimidation to force change. You’ll see unions, groups like the old ACORN (which is broken into many smaller groups now) and groups like the occupy wall street crowd used these tactics as well. During the campaign, during deliberations of the Supreme Court and many other occasions, liberal groups, bolstered greatly by union and groups such as moveon.org, folks who were bused in, were extremely vocal & at times intimidating. I can attest to that as I was at several of these types of events. Exactly, hate breed hate and the left needs to understand that.
Can you tell me what hate was seen at the protest? I see one sign with a picture of the joker beside the President, hmmm… So, were people fighting? Were there signs touting the person’s opposition to the administration’s policies? Were there pictures of the President with a target across his face? What about a picture of him as Hitler? Oops, sorry, in those last 2 questions, I was thinking of the signs that were used in protests against President George W. Bush. (Part II next)

See Part I below - Part II: I’m sure you will agree that no one likes paying taxes, but we do to ensure vital services. You might want to check your tax return. Your effective tax rate is most likely a bit lower than 25%. The President has said that he wants things to be fair. So, examining that concept: The “rich” already account for over 70% of all revenues that the Federal Government receives. With an increase in taxes that the President is proposing, the government will be able to pay about 8 days of the interest on our national debt of $16 trillion. There will be no more of that money available, just more “investment” (spending) with more money borrowed from China or wherever. The President has proposed no plan to address the debt, let alone the annual deficit. He wants a balanced approach, but has no cuts in the mix. Please remember your kids and grandkids when you see that debt keep rising.

So you saw 'rude' people protesting and you gave them the finger? Not a very bright star, are you ? Take a look at yourself, meet rude.

This is America. We protest. Sticking your finger up rude.

These symbolize Communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

AMEN....AMEN BILLY!!!!

Joanne, more dumb dribble.
Fact-Republicans "take more free stuff from the fed than dems
Fact- educated people trend dem
Fact- people with IQs less than 90 vote republican
Republican=stupid

Conservatives also make less than dems, have less education, participate less in civic events, have a lower IQ.... not my opinion...fact!

@ Lisa: If/when a recession/depression hits in 2013, will you finally admit BHO "owns" the economy...and condemn for gross-mismanagement?

I'll take the bet that as long as a compromise is reached involving the upcoming fiscal cliff (making sure there is new revenue along with spending cuts and smarter government spending) and there isn't a debate over whether the debt ceiling should be raised (because, you know, we have bills to pay and not raising the debt ceiling wouldn't make those go away, it just makes it worse and lowers our credit score) that there will not be a recession/depression in 2013. I would actually not be surprised if the economy continues its slow, yet steady upward climb.

patrick you are not helping us by reacting the way you are. State facts and not emotions. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the other side be overly emotional. In a few years Obama will have turned the economy around...its doing better already.

bepa, I state facts regularly in my posts. I know my posts are abrasive, but I enjoy "sticking it" to people that spew lies and/or hate. It's my style.
Republican=stupid

hey waldo, you don't want to pay taxes, then leave. Go away. This is the USA. We live and work together, for the improvement of all. That's what our Constitution is based on. You don't like it. Move. Please move.

We're going down the tube alright. Thank you Republicans and Democrats. Maybe one day if you stop voting for them something will change.

http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/275433.html

Hi, Patrick, as you know our Constitution limits the federal government to certain delineated powers. All other powers rest with the states or "we the people". For years, the federal government has been overreaching beyond the delineated powers. No one here has said they don't want to pay taxes. There is certainly a need to pay for some services and infrastructure. The beef is with the way the funds are used. As I assume you are aware, President Obama proposed 2 budgets during his first term, both were unanimously rejected. Also, the Senate has not passed a budget during the entire first term, even when there was a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress. There has been no plan. There is no serious plan by the president or the Senate to reform the tax code or curb spending despite multiple studies that show the waste in many government programs. That is the beef. Concern for maintaining Social Security and Medicare has fallen on deaf ears. This "2012 Waste Book" is a good reference to see the waste: http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b7b23f66-2d60-4d5a-8bc5-8522c7e1a40e

Patrick, the other point is the idea of "collectivism". This concept was not what the country was founded on. The basis for the Great American Experiment was whether man could rule himself. This does not preclude, but supports fellow men caring for those in need. Americans are the most generous people on earth. I believe, and it has been proven that there is inherent goodness in each of us. Before social programs, neighbors, churches, families and benevolent societies cared for the sick and indigent. At the link below is a great article that defines, compares and contrasts the concepts of collectivism and individualism. A quote: "Individualism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs to him and that he has an inalienable right to live it as he sees fit, to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the product of his effort, and to pursue the values of his choosing. It’s the idea that the individual is sovereign, an end in himself, and the fundamental unit of moral concern. This is the ideal that the American Founders set forth and sought to establish when they drafted the Declaration and the Constitution and created a country in which the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness were to be recognized and protected." Link: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-spring/individualism-collectivism.asp

You do get government assistance. You drive on roads that are built by the government, your children can go to public school for free, you have free police and fire protection, if you have a mortgage you get a mortgage deduction on taxes to help you pay the interest etc The list is very long of what we get from our government.

What the government does for us is being ignored.

bepa, that is not the issue. Those are generally things the government should be doing. The issue is all of the stuff that government is involved in that it shouldn't be.

Yes, I receive gov't money. My kids get their books and school transportation. The road gets plowed when it snows. The road is paved. The police come when called, etc...

J Kuz, too bad the dems are the "smart" ones. Does your point mean only 1 in 20 pubs would know the answer? Go read a book, if you know how.
Republican=stupid

Like patrick, right?

Obama haters? No, Obama policy opponents.

Exactly Patrick, good analogy...thank you.

No, its hate - and arrogance. "More evolved"? gimme a break.

Just because you don't understand that humanitarianism and social programs have nothing to do with $$$, doesn't give you the right to claim to be all evolved and superior. Admit that you don't get it, read your comics and stop talking.

Tim, there is definately arrogance. It's easy to feel that when when we're almost always right. That's the main problem. The electorate is smarter than you think. When you consistantly lie (job-creaters, gov't hand-outs, etc..), you become an easy target for the center and left. The republicans suck because they have become the crap party. This leaves no party to hold the dems in check.
Republican=stupid

Patrick, you are almost never right. Blind arrogance is worse than stupid.

Tim, just like a pub. We are almost always right. It's called quantatative fact. We're not like pubs, we let facts help inform our decisions; not make up facts to help support our opinion. It's called critical thinking in academic circles, but you probably don't associate with the smart people.

Patrick - Funny how none of your posts have any facts, just opinion, ad hominem attacks, and a particularly grumpy attitude.

Tim, you can check them facts for yourself. I assume that your too lazy to do so.

Patrick, "your" too lazy to put together a rational, non-inflammatory statement with correct spelling.

Jane, why are you so dumb?

bepa, it is noise. Noise full of lies.

The government is being controlled by big money interests in the form of lobbyists who finance the expensive campaigns that politicians have to win to be elected. If we have election reform and get rid of the Supreme Court ruling, Citizens United, which said that corporations are people we will do better. Corporations like McDonalds or Walmart etc are really international corporations and make much of their money now in other nations. They are good at advertising and making it look like they are American and have America's interests..but their interests are in making a profit for their company..and if America loses then thats the way it goes..from their point of view. The tea party was financed by the Koch brothers..extremely wealthy men who want a conservative US government that will favor their business interests.

To Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

It will be Obama's recession only if he is not obstructed by the Republicans in the House.
Right now the economy is doing better... and Obama has given an offer to the Repubs and there has been no counter offer. They are obstructionist.

And?

Also it is very clear to me at least : ) that the Republican Party is attempting to privatize what have been governmental services like the post office and the prison system. Imo they are also trying to limit funds going to public education.

Americans need to compete in a global economy. Our people must be educated to the highest levels.

I am well aware of socialist history - why does a long history of socialist influence make it right? Second, I am particularly aware of the connection to Christianity. It is a noble thought in theory, but severely misguided in its application, particularly to government. There is a reason most attempts at the application of socialism end up as a communist dictatorship.

Most Republicans would agree that better education is necessary - to make better citizens as well as to compete in the global economy - but would disagree that more funding is the answer. What makes you think throwing money at education would result in better educated students?

Christian values don't include imposing your beliefs on others. Christians have rightfully been criticized for doing so in the past. Jesus said to pay your taxes, and to help the poor; he didn't say to have government pay the "poor" out of your tax money. We go far, far beyond helping those in a bind get by, and have created a system that encourages idleness and corruption.

Stephen Eickhoff
I was commenting on myself not on others when I stated my personal value system. There are of course some Christians who do impose their value system on others..such as the leaders in the Catholic Church and its attempts to stop abortion by support for politicians who agree with them. They have without a doubt crossed the line of separation of church and state by preaching in churches who to vote for in elections.

Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods." and it led to his own death...so there are conflicts ...between church and state that are unresolvable at times.

Aside from the moral aspects of safety nets...

The reason we should have safety nets is so that our nation is stronger and not weakened by people who have problems. The question is how to strengthen people.

Listen Dr. Bob, I wasn't planning on a long drawn out response (especially since I didn't actually address anything you had written in specifics) so I will keep this short, I disagree with you and I conduct research that helps me form my opinions. Merely saying I disagree with you doesn't always mean I want a debate.

In conclusion: the economy is improving (ask economists), so I see no reason for a recession/depression unless there can be no compromises reached (never did I say that this was one person/party's fault or the others, so don't assume things), and the debt ceiling has to do with paying our bills, not just borrowing so even the discussion about not raising it is as irresponsible as a person debating whether or not to pay their credit card bill.

Also, on another note, I am unsure what me being a teacher has to do with this statement and the fraud/waste under Obama's programs (see the stimulus) has actually been so low that it defies the historical norm.

3. I do not idolize the pledge of allegiance. I was giving historical context to people who did not realize how socialism had already been a part of American history. As far as "under God" I think it is up to each person to decide whether they wish to say "under God" with the pledge or not or even whether they wish to say the pledge or not. I believe in freedom of conscience.

4. Why would I post that President Obama has caused fraud/waste? Whatever would be my reason for doing that?

5. Economy improving

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/business/economy/fed-survey-shows-most-regions-are-improving.html

"A pickup in consumer spending and steady home sales helped lift economic growth in October and early November in most parts of the United States, according to a Federal Reserve survey released Wednesday. The one exception was the Northeast, which was slowed by Hurricane Sandy."

Also see http://seekingalpha.com/article/1031471-9-charts-that-show-the-u-s-economy-is-improving?buffer_share=91338

Nine Charts That Show The U.S. Economy Is Improving

but time will tell...

6.The US should do what other nations do and fund our students through college...and end student loans.

1. Cloward and Priven never worked [because BHO is just now trying it]...[thus] it's NOT water under the bridge.

2. Ryan's plan cuts entitlements, satisfying a fervent request from BHO; in contrast, BHO has not proposed any entitlement cuts. [Krugman is an admittedly partisan source, and academic complaints about his economic commentaries date-back to when he failed to specify prospectively what level of "stimulus" that he retroactively claimed should have been adopted in '09.] Page 19 of the CBO-Report you cited states:

"The projected reductions in deficits and debt under the proposal depend on implementing substantial reductions in spending, relative to GDP, through a number of policies that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time. Those policies would involve Medicare, Medicaid, and the broad category of other mandatory and discretionary spending (excluding that for Social Security)." Thus, the CBO recognizes this IS a plan "that might be difficult to sustain," rather than merely "a set of assertions."

3. Even if you do not "idolize" the Pledge, do you utter it prior to meetings/Phillies-games? Do you recognize that every state/commonwealth constitution mentions the Deity? With what facet thereof would you consider "conscience"-challenging?

4. You don't think Solyndra, etc. were fraudulent [rewarding campaign donors, per e-mails from the White House and BHO's visits] and wasteful? Consider:

http://a11news.com/1404/stimulus-waste-list/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/david-rosenberg/another-obama-stimulus-another-waste-of-money/article2164870/

http://www.therightperspective.org/2012/10/27/obama-green-stimulus-a-waste-audit/

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2813

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/08/new-report-lists-more-stimulus-waste-0/

[etc.]

5. Economy is not improving, and an expected rise in [national] unemployment to be reported by week's end will NOT be ascribable to [regional] Superstorm Sarah.

6. What other nations provide total support for college-education?

3. Some people do not say the pledge because of their religion. (Jehovah's Witnesses)
It is a personal decision and their right as an American ...These are complicated issues involving the conflict between church and state and it is up to each individual to come to a decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Pledge_of_Allegiance

The people who wrote the Constitution were deists...and believed in a natural religion found through reasoning and experience. Thats why they used the word "creator" rather than the word "God".

Instead of in "God we trust" which was adopted in 1956, it should be "E pluribus unum" from 1782.

4.Your sources are right wing and biased...for example: Judicial Watch
"Founded by conservative attorney Larry Klayman in 1994,[3] Judicial Watch came to public attention after filing 18 lawsuits against the administration of Democratic U.S. President Bill Clinton and figures in the Clinton administration."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch

4.Solyndra was certainly investigated by the legal authorities

On 8 September 2011, Solyndra was raided by the FBI investigating the company.[32]
In September 2011, federal agents visited the homes of Brian Harrison, the company's CEO, and Chris Gronet, the company's founder, to examine computer files and documents.[33] Also, in September 2011, the US Department of the Treasury launched an investigation.[34]
On 29 September 2011, a US Department of the Treasury official[who?] confirmed that the criminal probe of Solyndra is focused on whether the company and its officers misrepresented the firm’s finances to the government in seeking the loan or engaged in accounting fraud.[35]
On 7 October 2011, newly revealed emails showed that the Obama administration had concerns about the legality of the Department of Energy's loan restructuring plan and warned OMB director Jeffrey D. Zients that the plan should be cleared with the Department of Justice first, which the Department of Energy had not done. The emails also revealed that as early as August 2009, an aide to then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had asked a Department of Energy official if he could discuss any concerns among the investment community about Solyndra but that the official dismissed the idea that Solyndra had financial problems.[36]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra#Shutdown_and_investigation

5. so you predict unemployment will go up this week? By how much?

...

US economic growth rate revised up to 2.7%
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20544108

"The initial growth estimate followed jobs figures that showed the unemployment rate falling in September from 8.1% to 7.8% - its lowest rate since January 2009, and well below market expectations."

"Meanwhile, weekly data on the number of people claiming unemployment benefits, also released on Thursday, added to the picture of recovery.
The number of claimants fell 23,000 to a seasonally adjusted 393,000 - the second such fall in as many weeks, suggesting that a sharp run-up in the number of claimants in parts of the US struck by storm Sandy four weeks ago may prove to be temporary."

6. Its not total support ..but college is funded through the government so that qualified students can manage and get through without oppressive debt. What we are doing is ridiculous..and everyone knows it...

"Higher education institutions in Western Europe provide a consistently high quality of education, especially at the public institutions. Tuition fees for students studying at public institutions in most Western European countries is very low and sometimes free due to high levels of government support. Even international students from outside of the EU tend to pay much lower tuition than they would pay in the US."

http://www.braintrack.com/linknav.htm?level=2&pprevid=15

read this and weep for America
selected quotes

Downward mobility haunts US education

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20154358

"the US is now the only major economy in the world where the younger generation is not going to be better educated than the older."

"the US university system is no longer the only skyscraper on the block. It's been overtaken by rivals in Asia and Europe."

"It found the US had the strongest link between family wealth and educational success - and the lowest mobility. Advantage and disadvantage were being further amplified in education."

"President Obama has promised that by 2020 the US will regain its position as the global leader in the proportion of young people becoming graduates"

OLD BUSINESS:

You did not comment on my concern regarding the incipient risk of overwhelming debt, nor did you rebut the key-argument that only the R's have provided a plan.

NEW BUSINESS:

You did not state whether YOU recite the pledge [and your rationale]; it is not a complex personal decision. Regarding my sources, I just took the first few from a Google-Search; there are hundreds, so you are invited to rebut the specifics thereof rather than rejecting the author[s] "wholesale." Regarding Solyndra, ponder the title [let alone the contents] of this piece from a LIBERAL newspaper:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/solyndra-politics-infused-obama-energy-programs/2011/12/14/gIQA4HllHP_story.html

Now note:

http://news.yahoo.com/key-solyndra-scandal-figure-dodges-cameras-dnc-172016430.html

[And these don't contain references to all the e-mails that document political linkages.]

Yes, unemployment will rise, both this week and into next year; haven't you been reading the stories of how people are being shifted to part-time work so that employers can avoid ObamaCare mandates? Remember, the net-worth of each American dropped ~$2K during the past four years [to ~$50K, if memory serves].

Not every student wants/needs a college education, and the loan system should be privatized to allow for maximum efficiencies.

The Washington Post is not a liberal newspaper. It sold out a long ago. If you want to read leftist thought then alternet http://www.alternet.org/ or common dreams http://www.commondreams.org/ are good sources. One of the comments at WaPo was, " Solyndra is a controversy. Enron was a scandal."

http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/five-things-you-should-know-about-solyndra-during-2012-campaign
1. The loan guarantee program supporting Solyndra has been a success
2. The Solyndra bankruptcy represented a small fraction of the overall program
3. There is “no evidence” of political manipulation
"As The Hill reported on the findings: “Republicans have not shown that the loan was granted as a result of political favoritism, despite repeated campaign-trail claims that the administration steered loans to Solyndra and other green-energy projects on the basis of political donations.”
4. Dozens of Republicans supported loan guarantees or similar programs
5. Republicans have bluntly admitted the investigation is political

"Yes, unemployment will rise, both this week and into next year;..."
Dr. Bob
You will be held to that prediction. What you are citing is anecdotal evidence and not hard numbers. It's possible that a small number of employers are saying that to apply pressure to stop Obama Care. I no longer buy Papa John Pizza and if I hear of a company that is applying pressure like that I do not shop there. Pragmatically I would not want to eat in a restaurant that did not have health care for workers. Its a health risk imo.

The US can go into debt and still survive...its not the same as a person going into debt..The US government prints the money.

I don't pledge allegiance to the flag. It seems very medieval to me. I am an American and I have American values and I have no problem with others pledging to a flag..It just seems peculiar to me. Originally with the first flag salute it looked like the Nazi salute but that was changed to be the hand over the heart. To my mind nationalism can be dangerous and so much of the nationalist sentiment seems ill informed. Some people may consider the pledge a simple decision but making a pledge is a very complex decision and not something I take lightly. I would like it if America were divided and the South no longer were a part of America. What seems strange to me is that the same people who recite the pledge will also sign a secession petition. The South continues to drive American politics in a backward way imo.

@ BEPA

your citation of a primary [admittedly-leftist] source exemplifies why I always try to review primary data before drawing sweeping conclusions. You did not document sweeping conclusions suggesting the program was successful and, indeed, you glossed-over key-excerpts from the House Report that constituted the basis for the story in "The Hill."

Consider:

“Solyndra is a prime example of the perils that come when the Federal government plays investor, tries to keep a company and industry afloat with subsidies and attempts to pick the winners and losers in a particular marketplace. Policy and political pressures inevitably come into play to the detriment of taxpayers, as it did with Solyndra,”

"...[A] White House budget analyst warned in January 2011 that the federal government may have recovered more money by liquidating the struggling company than allowing the Energy Department (DOE) to proceed with a controversial early-2011 restructuring of the deal.

"A second White House Office of Management and Budget analyst noted in an email at the time that "DOE is likely to be very sensitive about optics if it should default," because Solyndra was the first loan guarantee granted under the Energy Department loan program."

"[T]he White House Chief of Staff’s office and others in the White House were aware that Mr. Kaiser, a bundler for President Obama’s 2008 campaign, was the primary investor in Solyndra.”

[to be continued]

@ BEPA [continued]

More quotes about Solyndra from the article you touted:

"White House officials were keenly aware of the optics of the loan and were eager to complete the deal to tout Solyndra as a sign of a green energy economy. It notes internal administration concerns about the viability of the company that Obama and other senior officials personally promoted.

"It says the Energy Department “ignored numerous warning signs regarding Solyndra’s finances” and “pushed forward with the guarantee despite these warnings because of the Obama Administration’s desire to use the Solyndra guarantee to highlight its stimulus.”

“Solyndra should serve as a cautionary tale on how political pressures and an Administration’s desire to create political events to highlight its policies can result in poor decision-making.”

"Republicans in particular have taken aim at the early 2011 restructuring that put private investors...ahead of taxpayers for repayment if the company collapsed.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday approved GOP legislation that would prevent such “subordination” of taxpayers' interests in other loan agreements, among other aspects of the bill that sets new restrictions on the loan guarantee program.

Republicans have alleged the terms of the Solyndra deal were a violation of the 2005 law that created the loan program, but the Energy Department says it vetted the restructuring with attorneys and that it was allowable.

@ BEPA [addendum]

The specific conclusions you reach [quoting your admittedly-leftist essay] cry for modification:

1. The loan guarantee program supporting Solyndra has been a success. [sez who? and why?]
2. The Solyndra bankruptcy represented a small fraction of the overall program. [other comparable entities have also gone belly-up]
3. There is “no evidence” of political manipulation [there is evidence of the fact that BHO-officials knew of both the political contributions and the loan program]
4. Dozens of Republicans supported loan guarantees or similar programs [tangential and irrelevant; many GOP'ers also like pork, too]
5. Republicans have bluntly admitted the investigation is political [quoting out of context and drawing inferences from the fact that this was even investigated]

Dr. Bob

The US government commonly supports some industries over others. Look at the oil and coal industries. They are subsidized. Also other nations like Germany are moving on to new technologies in energy (wind and solar)...and we should also.There should be some investment i alternative energy sources. Solyndra was a bad investment. It happens.

The US is falling behind other nations because our government is being run for the benefit of a small minority of wealthy individuals...

@ BEPA [regarding expression of overtly-prejudicial opinions]

Let's annotate [economics, here, personal biases in a follow-up comment]:

"Yes, unemployment will rise, both this week and into next year;..."
I indeed intend to be held to this unemployment prediction, and you will be held to yours averring that the economy is improving. My reference to the restructuring of jobs is based on the views of the business community regarding their burgeoning expenses due to ObamaCare; they are not speaking-out for nefarious political reasons. That's why I really don't care if you choose to eschew Papa John's Pizza.

You claim "The US can go into debt and still survive...its not the same as a person going into debt..The US government prints the money." This is Keynesian Economics, disproven in its efficacy by awareness that the trillion-dollar stimulus had no appreciable effect on unemployment.

Europe has America as its military/economic protectorate; America can invoke no other country to provide emergency support...after it prints so much $ that it triggers massive inflation [think Weimar Republic in 1920's].

[to be continued]

@ BEPA [prejudices]

You admit the Pledge's accompanying salute [" hand over the heart"] no longer resembles the "Nazi salute," but you conflate your reticence to perform this "very medieval" procedure with an unpatriotic sentiment: "To my mind, nationalism can be dangerous and so much of the nationalist sentiment seems ill informed." This is reminiscent of BHO's egalitarian, internationalist viewpoint; you don't want to accept any unique flavor to American Exceptionalism, as a worldwide beacon for freedom.

"Some people may consider the pledge a simple decision but making a pledge is a very complex decision and not something I take lightly." People who take the Pledge are recognizing how grateful they are to live here. "I would like it if America were divided and the South no longer were a part of America." Would you draw the line @ Mason-Dixon? Would you exclude D.C.? Would you split Kansas/Nebraska?

"What seems strange to me is that the same people who recite the pledge will also sign a secession petition." Your elitism/prejudices are painted with a particularly broad-brush; you should know that this movement is rejected...by those who recall the words of the Pledge ["indivisible"]! "The South continues to drive American politics in a backward way imo." Let's see of Finnick [your "Kindred spirit : )"] rushes to your defense, noting he wrote: "reading bepa's comments, it seems like I would have nothing else to the debate anyway."

Kindred spirits : )

@ AW:

Your egalitarianism obscures cogent study of specifics; try to draw independent conclusions based on facts, and share your conclusions with the world.

@ bepa:

If businessmen don't want to incur avoidable expenses...and they vocalize that concern...you cannot claim their motives are predicated in a desire to express "nefarious political reasons" for their pragmatism.

You assume things would have been worse absent the Stimulus, clearly unprovable. Problematic is the fact that you "forgot" to recall BHO's pledge about how unemployment [due to the "saved/created jobs"] would have plummeted long ago.

Bush is respectful of the incumbent-POTUS; he's not "hiding."

Solyndra was far more "political" [based on the WH's e-mails] than anything in Ryan's Budget/Plan proposal.

After responding to my observations, you may wish to defend your anti-South sentiments...or to withdraw having expressed them.

@ BEPA:

First, when you assert America is virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the [Western] world [noting you eschewed Africa and Asia], you don't specify whether WHICH "America" you have in mind [North? South? East? West? Alaska? Hawaii?].

Second, you peg yourself as a secular/progressive when you ignore the "magic" that The National Constitution Center attempts to capture/convey; as a World Traveler, have you visited it?

Bush did what his father did...and Carter didn't; they recognize the burdens of the office and don't want to cause dissonance...a posture that you should praise.

As noted infra, without profit, Corporations couldn't exist; the alternative is Socialism/Communism, which I HOPE you don't find attractive.

I resigned from the AMA a dozen years ago, so don't play the guilt-by-association game with me; you like universal healthcare [indeed, universal EVERYTHING] and, thereby, ignore the necessity for a private economy to maximize efficiencies by promoting competition, so sad.

Your historical revisionism is pathological; the AMA opposed Medicare in 1965, so its inception wasn't prompted by a circumstance whereby "many people could not afford health care."

You cite "they" [in Tennessee/Georgia] as still advocating for the Confederacy [and slavery]. I was recently told [by a banker] of his view of the generic differences between North/South during the past century, until MLK: "In the South, they hate Blacks generically but love them individually; in the North, they love Blacks generically, but hate them individually." Both are flawed, and prejudicial...but they help to characterize the ongoing challenges [and how people rationalize misconduct.] But to attack EVERYONE living in any particular region of America is simply foolish.

[I repeat this posting because the original was lost in the ethernet]

America is being "held back" by those who, for example, oppose construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Would you nationalize all corporations to ensure they do not profit from their endeavors, or do you recognize that America is viewed as "The Land of Prosperity" for a great historical reason?

If you feel BHO has helped to "shed prejudice," would you then accept that criticism of Susan Rice's [mis]conduct isn't racist/sexist?

@ bepa:

I didn't inquire if you'd been to "Constitution Hall"; I was wondering whether you had visited the Constitution CENTER.

If so, you [the world-traveler] would SURELY not have typed "there isn't much that sets America apart...except its wealth and its military."

Or did I miss something about its meticulous presentation of this Grand Experiment....?

@ bepa:

This citation has a section ["Johnson and Medicare/caid"] which references the specific time-period you cited; nowhere does it state: "Only when many people could not afford health care did doctors then turn to the government to pay the health expenses."

Document or Rescind, forthwith!

@ bepa - I

Regarding your use of quotation-marks, I would want to confront you with a certain reality-testing...to separate fact/fiction...and to drill-down to your core-beliefs. You went a long way towards this endpoint when you bashed the South [generically, unequivocally] after having lived there [and, presumably, having been exposed to the heterogeneity that pervades America]. Although I consider this expression of extreme-prejudice to be disqualifying, I'll continue disassembling your viewpoints, if only to provide an irresistible force against your immovable objects.

We start with recalling a fact which is stated in a parallel comment; it is based on your stated opinions; you cannot countenance free-enterprise if you are applying overwhelming government regs. Consider the most recent onslaught:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/03/us-usa-tax-irs-idUSBRE8B21HA20121203

"The Internal Revenue Service has released new rules for investment income taxes on capital gains and dividends earned by high-income individuals that passed Congress as part of the 2010 healthcare reform law."

Know that this is only the beginning of BHO's onslaught, notwithstanding anything passed by Congress [and/or not adopted legislatively].

@ bepa - II

After I "whacked" you [quoting Bill], you revised your assertion by conflating two phenomena [quoting your explanation].

You had quoted from a leftist/progressive source, but even it didn't state [or even imply] that, in the 1960's, when LBJ signed-off on Medicare, that "Only when many people could not afford health care did doctors then turn to the government to pay the health expenses."

Confronted [by me], you then attempted [lamely] to support your inference ["Imo when there were 50 million Americans without health insurance and hospitals were finding it difficult to handle such large numbers of patients without funding..then they wanted the government to step in and doctor's organizations started backing government health care programs."]

Again, you erred; when I was President of the PA Society of Internal Medicine [~1995-7-ish], I remember we discussed ~36 million un-/under-insured [a number which itself was problematic, because it aggregated everyone during a calendar-year, not excluding those who had subsequently become insured].

So you decided to apply numbers applicable to current-day discourse to the situation of almost a half-century ago, so cute.

And you segued from whatever hospitals were experiencing to what the AMA [representing physicians, presumably] did about it, so doubly-cute.

[BTW, the AMA represents ~18% of practicing physicians.]

[BTW, I resigned from Organized Medicine ~2000, and haven't looked-back.]

@ bepa [continuing prior discussion]

You ignored the DiSh program [Disproportionate Share], which ensured that teaching hospitals in underserved regions [usually urban] received additional reimbursement.

Thus, your wild assertion that "hospitals were finding it difficult to handle such large numbers of patients without funding" is demonstrably false; they were not sent adrift "without" anything.

This error provided your foundation to rationalize your opinion-error without any documentation [underfunded hospitals prompted "doctor's organizations" to start backing government health care programs"]. The major player was/is the AMA, inasmuch as most other academic entities didn't enter the political realm. The ACP [American College of Physicians] only became active after it absorbed the ASIM [~1999] and then called for what you apparently want, a single-payer system.

But all of this has nothing whatsoever to do with your undocumented claims, for you cannot cite even the internal deliberations of the AMA in the process; I have attended Reference Committee meetings @ semi-annual House of Delegates meetings, and I can assure you that they were contentious affairs [even when I found that the parent entities--including the PA Medical Society--failed to implement what had subsequently been adopted, prompting me to "retire"].

So, being simplistic simply won't wash, capiche?

@ bepa [concluding this discussion]

So, where are we?

You obviously rail against America's corporate structure [which arguably has made America great, globally] and you obviously equate the modern South with its [Confederate] history.

You function in a leftist/progressive world, apparently, and would be well-advised to avoid being a "blooter" [which O'Reilly used today...and had used a half-decade ago]:

"hit or kick (something) hard and wildly ['he blootered the ball over the bar'] with its "Origin" being [from the 1980s] based on earlier senses that include 'blunder' and 'talk foolishly'."

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/blooter

So you now have a lot of homework. You must reconsider bashing the South, you must confront yourself with your prejudices, you must recognize the complexities of medical-finance, you must appreciate the fear of an avalanche of new regs c/o BHO, and you must note that ObamaCare threatens to break-the-bank [costing upwards of ~$2T during the upcoming decade, per OMB's f/u calculations, if memory serves].

You also have a backlog related to the myriad hyperlinks documenting waste/fraud/abuse c/o BHO's Stimulus expenditures [for "shovel-ready" projects he subsequently admitted to have not yet existed, as he blurted-out during a Jobs Council meeting chaired by "turncoat"-Imelt...the only one he apparently attended].

Good Luck!

@ bepa:

If you [functioning on behalf of the government] are going to deny corporations the ability to profit, the net-effect is to take control over them [because they wouldn't be able to exist if they ignored the bottom-line]...and thus to nationalize them. This isn't a "straw-man argument"; rather, it's a direct effort to confront you with the contradictions that BHO acts-out each day.

So, would you make it illegal for restaurant chains to convert their work-forces to part-timers to avoid ObamaCare mandates?

@ bepa

[You may wish to consider this comment to aggregate points made in reaction to your other postings, with a particular focus on the details you marshal herein; it should not be used to supplant the "homework" already "assigned" based solely upon your alleged-factoids and how they do/don't relate to your "imo"-assertions.]

Your claim that corporations have infested government is printed without an "imo"-attachment, so it behooves you to document this allegedly-despicable scenario.

That black elementary-school students tended to sit together could not have been legislated; are you suggesting they were forced to do so?

You then claim you wrote that Southerners "forgot slavery" instead of "advocated slavery," but you fail to clarify this distinction [so that the lay reader can appreciate the difference you claim exists].

Federalism ["states' rights"] is inherent in Constitutional law; this was how "Brutus" was defeated by "Publius" [per The Federalist], because the STATES [and not the people] ratified the Constitution.

You simply cannot claim racism fuels efforts to shed people of oppressive federal-regs, particularly because many feel "All Politics is Local" [c/o the quote from Tip O'Neill's father].

Yes, the Articles failed because "confederation" was too loose, but the Constitution works because it's binding more tightly; no-where is it suggested that states should be supplanted [as BHO is consistently trying to do, apparently].

[to be continued]

@ bepa [more discussion]:

So, after having misread Constitutional history [you may wish to re-visit the center-city Center], you then become vindictive ["it might be better if they suffered the consequences of their own policies..rather than relying on federal monies that are coming originally from states like NJ."] on a day when "Gov. Christie asks federal government to pay for 100 percent of Sandy recovery."

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/12/gov_christie_asks_federal_gove.html

Are you suggesting that Atlantans are petitioning D.C. to rebuild the swath of land destroyed during Sherman's "March to the Sea"?

[Just being facetious, but it seems you suggest Georgians may wish--to their detriment--to reject federal funds...a prospect that customarily arrives with all-strings-attached...when they actually may prefer lower taxes as the offset for more self-responsibility. This may serve as a metaphor for those in the TEA [Taxed Enough Already] Party Movement, but I may be meandering too far from refuting your rhetorical absurdities.

@ bepa [concluding]:

Finally, you reference what the AMA did in 2010, an event that I chronicled contemporaneously BEFORE others had confirmed my analysis, which had been predicated solely upon citing Internet sourcing.

http://www.doctor-bob.biz/AA-Political%20Essays/Domestic%20Concerns/ama.htm

Unlike your assertion, this did not transpire because physicians were "losing money." It was a political decision related to Chicago politics. And, c/w your attack on corporations, you apparently decry physicians who are attempting to make a living [legally]...despite onerous pressures that appear to abound, all 'round.

Your venom knows no bounds.

The deconstruction of your postings has driven you from a generally responsible, issues focused set of documented claims [albeit subject to reasonable attacks on completeness, accuracy, relevance] to a set of "imo" assertions [including the final anecdote "And I have heard doctors complain about their patients, and wishing they had gone into another field"] that stretch beyond customary debate.

Meanwhile, you have interlaced [unjustified/unreferenced] generic attacks on an unspecified region of America [the "South"].

I await your effort [perhaps aided/abetted by Finnick, whom I dismembered last year when he tried to justify the expenditure in Abington for a Roslyn library] to salvage your Patch-mediated reputation.

You may also wish to state what "bepa" denotes, in the process; don't hide behind anonymity.

@ bepa & finnick

To clarify the last point, if memory serves, on Abington Patch, I took-apart Finnick's defense of a minor [who said he was gay and abused @ school because he had gone public]; I had asked him for details at the end of the public meeting [he disrespectfully declined] and I subsequently found-out he had been tutoring-for-profit @ the library, approaching at least one senior-citizen who wanted to learn how to navigate the Internet.

Overall, it may appear I created "sensory overload" when dissecting your claims, but such are the rewards of blogging....

@ Finnick

I recall the exchanges [and your attempted evasions] as if it were yesterday.

You felt I was too aggressive when attempting to fact-check the "abuse"-based assertions made by this lad during an Abington Public Hearing on creating a Human Rights Commission; you also felt it was OK that he used his "volunteer" position in the library to recruit personal business for 'puter education.

Key-issue is whether you still feel "bepa" adequately channels your postures.

I don't think you read what I wrote if that is how you responded.

@ Finnick

Start here:
http://abington.patch.com/articles/jr-high-students-to-get-bully-questionnaire

Note this:
http://abington.patch.com/articles/abington-rallies-for-anti-discimination-ordinance#video-6643820

And read from here, where I carried one conversation into another page, thusly:

It should be noted that the discussion...
http://abington.patch.com/articles/abington-passes-anti-discrimination-ordinance
...culminated with "Joseph Finnick" refusing to reply to a key-question:
"If there are no bystanders, would you want to know if a student in your classroom had been subject to bullying?"
...along with a bunch of other questions.

To help the new-reader get up-to-speed rapidly, here is the article that was cited by Mr. Finnick [who has failed to divulge his last name]:
http://www.education.com/reference/article/why-kids-do-not-report-bullying/

It noted kids' reticence to report problems to the authorities was based upon the following: Adults Rarely Intervene; Students Fear Retaliation and a Reputation as a "Rat"; Students Don’t Want to Lose Power; Students Don’t Recognize Subtle Bullying; and Students Feel Ashamed, Afraid, or Powerless.

I concluded [based upon the summary @ the end of the article, infra]: "Adults must not tolerate reluctance to report...and must demonstrate that they will invite/accommodate/act accordingly."
...which could cause unnecessary $-liabilities.

*Finnick never recovered, as per subsequent input on that webpage.*

Dear Bobby (mind if I call you Bobby?),

I know you miss me, but if you read what I wrote, I do not have the time to rehash old arguments that we disagree on (including the outcome). This is not because I am "afraid" of or "destroyed" by your comments, but because I have a job and a very busy schedule. Try starting an argument with me when I have more time, like winter break.

Also, just to clarify because you did manage to bother me a little:
1. You forgot to mention that by "reporting" of bullying you meant tell the police.
2. You were insensitive to the need of the child by basically accusing him of being a liar (part of the reason why children don't report bullying)
3. The article sums it up by saying that adults must be careful about making sure that children know when and how to report. When and how... seems like you missed that in your summary of the article... odd...

@ JF

I don't "start arguments"; I fact-check and function accordingly.

As you note by my ability to retrieve prior data [both outside and inside Patch], I'm a patient man.

Whenever you have the time, try to defend "bepa"...if you can.

You ignored everything of substance I said... strange for a fact checker...

@ JF

Historical Revisionism rebuffed:

"you did manage to bother me a little:"

Justifiably; note that I only copied the intro to the last ~200 comments.

"1. You forgot to mention that by "reporting" of bullying you meant tell the police."

Yes, depending upon how the problem might be handled by school authorities, official efforts by law-enforcement might be justified; I hope you don't disagree with the importance of America being a nation built upon justice.

"2. You were insensitive to the need of the child by basically accusing him of being a liar (part of the reason why children don't report bullying)."

No, all I did was ask innocuously for a semblance of detail, privately [not before cameras]; I suspect he didn't have much to say because--perhaps--there was little substance [beyond "projection"] to his experience. Reporting "bullying" is mutually exclusive of issuing a false accusation and/or an apocryphal rendition of any such event. EVERYONE should encourage this be accomplished, for this is the only way to combat its insidiousness.

"3. The article sums it up by saying that adults must be careful about making sure that children know when and how to report. When and how... seems like you missed that in your summary of the article... odd...."

No, I didn't omit anything; the article supported my viewpoint...unless you can ID a contradiction therein.

Conclusion: Recapitulation yields further evidence your argument had been soundly defeated.

@ JF:

Identify ANYTHING of substance that you claim I ignored, and it will be [re]addressed.

1. Not every single infraction must be reported to the police. To say otherwise would be absurd. Besides, reporting a crime is a deeply personal affair. To claim that every instance "must" be reported is to ignore individual circumstances.
2. You assumption of his lying is not being sensitive. You are an abrasive person (as most people reading anything you write can note). By your own admission you were questioning him to see if he was bullied on the assumption that he was not. This is insensitive. Go take a child psychology course to find out more.
3. You are still omitting. "how and when" implies that not every instance should be reported to the authorities. In fact the article goes on to state that it should be not to get people in trouble, but to protect. You very much take the route of punishment, demonstrating your deep misunderstanding of the article and how to deal with bullying in general.

In other news, I don't tell you how to do your job, as a professional courtesy, you should do the same for me as a teacher who deals with bullying.

@ "JF" - I:

I didn't ignore any of these points, but I will demonstrate the subtlety of your disingenuous approach to blogging:

"1. Not every single infraction must be reported to the police. To say otherwise would be absurd. Besides, reporting a crime is a deeply personal affair. To claim that every instance "must" be reported is to ignore individual circumstances."

Note how you segued from "reporting each infraction" to "reporting each infraction to the police." All I wrote is that all instances should be reported to the school, with the decision-making reformulation to be made thereafter regarding whether the issue should be submitted to the police. Consciously or subconsciously, you misrepresented what I'd written, then and now.

"2. You assumption of his lying is not being sensitive. You are an abrasive person (as most people reading anything you write can note). By your own admission you were questioning him to see if he was bullied on the assumption that he was not. This is insensitive. Go take a child psychology course to find out more."

I didn't write that he'd lied; it's possible that he inflated an innocent event, which is within the panoply of what the school authorities must assess. I never admitted having x-examined him; my query after the meeting was nondirective. Again, you confabulate to satisfy your own debating-needs, thereby allowing truths to become road-kill.

[to be continued]

@ "JF" - II:

"3. You are still omitting. 'how and when' implies that not every instance should be reported to the authorities. In fact the article goes on to state that it should be not to get people in trouble, but to protect. You very much take the route of punishment, demonstrating your deep misunderstanding of the article and how to deal with bullying in general."

Again, you project my intent, perhaps based upon your personal experiences and biases. I defer to the school authorities to assess the circumstances under which any alleged event transpired [who/what/where/when/why/how]. Again, I disagree when you allege that all events shouldn't be reported to the authorities [@ school]; again I agree that all events need not be reported directly to the police. I concur that the primary goal is to protect, but I have no problem if someone gets into "trouble" if it's merited as a secondary phenomenon. I do not emphasize punishment but, unlike you, I do not cower from its proper imposition. Thus, it seems you have a grinding desire to misunderstand my statements to satisfy your preordained conclusion that you would wish that i restudy the issue.

"In other news, I don't tell you how to do your job, as a professional courtesy, you should do the same for me as a teacher who deals with bullying."

If the shoe fits, then wear it proudly. You need to update your approach to this serious matter; perhaps continuing education courses are available in child-psyche?

1. Actually, you wrote that all infractions "must" be reported. That "must" is my point. The reporting is deeply personal. Apparently you still don't understand that.
2. Implications of lying are just as bad as saying it specifically. You yourself stated in previous posts that you thought he was lying, thus the questioning. Again, way to be insensitive.
3. Your reading of this shows that you do not understand the article at all. The reporting should NEVER be to punish, which you still want to happen at least some of the time (if it merits). When does it merit punishment? When does it not merit punishment? When an incident is reported, the expectation is that someone will be punished. For school authorities to not punish even the smallest infraction of bullying reported would leave them open to lawsuits from parents. Your thoughts then on the authorities deciding on if to punish are moot, which brings it back to reporting to punish. This is all besides the fact that you used an article I cited incorrectly as it makes clear that not all incidents should be reported (against your views and reading of it).

The other news: I hope you take those classes. I have already taken several child psychology classes. Maybe you should give some respect to people who work in the sector you are criticizing. How many have you taken? Why do you assume to know so much about this subject? Why do you continue to assume that literally no one else knows what they are talking about?

@ "JF" - I:

You are diverting discussion, understandably, because the actual topic causes discomfiture. The result is a tiresome thread; recidivism doesn't befit you. Again to clarify:

"1. Actually, you wrote that all infractions 'must' be reported. That 'must' is my point. The reporting is deeply personal. Apparently you still don't understand that."

AGAIN, automatic reporting to the school must be differentiated from discretionary reporting to the police.

"2. Implications of lying are just as bad as saying it specifically. You yourself stated in previous posts that you thought he was lying, thus the questioning. Again, way to be insensitive. "

[to be continued]

@ "JF' - II:

II never wrote that I had determined he was lying, but the evasion suggests that he embellished; that is why the school should be involved...to rectify what transpired.

"3. Your reading of this shows that you do not understand the article at all. The reporting should NEVER be to punish, which you still want to happen at least some of the time (if it merits). When does it merit punishment? When does it not merit punishment? When an incident is reported, the expectation is that someone will be punished. For school authorities to not punish even the smallest infraction of bullying reported would leave them open to lawsuits from parents. Your thoughts then on the authorities deciding on if to punish are moot, which brings it back to reporting to punish. This is all besides the fact that you used an article I cited incorrectly as it makes clear that not all incidents should be reported (against your views and reading of it)."

Without reporting, problems fester; with reporting, problems can be rectified. Punishment is not mandatory, but it must be a potential outcome.

"The other news: I hope you take those classes. I have already taken several child psychology classes. Maybe you should give some respect to people who work in the sector you are criticizing. How many have you taken? Why do you assume to know so much about this subject? Why do you continue to assume that literally no one else knows what they are talking about?"

[to be continued]

@ "JF" - III:

We have exchanged e-mails regarding this issue exhaustively, recapitulating the earlier comments; you perseverate without rectifying, while I quote from your article to illustrate my points. You claim punishment should NEVER transpire, an absolutist claim that is no-where in your citation, and you claim I typed conclusions regarding the "abused"-lad that you cannot ID.

The facts point to the need to involve school-based professionals in ALL cases, with others [including the police] to become involved as needed.

Period.

End.

If you cannot confirm the accuracy of this distilled conclusion [and reference why], then just 'fess-up and go to sleep.

I went to bed long before you. I have to wake up early and be energetic.

1. You still miss the point. Automatic reporting triggers automatic punishment. Students who report are seen as weak by other students and more of a target. The automatic reporting is the main problem which you do not understand.

2. It is insulting to be questioned at all on such an issue, especially when it takes a lot of courage to speak about it in the first place. The mere idea that you questioned the child speaks to your assumption that he was lying (at least in part). If that was not your intention, then you need to recognize that not everything you intend to say is what is perceived, especially when those listening are already under distress.

3. Let me clarify, punishment should never be the goal. Reform is the goal. You have no case for reform. In many cases students can work out their own problems to bullying, which earns them more respect in the student community. Running to tell the teacher/principal/etc. is seen as weakness and as an attempt to punish those doing wrong by the student body. You still are not understanding how people perceive others.

Other news: We have never exchanged emails (unless someone is impersonating me). Your comments still demonstrate a deep misunderstanding of the most basic tenets of child psychology and sociology. You quote from the article but ignore large chunks that completely contradict what you write (and then ignore when I bring them up).

In sum: You should listen to professionals before forming your own conclusions. Not all cases of bullying should be reported as it would do obscene damage to the reputations of students who are bullied.

The end.

Period.

Done.

@ "JF" I:

Your comments are increasingly extreme and are undocumented by your reference; it seems you would play-ostrich, perhaps due to some traumatic personal experience.

1a. It is UNTRUE that "Automatic reporting triggers automatic punishment." Lesser steps are available, as any school administrator or child psychologist or teacher would know intuitively [along with the general public].

1b. It is UNTRUE that "Students who report are seen as weak by other students and more of a target." Anonymity may be maintained, and recidivism would then be subject to additional scrutiny.

2a. It is NOT insulting to be questioned gently on such an issue, especially when the student spoke about it in the first place.

2b. It is UNTRUE that my having questioned the child suggests I'd thought he'd lied (at least in part). If you must now suggest that the perception of a question doesn't match my intention, then you are mind-reading; far from acting as if he had been "under distress," he and his friends departed in a hand-slapping fashion.

3a. I concur that reform is the goal, but that this COULD include punishment.

3b. It CANNOT be assumed that students can work out their own problems to bullying, notwithstanding whether the outcome might earn them more "respect in the student community."

@ "JF" - II

3c. It CANNOT be assumed that reporting constitutes "running to tell the teacher/principal/etc." reflects "weakness" and/or "an attempt to punish those doing wrong by the student body." You assume that an intervention can never alleviate a problem.

3d. It matters not "how people perceive others" if a potential crime has occurred.

I agree that "We have never exchanged emails," but "Your comments still demonstrate a deep misunderstanding of the most basic tenets of child psychology and sociology." Whereas I quote from the article and find nothing contradictory therein, you ignore large chunks of information from your own article "that completely contradict what you write (and then ignore when I bring them up)."

Is there ANY type of bullying that you would agree should be reported to the school authorities?

@ "JF" - III:

In sum: You should listen to professionals and to common sense before forming your own conclusions that both jeopardize students and [potentially] flout the law.

If you agree that "not all cases of bullying should be reported as it would do obscene damage to the reputations of students who are bullied," then you have neglected to define the circumstances under which ANY case should be reported [even if punishment might supervene].

The end.

Period.

Done.

1 a) It is true. Without some form of punishment, it leaves the school open for problems with parents.
1 b) I am sure anonymity could be maintained in school. Because school children are so good at keeping secrets. Also, when something happens between 2 people, it isn't obvious who reported it.
2 a) It is insulting and I am almost certain you were not "gentle" just from your own descriptions of how you questioned the boy.
2 b) You have no idea what you are talking about here. You are doing much more "mind reading" than I am.
3) You do not get it. Everything I said is true, as I have stated before, go take a class, read a book, get educated and maybe you might be able to say something that contradicts me. You are just saying things based on your own thoughts with no factual basis. Your brain does not equal a legitimate source.

You selectively quote from the article while ignoring large chunks of the remainder of it. This is an easy tactic to try to use real research to prove an incorrect point.

My problem with you is that you say that EVERY infraction should be reported. That is the issue here. Not which should be, but you say that EVERY infraction should be reported. Circumstances are individual and each case deserves an individual situation. Now, I am a professional in this sector, so I am still unsure why you don't use your own advice.

The end.

Period.

Super done.

@ "JF" III [integrating I/II with your confirmation]

Your comments are beyond extreme and remain undocumented by your reference; it seems you would play-ostrich, perhaps due to some traumatic personal experience.

1a. It is UNTRUE that "Automatic reporting triggers automatic punishment." Lesser steps are available, as any school administrator or child psychologist or teacher would know intuitively [along with the general public]. You write: "Without some form of punishment, it leaves the school open for problems with parents." This is UNTRUE and UNDOCUMENTED, for you don't allow for situations in which any punishment would be unwarranted.

1b. It is UNTRUE that "Students who report are seen as weak by other students and more of a target." Anonymity may be maintained, and recidivism would then be subject to additional scrutiny. You write: "I am sure anonymity could be maintained in school. Because school children are so good at keeping secrets. Also, when something happens between 2 people, it isn't obvious who reported it." I'm glad you concur with the prospect that anonymity could be maintained, particularly because of inherent uncertainty regarding who might report a particular incident.

@ "JF" IV [integrating I/II with your confirmation]

2a. It is NOT insulting to be questioned gently on such an issue, especially when the student spoke about it in the first place. You write: "It is insulting and I am almost certain you were not 'gentle' just from your own descriptions of how you questioned the boy." You have no basis for your being inherently "certain" and you should cite any description I have provided [now or previously] to support this unjustified posture.

2b. It is UNTRUE that my having questioned the child suggests I'd thought he'd lied (at least in part). If you must now suggest that the perception of a question doesn't match my intention, then you are mind-reading; far from acting as if he had been "under distress," he and his friends departed in a hand-slapping fashion. You write: "You are doing much more 'mind reading' than I am." Again, you opine based admittedly upon ignorance of the facts.

3a. I concur that reform is the goal, but that this COULD include punishment. You write: "You are just saying things based on your own thoughts with no factual basis." You did not contradict my posture, so I suppose you concur with it.

@ "JF" V [integrating I/II with your confirmation]

3b. It CANNOT be assumed that students can work out their own problems to bullying, notwithstanding whether the outcome might earn them more "respect in the student community." You write: "You are just saying things based on your own thoughts with no factual basis." You did not contradict my posture, so I suppose you concur with it.

You write: "You selectively quote from the article while ignoring large chunks of the remainder of it. This is an easy tactic to try to use real research to prove an incorrect point." Cite specifics or withdraw the charge.

You write: "My problem with you is that you say that EVERY infraction should be reported....Circumstances are individual and each case deserves an individual situation. Now, I am a professional in this sector, so I am still unsure why you don't use your own advice." Yes, because you have yet to define what you feel should or shouldn't be reported, each should be evaluated, particularly because this problem is baseline under-reported. Then, an individualized decision should be made by the very professionals you idolize. They can't act to help the victim if they don't know anything transpired.

1. Your comments show you have never worked in a school or with children.

2. Sarcasm, learn to recognize it.

For everything else, you should really refer to other comments. I won't do your work for you. You ask me to cite things, but you never cite anything aside from yourself and your own misreadings of an article I provided which supports my views (I have quoted the specific portion multiple times).

Also, when I say that the need for reporting should be evaluated on a case by case basis, I don't mean by adults. You are trying to take away a child's self reliance, self worth, and power when you neuter them by forcing them to report to adults every single problem.

@ "JF" - VI

Then, I guess you cannot defend/define your stance[s] based either on logic or citations.

You can't define when reporting should be encouraged; you falsely assume that all such reporting must be punished else parents will sue [recalling that we agreed the major goal is "reform" of misbehavior]; you falsely assume any such reporting would automatically be conveyed via school authorities to the police; you falsely claim "Automatic reporting triggers automatic punishment"; you falsely claim "Students who report are seen as weak by other students and more of a target"; and you falsely assume that students can work out their own problems to bullying, notwithstanding whether the outcome might earn them more "respect in the student community."

Regarding the homosexual-student, you falsely claimed the child had been unduly stressed when I had asked him about the alleged-incident of homosexuality-triggered "abuse," for it is NOT insulting to be questioned gently on an issue that he had raised publicly in the first place. In the process, you confabulated [claiming I'd written student had "lied"].

Overall, you failed to tether your assertions to your article...which supported my perspective.

@ bepa

Accusing me of being a "verbal bully" won't work; you have many specific loose-ends to tie, both related to this topic and projections thereof.

That you revealed your anti-"South" prejudice would be sufficiently disqualifying, as noted a few hours ago, but your portrayal of yourself as a well-traveled "thinker" prompted me to pursue your wilder statements.

Nevertheless, your entire political/cultural/social/economic construct has been exploded, and you therefore may wish to reformulate your fundamental principles.

@ bepa

If you insist upon pushing this disputational criterion, please define when you feel it was abused...and then reply to the queries which are not included in this categorization.

I'll process your claim regarding the former, and then reply to your assertions regarding the latter...both by adopting a disinterested posture.

Your positions are untenable, as proven exhaustively overnight, so I will understand it if you [joining Finnick in "defeat"] decide to demur.

[we aims to please!]

This is full of absurd assumptions with no basis in fact. Bobby, I am surprised to find you supporting such wild claims that have no factual evidence to support them.

Also, on a more personal note, why the two patch names?

@ JF:

Bill's comment is intended to convey awareness that it's difficult to ascribe liability to a "thought" that cannot be tethered to a "crime"; how does one really know why a person was not hired [regardless of whether the business even knew of the individual's sexual proclivities]?

I must have signed-up @ two different times, perhaps when I switched e-mail accounts from Comcast to Verizon; meanwhile, remember, I am still awaiting your decision to drop anonymity and to provide your last-name.

Questioning is a good thing, but asking uninformed questions is absurd. I could ask the question, "Do gynecologists get into their business just to look at private parts?" but I don't, because that is an absurd question. I could ask if Tom Corbett is secretly running a brothel out of his home, but I don't, because that, like those raised here, are absurd.

@ JF

Bill isn't absurdist; he relates real-life concepts that should resonate with an individual with a modicum of modern-day experience.

The rest of your observations/metaphors are tangential; better it would be if you focused on specificity.

Real life concepts? Sure, we can talk about real life concepts, but first show me some studies that support any of the claims by Bill, then maybe we can talk about real life concepts.

I hope you start with the wild idea that the ultimate goal of anti-discrimination groups is to make it so people from the LGBT community can never be fired, or how same-sex marriage somehow is unconstitutional (or how denying it is somehow not discriminatory), when people from the church has been prosecuted for hate crimes for quoting the Bible (although there are some pretty interesting parts about allowing slavery in there, just to make sure that if you believe in everything the Bible says).

Those are all real life concepts, right?

@ "JF":

I defer to Bill to document his assertions.

I do not concur "with the wild idea that the ultimate goal of anti-discrimination groups is to make it so people from the LGBTQ community can never be fired."

And none of this has anything to do with whether "same-sex marriage somehow is unconstitutional (or how denying it is somehow not discriminatory), when people from the church has been prosecuted for hate crimes for quoting the Bible (although there are some pretty interesting parts about allowing slavery in there, just to make sure that if you believe in everything the Bible says)."

All of those were mentioned by Bill, who you said had some "real life concepts." Apparently, however, you do not support any of those.

@ "JF":

You now have overtly misrepresented my comments, crossing into confabulation; I never wrote that I didn't support his views.

Again, so support them.

@ "JF":

Then you should stop being so evasive.

ditto

[we aims to please!]

@ bepa

You are "welcome" to admit utter-defeat...or to attempt to resurrect your averments.

@ JZ

All I have done is chased-down loose-ends; it was time-consuming but, ultimately, perhaps it will prompt reader[s] to reassess applicability of the infamous observation: "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts."

@ bepa:

Apparently you have caught the Finnick-"bug"...because you have stooped to the classic "ad hominem" attack in lieu of dealing with specifics/citations/etc.

I guess this illustrates the outcome of this exchange--your capitulation--although I remain open-minded if you choose to rectify the many concerns I have raised about both your politics and your ethics...vide supra.

No worries bepa, as you can tell, Bobby and I have gotten to talking before. I know his style well enough. He reminds me of a kid who thinks he knows everything, but doesn't do any real research and ends up failing his term paper for using improper sources and complete misreading of historical documents.

@ "JF":

Instead of delving into "ad hominem" accusations, you may wish to assist bepa in any putative effort to defend his postures.

You can start with attempting to justify his anti-South prejudice....

Snooze...

A comment was deleted because it violated the Patch Terms of Use.

@ JM:

This illustrates why this Watergate Freak of the 1970s is now a GOP-CommitteePerson; as they say, "the [D] party left me."

Remember, JFK, Scoop Jackson...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson

Lieberman was, perhaps, the last-of-the-lot.

So Ms. Tressler, me pointing out that Mr. Minster works for the Republican party (he admits it in his profile) and spent months telling lies on the patch about a Romney "landslide" violates the terms of the Patch?

Seriously? I guess we know who you voted for lady. Nice job earning that 18K a year you make as the "editor" here. I'm sure your parents are proud.

#censorship....

@ "1":

One cannot be "lying" when one attempts to justify a prediction; perhaps your comments would pass muster if abuse were replaced by cogency.

@ "1":

Notwithstanding your attack on the motives of these protestors, you should know that the sentiment they were conveying remains a driving force in the GOP [and the TEA Party Movement].

Actually, it is the "winners" who fear for this country, a cogent reason to attempt to raise awareness of what BHO is doing.

So Ms. Tressler please explain how posting a picture of a sign saying "Big Government Gang Bang Raping America" is appropriate and meets the "terms of the Patch" but pointing out a paid Republican operative on a message board does not. Seriously, please give us an answer as I really would like to know.

Dr. Bob didn't the tea party just get their butts kicked in the last election? Tea party hero Allen West was given the boot in a Republican district.

Here are the FACTS:

Obama won Montgomery County.
Obama won PA.
Obama won the popular vote by over 3 million (if you think 3 million isn't much, send me 3 million dollars).
Obama won the Electoral College by over 120.

The MAJORITY has spoken. Period. The rest is just message board BS! Hopefully my post won't be censored by a right wing editor but I guess that is all the right wing has left. Censorship and voter suppression.

@ "1":

Voter/Photo-ID doesn't suppress votes [as per the PA Supreme Court]; that your perseverate in proclaiming otherwise illustrates why the electoral outcome was so sad.

@ "JF":

Instead of "jus' sayin'" anything, you would exhibit a degree of self-discipline were you to delve into the many facts I marshaled when "dismembering" assertions made by your pal bepa.

Snooze...

you fleshed-out a subcontext, but those two remain evasive

Both of those sources are absurdly biased and the first mostly talks about homosexuals using the same bathrooms as straight people (the horror!). Really Bobby, I would hope you do some reading before you throw your support behind such wild ideas.

Although I believe this source to also be biased, I still cannot find legitimate news sources that bother to mention your claims, so this will have to do:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat7.htm

@ "JF":

I have not delved into details here [and have made no "claims"] for, in light of your evasions elsewhere, it would constitute a waste-of-time.

The claims were Bill's, which you said fleshed-out the subcontext of his absurd points, which, now, according to you, you do not support.

@ "JF":

You now have overtly misrepresented my comments, crossing into confabulation; I never wrote that I didn't support his views.

Then you should defend them as you claim.

@ "JF":

Then you should stop being so evasive.

You're the one being evasive here.

@ "JF":

I am currently working with a very upset mother who suspected [and then had confirmed over the weekend, via a classmate] the abuse her 9th grade son is receiving; it is just now being urgently addressed.

So I am acutely aware of the dangers of delay and, thus, the need to report anything/everything asap...with issues being sorted-out thereafter; here, despite the perpetrator's "pattern," no "punishment" has yet been meted-out.

As long as you accept the fact that it should be reported, then you cannot assert that it cannot be reported for fear of retribution; parental litigation risk cannot be an impediment to ID'ing potential-crime.

I approached the student and asked him what happened, 'tis all; no accusations, no lies, no deceit...and you won't find anything I have ever typed to the contrary.

To recap:

You can't define when reporting should be encouraged; you falsely assume that all such reporting must be punished else parents will sue [recalling that we agreed the major goal is "reform" of misbehavior]; you falsely assume any such reporting would automatically be conveyed via school authorities to the police; you falsely claim "Automatic reporting triggers automatic punishment"; you falsely claim "Students who report are seen as weak by other students and more of a target"; and you falsely assume that students can work out their own problems to bullying, notwithstanding whether the outcome might earn them more "respect in the student community."

You are working with a mother, not the son. That is the key problem here and the object of your misunderstanding. To quote Will Smith, "parents just don't understand." I do not mean the parent is somehow doing anything wrong, I just mean parents frequently do not understand the complex ecosystem that is a school. You still want to force children to report, thus the problem. You are applying a one-size-fits all solution to the problem. The solution that would best fit is to foster a climate of anti-bullying and have teachers/aides/etc be more aware of bullying behaviors. That way there is not tattling.

Try to remember your more exact words when talking with the child. They might be more illuminating than the generalizations you keep asserting.

To recap: You didn't say anything to the contrary of any of my claims you write here except by citing yourself. Please either do some research, take a class, etc. or else please stop assuming you know more than a professional.

Also, why did you ask the student anything? He told his story at the meeting. What did you want to clarify and why?

You know not of what you write; I work with mom who works with son [constantly] plus principal & superintendent [who know her, also, as a school-teacher]. We only wish reportage hadn't been delayed; damage has probably transpired. And this is mutually-exclusive of whatever anti-bullying "culture" you advocate; your word choice ["tattling"] is unnecessarily pejorative.

The child did not detail his experience during his testimony; I asked him a non-directive "what happened?" opener.

***********

To recap: I have persistently contradicted you and you have not refuted any phrase in this 'graph [either with a literature citation or by reasonable logic]:

"You can't define when reporting should be encouraged; you falsely assume that all such reporting must be punished else parents will sue [recalling that we agreed the major goal is 'reform' of misbehavior]; you falsely assume any such reporting would automatically be conveyed via school authorities to the police; you falsely claim 'Automatic reporting triggers automatic punishment'; you falsely claim 'Students who report are seen as weak by other students and more of a target'; and you falsely assume that students can work out their own problems to bullying, notwithstanding whether the outcome might earn them more 'respect in the student community'."

Sigh... you work with the mother who works with the son... so you work with the mother. Once again, deeply personal. Can't apply one size fits all approach. Please pay attention.

I would like more of a play by play. I'm sure you said more than, "Excuse me. I could not help but be moved by your story. Can you relate to me again what happened?"

I have refuted your ending paragraph multiple times.. I would ask you to please pay attention otherwise this is just unproductive. Reread past posts to find your answers.

One size does fit all, for the initial need is to encourage reporting.

There is no further play-by-play to relate regarding the brief encounter.

You have not refuted the summary-'graph...for you really will be unable to do so.

Please back up your claim that a one size fits all approach to reporting should be used. I have experience and a college degree that says you are wrong, but I would love to hear where you get your information.

Why no play-by-play? If there isn't one, why bring it up at all?

I did refute. Please read everything I write instead of pretending.

To be clear, I work in the area of question and can assure you that in my school district, that is exactly what happens and all of the college classes I have taken back up my claims. You, however, have not backed up any of yours. Please provide some sort of documentation to back yourself up before begging me for information.

To be clear, you have not confronted these half-dozen truths [reshuffled & distilled]:

1. You can't define when reporting should [vs. should not] be encouraged;

2. You falsely claim "Automatic reporting triggers automatic punishment";

3. You falsely assume that all such reporting must be punished else parents will sue;

4. You falsely assume any such reporting would automatically be conveyed via school authorities to the police;

5. You falsely claim "Students who report are seen as weak by other students and more of a target"; and

6. You falsely assume that students can work out their own problems to bullying [thereby earning them more "respect in the student community"].

"You" and ME:

"Please back up your claim that a one size fits all approach to reporting should be used. I have experience and a college degree that says you are wrong, but I would love to hear where you get your information."

NOTHING PRODUCTIVE CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED IF THE INITIAL DATA ARE KEPT SECRET.

"Why no play-by-play? If there isn't one, why bring it up at all?"

YOU ASKED; I ANSWERED.

"I did refute. Please read everything I write instead of pretending."

YOU DID NOT DOCUMENT RATIONALE THAT COULD RECTIFY OVERT CONTRADICTIONS.

Let's try it differently; please confront these half-dozen truths:

1. Define when reporting should [vs. should not] be encouraged;

2. Reference the claim that "Automatic reporting triggers automatic punishment";

3. Reference the claim that all such reporting must be punished else parents will sue;

4. Reference the claim that any such reporting would automatically be conveyed via school authorities to the police;

5. Reference the claim that "Students who report are seen as weak by other students and more of a target";

and

6. Reference the claim that students can work out their own problems to bullying. With your expertise, you should be able to pull focused articles that would prove your case; if you can't, then cry "UNCLE!"

Dear Bobby,

I've answered all of that before. I see no reason to satisfy your absurd need to have me repeat myself.

All I did was to note that there is a religious subcontext to the SGBTQ-controversy; I did not ID a particular issue that required effort to muster any sort of "defense."

That should suffice, for it's far afield from the topic of this page, wouldn't you concur?

You should recognize my personal philosophy is Libertarian [removing government from the bedroom...kitchen...den...indeed, from the entire private home].

But there isn't a religious subcontext. Please ID that subcontext, because you said Bill fleshed out some real issues with his ideas, so I would expect you do defend some of them. If you, however, are a true Libertarian, you should then be for same-sex marriage, correct?

Read his hyperlinks for a taste of the religious context of LGBTQ-issues, information which is generally known to the world at-large; you really shouldn't have to request such data.

I believe marriage [noting the word's etymology] is boy-girl, whereas civil-union can be unisex; laws can be written on the state-level to implement the latter, but there is no need for any national policy, for this issue is ideal for a "federalism" approach.

Let's not get diverted, even as you again reverse-field by posing new questions without answering pending queries.

Sorry, that was a little mixed up. The paragraph that starts "You answered..." should come after the paragraph that says, "It is a little overbearing..."

I hoped that, if this lasted long enough, something substantive would emerge...and it has.

Your NY-Times piece illustrates precisely my argument, contravening yours.

Kids are encouraged to TELL the school-leadership of what has transpired.

There is no mention of parental threats to sue anybody if this transpires.

There is no reference to mandatory police reporting; note use of the word "can."

There is no reference to automatic-punishment, indeed automatic-ANYTHING.

And there is no modicum of reliance upon students to rectify such issues themselves.

"Students will be told that there is no such thing as an innocent bystander when it comes to bullying: if they see it, they have a responsibility to try to stop it."

AGAIN, you provided me the opportunity to "hang you on your own petard."

***

There was no play-by-play; the Q&A swiftly ended following my initial query. You may perceive this as "odd," and frankly so did I...which is why I "remember the incident so well."

***

I followed all the links and, despite denials within the LGBTQ community, the religious-types invoke their Biblical-philosophy when mounting opposition.

I traced the etymology of the word "marriage" to demonstrate its male-female foundation; that is why I rely upon "civil union" to rectify this conflict...and why I would prefer not to push the DOMA [or a Constitutional Amendment based thereupon].

You are now cordially invited to recant all of your assertions....

You claim you have answered these questions previously; noting that you have compelled me to be repetitive...and recognizing that the issues have been simplified during these dialogues...you are now invited to indulge me [and yourself] by responding to this set of a half-dozen observations:

1. Define when reporting should [vs. should not] be encouraged;

2. Reference the claim that "Automatic reporting triggers automatic punishment";

3. Reference the claim that all such reporting must be punished else parents will sue;

4. Reference the claim that any such reporting would automatically be conveyed via school authorities to the police;

5. Reference the claim that "Students who report are seen as weak by other students and more of a target";

and

6. Reference the claim that students can work out their own problems to bullying.

With your knowledge/training/experience, you should be able to pull focused articles that would prove your case; if you can't, then cry "UNCLE!"

If you recited "part of the reason," then let's problem-solve.

First, much of the medical literature is FREE on the internet, so I fail to accept the theory that everything useful would be hidden behind a pay-wall.

Furthermore, if $ is your impediment, please send me the bill.

Finally, you have just provided a reference that supports my viewpoint, so the necessity is enhanced that you find one that would support your claims.

I have everything [specificity, in particular]; you have nothing [other than generalities and evasions].

BTW, what is the REST of the reason, if $-concerns are only "part" of it?

Snooze Bobby.

If you think everything is free, you have no idea what is scholarly and what is a blog/newspaper article. You are the one interested, you should go find and pay for the articles yourself because I have already read them, you just don't trust me because you assume I don't know my job.

Also, don't play semantics with me. I'm not biting.

There are a few publishers who will only provide free abstracts in the medical world, but most provide the articles as well [such as the NEJM].

You should be able to unearth a freebee that would support your views--somewhere--if such an academic study actually existed.

So, other than citing fiscal-concerns, why else would you have a "reason" not to produce even one scholarly piece that could be remotely related to your extreme postures?

I have something resembling a life and am not sifting through the internet trying to find scholarly work (not all scholarly work is medical, I am unsure why you keep bringing up medical journals) that I have already read. I attended college. I read the articles already. I work in the industry. You, on the other hand, do not. Therefore, YOU should be the one to find something to support your views. Don't be lazy Bobby.

As already noted, you have provided an on-point reference that [1]--supports my views; [2]--contradicts your views; and [3]--still allows for you to dredge-up some reference to rescue your otherwise tenuous disputational status.

I invoke my experience with the medical literature to suggest it probably parallels the pedagogic literature.

Remember, you still haven't referenced all those absolutist-assertions that i have perpetuated [in 'quotes'] threaded throughout this "almost-300"-entry blog-page.

Untrue. Please actually read the article and my views as it completely supports my views.

Also untrue. On what basis are you assuming that medical and academic articles parallel each other?

This isn't a blog page, nor is it yours. This is an article and we are commenting on it.

[I will assume this thread has been supplanted by that which has been maintained infra; your lack of specificity is sufficient justification to mainstream critique elsewhere, rather than to chase-down each redundant quote.]

You have been more vague than I, so assume nothing, but yes, let's just push this thread into the others in interest of ease.

We are making progress; the irresistible force has budged the immovable object!

1. "Kids are ENCOURAGED, not forced as you wish." I do not believe I employed the word "forced" in any of my postings, but I'm surely able to accept that you accept the use of the word "encouraged" to report.

2. "The article doesn't address everything," which is why you still need to invoke your academic literature if any of your assertions is to survive due-diligence review.

3. "I take issue with mandatory reporting to adults in general. Don't be so narrow." What to you may seem "narrow," but it is "focused" to me; surely, this must be viewed as a necessary method to evade evasions, no?

4. "See 2nd." {[( I'm still reeling over the fact that you now have agreed to "encouraging" reporting. )]}

5. "There is [reference to kids solving their own problems in]...the last line of the article." I don't deny this phenomenon, but the thrust of the piece [and the law] is that adults/teachers/parents shouldn't rely upon this prospect.

Regarding DOMA/etc., if religious-types express their motivations succinctly [as they have], then it behooves others to respect their legitimate concerns; otherwise, I believe we generally agree on this issue.

1. You said all infractions "must" be reported. Your words that I have been taking issue with has been "must" this entire time. Thank you for finally modifying this statement to better fit an individual basis.

2. I've read the literature and have reported to you. You are unsatisfied, so you should go find it and read it.

3. No. You are playing semantics. If you read everything I wrote, you would have already known my views and this wouldn't have had to been addressed.

4. I am still reeling that you have backed off of all infractions "must" be reported.

5. Ah, but the quote is from a doctor who has the most information on the subject. The remainder of the article relies on people with less knowledge and learning, yet you focus on the remainder and not the parting quote (parting quotes are usually parting because that is supposed to be one of the things you should focus on). This also speaks to my previous point about this being a newspaper article, not a scholarly work, which would rely on more from these doctors.

Religious-types are free to express their own motivations, but if they have no legitimate concerns (as they don't if you read the concerns noted in the links, then research to see if the most outrageous are true), then they need not be heeded. To heed those would open discussion to all sorts of illegitimate concerns (such as people marrying paperclips, etc.).

In conjunction with my victory-lap [infra], I first provide a Biblical reference regarding the religious objections to LGBTQ-conduct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

"The Bible refers to homosexuality several times, and has historically been interpreted as condemning the practice. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, however, the extent to which the Bible mentions the subject and whether or not it is condemned, has become the subject of debate.

"Passages in the Old Testament book Leviticus prohibit "lying with mankind as with womankind" and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah have historically been interpreted as condemning homosexuality, as have several Pauline passages. Other interpreters, however, maintain that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, arguing any of several points: (i) that the passages yield different meanings if placed in historical context, for instance the historical interpretation of Sodom's sins as being other than homosexuality; (ii) there may be questions surrounding the translation of rare or unusual words in the passages that some interpret as referring to homosexuals; (iii) both the Old Testament and New Testament contain passages that describe same-sex relationships; and/or (iv) that loving and committed relationships are not condemned in the passages.[1] All of these assertions are disputed by more conservative scholars, however."

Why should the Bible have anything to do with how our government treats its citizens?

Also, the Bible supports slavery (The Bible contains several references to slavery. The Bible does not condemn slavery, but in fact supports the regulated practice of it, especially under the Old Testament,[1][2] but also in the New Testament.) and the subjugation of women ("Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord"). Would you consider these legitimate concerns as well?

In response to the above:

1. All schools must encourage reporting.

2. There is no countervailing academic literature.

3. Necessarily minors would be reporting to adults [who also are authority figures in other contexts, within their schooling-environment].

4, I am still reeling that you concur with "encouraging" reporting; you can't back-down now!

5. The quote may be from Arne Duncan, but the fact-of-the-matter is that its gravamen doesn't preclude abiding by the rest of the article...which is FORCING school officials to ENCOURAGE reporting.

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning...."
http://www.hark.com/clips/rrwqcbyphn-i-love-the-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning
"...It smells like...VICTORY!"

Responses to your shopworn references to slavery/sexism are mainstreamed within the Wikipedia quote, for "historical context" must be weighed [no matter how onerous].

Of course, because America was founded on the Judeo-Christian Ethic [and all state/commonwealth Constitutions cite the Deity], the religious motivations of the citizenry must be weighed..for this is how they would choose their philosophical leader[s].

Please, naiveté doesn't befit you.

Historical context? Really? So we can throw out the homosexual stuff too on that basis? Okay, great. Thanks.

We don't choose a philosophical leader. I'm not sure where you got that from. The leaders are responsible to all citizens, not just those who belong to the Judeo/Christian/etc. mindset. The First Amendment provides for the government to not establish a religion, so to openly allow one/a few to use their definitions and their holy books to rule the rest is to support those above others, therefore violating the Constitution.

Equal protection, it is supposed to exist, yet sadly doesn't.

Ask the Evangelicals if they had a difficult time voting for a POTUS-Mormon, and then you will recall that such philosophical motives exist.

Indeed, they function among the D's when social-issues are pushed [as BHO deftly demonstrated]; people don't just vote for competence...or BHO would be community-organizing in Chicago.

There is no litmus-test for political leadership, as per the Bill of Rights [Establishment Clause].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

This is parallel to recognizing that Christmas is a LEGAL [and religious] holiday; rail against this phenomenon 'til kingdom come, but its woven to the American fabric.

And, as per the Wikipedia piece, you can't "throw out" anything because of "context"; rather Talmudic scholars [and other religious-types] choose to interpret whatever is written in myriad ways.

You are confusing philosophy with religion. There is a difference. I am unsure where you got on this leadership kick. It is tangential.

Christmas as a federal holiday is more out of ease than anything else. In accordance with non-discrimination rules, if you belong to another religion, you may have off your holy holidays as well. Using religion, however, to subjugate others, is not supposed to be allowed. The Constitution prohibits the United States from being a Judeo/Christian nation. That is pretty obvious.

If you can choose what you want from the Bible, than I why have it in the first place? That makes it less holy? Isn't it supposed to be the word of God? Shouldn't God be infallible? Since people are selective with their religious texts, it only leaves open the idea that they are inherently flawed, so where do you stop ignoring things that are in the Bible?

Denial will get you nowhere:

Religion informs personal philosophy.

X-Mas is a religious AND federal-legal holiday, and it's not simply to be recognized as a "convenience"; Religion isn't subjugating, as O'Reilly incessantly notes. That there are Judeo-Christian underpinnings to America doesn't mean that everything must be religiously-based. Remember, along with the "Establishment" clause comes the "Exercise" clause.

*

Regarding the rest of your queries...

"If you can choose what you want from the Bible, than I why have it in the first place? That makes it less holy? Isn't it supposed to be the word of God? Shouldn't God be infallible? Since people are selective with their religious texts, it only leaves open the idea that they are inherently flawed, so where do you stop ignoring things that are in the Bible?"

...I would note that diversity of interpretation shouldn't be misconstrued as justifying any decision to eschew such scrutiny.

The way I cut my hair informs my personal philosophy, does that make my hair cut a philosophy? Absolutely not. They can be related, but they are not the same.

Yes, Christmas is a religious and a federal holiday, but although it is federal, everyone is not forced to observe it, they just get the day off from work. If exercising your religion means you stop others from obtaining their rights, then it is subjugating them. If homosexuals want to have the same rights as married couples, then could they just claim their interpretation of the Bible allows for it, therefore the exercise clause is violated when they are not allowed to marry? According to your logic regarding how to interpret the Bible and the exercise clause, your answer should be yes.

"The way I cut my hair informs my personal philosophy, does that make my hair cut a philosophy? Absolutely not. They can be related, but they are not the same."

I would invert the phrase to convey the thought that your personal philosophy informs how you cut your hair; they are related, they are not the same, but they harbor a component of a cause/effect relationship.

"Yes, Christmas is a religious and a federal holiday, but although it is federal, everyone is not forced to observe it, they just get the day off from work."

Can you purchase stamps @ the U.S. Postal Service window on 12/25? That you can't means that you are indeed forced to observe it...even as some people must work anyway.

"If exercising your religion means you stop others from obtaining their rights, then it is subjugating them."

Inelegantly stated, but c/w the 1st Amendment.

"If homosexuals want to have the same rights as married couples, then could they just claim their interpretation of the Bible allows for it, therefore the exercise clause is violated when they are not allowed to marry? According to your logic regarding how to interpret the Bible and the exercise clause, your answer should be 'yes'."

You conflate ethics and the law, corrupting appreciation of the latter. People can claim anything due to whatever religious/moral/philosophical belief-system they choose to invoke [it's a free country], but that doesn't make it universally accepted, legally.

You are grasping at straws with this one and you are playing a poor game of semantics. I won't bother.

No one forces anyone to observe anything. You can buy stamps, just not from the Post Office. No one forces anyone to buy a Christmas tree or go to church. For any non-Christian, Christmas, the federal holiday, is just a day off from work.

Ah, but why are Judeo-Christian ethics (stemming from their religion and nothing else) forced on everyone who doesn't believe them? A libertarian such as yourself can appreciate the idea that government shouldn't hold you to someone else's ethics if yours do no harm to others.

Again and again, you obfuscate:

"You are grasping at straws with this one and you are playing a poor game of semantics. I won't bother."

You create the "straws"; I merely suck you into confronting your contradictions and ignorance.

"No one forces anyone to observe anything. You can buy stamps, just not from the Post Office."

The "stamps" reference was a metaphor. The courts are closed, as are all government buildings and many private businesses. People are FORCED to pursue alternatives under these circumstances.

"No one forces anyone to buy a Christmas tree or go to church. For any non-Christian, Christmas, the federal holiday, is just a day off from work."

No one is forced to observe the religious holiday, but many non-Christians perceive it as a day that symbolizes the need to pursue peace, etc. [and they then volunteer to allow for Christians to go to Church, for example].

"Ah, but why are Judeo-Christian ethics (stemming from their religion and nothing else) forced on everyone who doesn't believe them?"

Recognition thereof is interlaced among the writings of the Founders/Framers and, as I wrote earlier, specific citation of the Deity is in all state-level constitutions.

"A libertarian such as yourself can appreciate the idea that government shouldn't hold you to someone else's ethics if yours do no harm to others."

Being "libertarian" doesn't preclude recognizing the moral underpinnings of governmental actions/responsibilities.

Lame. I don't think you know the meaning of Christmas. It is presents and over spending! Your other points are topsy turvy and make no sense. Please clarify everything you said because this is getting absurd.

You write: "Lame. I don't think you know the meaning of Christmas. It is presents and over-spending! Your other points are topsy-turvy and make no sense. Please clarify everything you said because this is getting absurd."

Most ethical/patriotic Americans would quibble with your materialistic/secular/progressive/liberal/anti-religious portrayal of x-mas, and one hopes fervently that you refrain from conveying this posture to your students.

The rest, sadly, is commentary.

Once again, sarcasm.

In school, however, we do not teach the "meaning" of Christmas because it is at its heart, a religious holiday and to teach it would be to violate the establishment clause as Christianity is a religion, NOT a philosophy. I wonder why that is... oh... right... because you can't force religious views on other people. If the founding principles of Judaism were all that was used in America than we would have dietary restraints. Would you say that stems from some sort of ethics that we all should have? If not, than your point is still, as it always has been, moot.

Definition of ENCOURAGE
1
a : to inspire with courage, spirit, or hope : hearten <she was encouraged to continue by her early success>
b : to attempt to persuade : urge <they encouraged him to go back to school>
2
: to spur on : stimulate <warm weather encourages plant growth>
3
: to give help or patronage to : foster <government grants designed to encourage conservation>
— en·cour·ag·er noun

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encourage

No discretion here, no dissuading, no countenancing silence; there is only a push to do the right thing, to communicate, to bite the bullet, to convey information....

"Must" allows for individualization AFTER initial review; I haven't budged, even as you admit that you have [via a lame attempt to suggest I've moved further].

It's HUGE that you now would unabashedly encourage reportage, thereby obviating the need to define what should or shouldn't be conveyed; just like "there is no crying in baseball" [Tom Hanks], "there is no tattling in telling"!

"School Officials Must Encourage Reporting," OK?

An exact quote from you:

"Adults must not tolerate reluctance to report"

See my below comment for a direct quote from you regarding your belief of "must."

I see no reference I have made to saying students shouldn't be encouraged to report, only that it is an individual thing. You directly contradict yourself here where you say reporting should be encouraged, yet mandatory. That makes no sense. How can there be encouraged reporting after the initial mandatory reporting? You are really stretching here Bobby.

*above comment

Also, sarcasm... really you should learn to recognize it.

Perhaps, because I'm still @ my office, I'm eager to emulate the suggestion of Senator George Aiken [Vermont]:

"During the Vietnam war, Aiken is widely believed to have suggested that the U.S. should declare victory and bring the troops home. Actually, what he said was that "the United States could well declare unilaterally ... that we have 'won' in the sense that our armed forces are in control of most of the field and no potential enemy is in a position to establish its authority over South Vietnam," and that such a declaration "would herald the resumption of political warfare as the dominant theme in Vietnam." He added: "It may be a far-fetched proposal, but nothing else has worked."[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Aiken

This informs my decision to declare victory [for reasons aforementioned] and then to go home.

*****

I have integrated "must" and "encourage" in a fashion with which, I hope, you can concur; it is MANDATORY that school officials MUST ENCOURAGE kids to report what they have experienced.

You had been reticent to accept this position due to fear of "tattling," remember?

And it only becomes "an individual thing" AFTER the student has honored the thrust of the encouragement that he/she report what had transpired.

In short, it is intolerable not to encourage reporting [re-parsed].

Can you stomach this phraseology?

*****

[I'll stop gloating, for now, if you do.]

That view is MOVING from your ORIGINAL view of FORCING students to report. I'm still unsure why you don't recognize this. My fear of students being viewed as "tattlers" is derived from experience in schools and scholarly articles I have read in college (which you continue to assume don't exist). This is not to say students aren't encouraged, but that it is a deeply personal subject that needs to be handled on an individual basis (which is completely in sync with everything I have previously stated).

Your absurd NEED to win places you in an odd situation where you try to play with phrasing to try to justify your change in views and try to distort mine.

Yes, students should be encouraged to report and in all responsible schools/classrooms/etc, this is always the case.

Can you stomach that you have backed off of this statement, "Adults must not tolerate reluctance to report," which implies that if a student is reluctant to report, that the teacher should not tolerate that, therefore saying the teacher should force the student to report?

For posterity, please ID the phrase[s] you view as having been composed "sarcastically"...and then remember that the best humor reflects essential truths.

So when you attempt to hide retroactively behind "it was just a joke," recall all those politicians who walked-back problematic-quotes...and then ask yourself whether this is a motivation that is comparable to yours.

Now, you were saying...?

Sarcasm: Also, I wanted to be the irresistible force! I mean, you did move from "must" to "encouraged." That is a lot bigger of a move from, "it should be done on an individual basis," which allows for "encouraged," which "must" does not.

It means that I did not change my views, while you did.

Remember, sometimes people are sarcastic and use humor to prove a point when the other person is being ridiculous.

OK, we're @ core!

"Can you stomach that you have backed off of this statement, 'Adults must not tolerate reluctance to report,' which implies that if a student is reluctant to report, that the teacher should not tolerate that, therefore saying the teacher should force the student to report?"

I don't back-off from anything. By not tolerating reticence, adults are encouraging reporting.

Your inference isn't my implication, nor is your attempt to type what I imply what I would infer from what I wrote.

Weak Bobby. Nice try to try to become more moderate than you have been. From you, "AGAIN, automatic reporting to the school must be differentiated from discretionary reporting to the police. " This was after I made a comment about how automatic reporting to adults is not the correct course of action. Notice how you did not stop and say, automatic reporting is not the way to go, but defend how it doesn't automatically involve the police (which is obvious, I am unsure why you thought I claimed this in the first place).

{i think i only have a backlog of this one comment....}

"Weak Bobby. Nice try to try to become more moderate than you have been."

WRONG, for reasons aforementioned.

"From you, 'AGAIN, automatic reporting to the school must be differentiated from discretionary reporting to the police.' This was after I made a comment about how automatic reporting to adults is not the correct course of action."

That is correct; after the student has reported, it's discretionary as to what will occur thereafter...for it will be "individualized" [as per your desire] contingent upon what emerges from the school's scrutiny.

"Notice how you did not stop and say, automatic reporting is not the way to go, but defend how it doesn't automatically involve the police (which is obvious, I am unsure why you thought I claimed this in the first place)."

I did maintain that automatic reporting to the school is vital, whereas it may or may not become a police matter.

This is when you first deviated from my viewpoint, in your very first posting supra:

"--Joseph Finnick

"--3:05 pm on Tuesday, December 4, 2012

"--Also, just to clarify because you did manage to bother me a little:
"--1. You forgot to mention that by "reporting" of bullying you meant tell the police."

You incorrectly mind-read, a phenomenon that you have just recapitulated. Reporting to the SCHOOL is the key-initial-step, with everything else left to its devices.

Individualization occurs at the start of the incident, not after reporting. How a student deals with the problem is deeply personal and that student should not be made to think he or she did something wrong by not reporting.

The rest I have written about in other places.

The last line was taken out of context. It was meant about the specific situation. You deemed the issue the particular boy should have been put to the police. You demanded a situation such as his be taken to the police. Really, Bobby, I am certain your razor sharp memory can remember that portion of our conversation.

@ “JF”

You claim “Individualization occurs at the start of the incident, not after reporting. How a student deals with the problem is deeply personal and that student should not be made to think he or she did something wrong by not reporting.”

You have YET to define ANY scenario that would justify this behavior, which would CONTRAVENE the N.J. statute [for example].

You write “The rest I have written about in other places.”

I deal with what you compose, not what you claim is written elsewhere.

You [confusingly] write “The last line was taken out of context. It was meant about the specific situation. You deemed the issue the particular boy should have been put to the police. You demanded a situation such as his be taken to the police. Really, Bobby, I am certain your razor sharp memory can remember that portion of our conversation.”

To what “last line” do you refer?

{re-typing what must have been lost in the ethernet}

The Law FORCES people to ENCOURAGE students to report; the controlling word ["force"] is integral to what transpired in N.J.

It is intolerable to acquiesce to reticence to report [rephrased].

The individualization occurs AFTER the initial reportage.

The use of the word "force" denotes the fact that some sort of penalty will be exacted if an individual doesn't comply. There can be no punishment for not reporting, whereas there can be negative consequences if a school doesn't encourage reporting. This is the distinction with a difference that guides my comments.

BTW, you have yet to accede to my phraseology, namely, that people should be "forced to encourage."

The "forced to encourage" as you unnecessarily phrase it, has been in place for a long time. I am unsure why you find it so groundbreaking. In the education world this is taken for granted and was not the target of this conversation. I clearly make note that I take issue with forcing children to report. Children do need to develop the skills necessary to fend off much of what can be construed as bullying. They do this on their own. Once an adult gets involved, the power is taken from the student, so developmentally, the student, though encouraged to report incidents of bullying, should never be made to report. This has been my view from the beginning and it astounds me that you are bending over backwards to twist your own words to fit this position.

"Once an adult gets involved, the power is taken from the student, so developmentally, the student, though encouraged to report incidents of bullying, should never be made to report."

This is incorrect; you forget to appreciate the capacity to collaborate, each playing a role most comfortable to his/her status. The Adult plays "Adult"; the "Student" plays "Child" [Remember "Transactional Analysis," by Harris?]

Adult plays adult, child plays child. Sounds like power is with the adult to me. You really need something to back up your ideas. Your use of Transactional Analysis demonstrates you did a quick google search and did not actually study this. Please demonstrate how Transactional Analysis would empower the child.

please re-read Thomas Harris' book; i'll lend you my copy if desired.

pivotal is desire for power-play to be minimized when "parent" role is morphed in to "adult" behavior.

book is ~4 decades old - easy read with a lot of cases - worthy a gander

Snooze Bobby,

Your minimal analysis still doesn't apply. You have yet to explain how it does. You just mention it as if name dropping a psychological theory will get you to "win" as you so desire.

i contradicted your claim that playing the "adult" role constitutes a power-play, 'tis all.

Still name dropping. You have in no way proven how forcing children to go to adults does not take away their power and self worth.

Seems you dropped this... wonder why.

Still silent on this...

MY FOCUS WAS ON INVOKING A BOOK [I'm OK, You're OK, by Thomas A Harris MD] THAT ILLUSTRATES THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PLAYING PARENT VS. ADULT, WITH THE LATTER CEDING A CERTAIN LEVEL OF POWER TO THE CHILD.

My point is that the reference is not applicable to the discussion we were having. You have yet to actually show that some how forcing children to report bullying to adults somehow empowers that student and raises his/her self worth.

Again, you change the subject; reporting is primarily aimed @ compliance with such policies as that employed by Central Bucks, regardless of whether the reportorial process enhances the ego of the student who is informing the authorities of what has transpired.

The subject of this portion is your name dropping theories to attempt to prove you have some sort of knowledge of the topic, you are changing the subject.

i was making a point, clarifying again what you had raised

acting adult-like cedes "independence" to children that parents may be reluctant to relinquish

It still does not apply to this situation. The power is ceded as the child admits they cannot handle the situation. Admittedly, this would be okay if the child could not handle it as it would teach the child how to act, but if it is in every situation, it can very often make the child dependent on the adult/parent while developing no real skills.

"It still does not apply to this situation."

yes, it does

"The power is ceded as the child admits they cannot handle the situation."

no, power is ceded as the child acts more like an adult

"Admittedly, this would be okay if the child could not handle it as it would teach the child how to act, but if it is in every situation, it can very often make the child dependent on the adult/parent while developing no real skills."

not necessarily

Please explain yourself and your deep understanding of this theory to contradict me instead of just saying no.

i did; wanna borrow the book?

You haven't and I already know the theory as well as I know the book is basically the theory for beginners, which diminishes its bearing on this case.

MY FOCUS WAS ON INVOKING A BOOK [I'm OK, You're OK, by Thomas A Harris MD] THAT ILLUSTRATES THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PLAYING PARENT VS. ADULT, WITH THE LATTER CEDING A CERTAIN LEVEL OF POWER TO THE CHILD.

[as I typed a few hours ago]

Your focus is misguided and oversimplified (as I have been saying for a while). The book is the theory for beginners and therefore aides in the oversimplification of the issue at hand (also as I have been saying for a while).

I'll mop-up the First Amendment, and then drive home....

You still haven't justified those risqué quotes, but perhaps you'll feel refreshed and then revisit them...for their absoluteness is highly problematic.

You may also wish to appreciate how I rephrased/reformulated, invoking the article you provided: "Forcing Schools to Encourage Students."

Lest we forget, you still have pending "homework" [if, indeed, you wish to adhere to the view that students should be empowered to "individualize" their decisions as to whether they should report bullying-incidents].

Because I feel schools must be forced to encourage students to inform them of potential-abuse, you still have to confront this set of a half-dozen truths:

1. Define when reporting should [vs. should not] be encouraged;

2. Reference the claim that "Automatic reporting triggers automatic punishment";

3. Reference the claim that all such reporting must be punished else parents will sue;

4. Reference the claim that any such reporting would automatically be conveyed via school authorities to the police;

5. Reference the claim that "Students who report are seen as weak by other students and more of a target";

and

6. Reference the claim that students can work out their own problems to bullying.

With your expertise, you should be able to pull focused articles that would prove your case [in any of these contexts], particularly after you provided an article that contravened the thrust of your writings; if you can't, then cry "UNCLE!"

@ “JF” - I

As you continue to retrench, you now portray my posture as “moot,” surely not “novel.” Yet, as you recognize that schools MUST be FORCED to ENCOURAGE reporting, there is NO space for the child to choose not to do so, for this would be akin to attempting to be an “innocent bystander” [portrayed clearly as an undesirable cop-out].

The result is “mandatory reporting” until/unless you could depict any circumstance when bullying is witnessed and the “individual” properly chooses not to report it to the school authorities.

Curiously, you depend upon your “experience” to justify a triad of extreme statements ["Automatic reporting triggers automatic punishment"…”all such reporting must be punished else parents will sue”… "Students who report are seen as weak by other students and more of a target"]. They are neither academically-documented nor reality-based.

Indeed, the NY-Times piece you cited clearly avers otherwise [there is no automaticity, there is no parental-suit threat, students who report can be portrayed as courageous]. These phenomena are among those that justify the state-level statute.

[to be continued]

@ “JF” - II

You also dispute my having quoted your “claim that any such reporting would automatically be conveyed via school authorities to the police.” I had already called-you-out on this point, but I’ll do so again [quoting your initial posting]:
--Joseph Finnick
--3:05 pm on Tuesday, December 4, 2012
--Also, just to clarify because you did manage to bother me a little:
--1. You forgot to mention that by "reporting" of bullying you meant tell the police.

You cite a dangling-quote @ the article's end to justify depending upon social maturity ["students can work out their own problems to bullying"] presumably in lieu of routine reporting, notwithstanding the failure of depending upon such reliance upon minors to demonstrate such maturity [else the problem would not exist].

I am not “contradicting” your professionalism; rather, I am challenging your portrayal thereof and certainly expressing dissatisfaction with any attempt on your part to invoke a power-play [“I’m a teacher and you’re not”].

You would probably benefit personally/professionally were you to devote some of your winter-break to brushing-up on an issue which has now publicly been demonstrated to reflect a flaw in your attitudinal approach [and knowledge-base]; your students would thank you for expending this time so productively.

I would ask you not tell me how I am not doing my job correctly. You have no idea how I teach or how effective I am at stopping bullying.

As a teacher I encourage reporting of bullying, especially by bystanders (which apparently you missed in our last conversation). I will NOT, however, claim that every single situation of bullying MUST be reported. If you take that route, it makes it seem as if the student does something wrong by not reporting.

I never said students can always sort out their own problems. Students are children, and while in many cases, they can and should empower themselves by taking charge of a situation, there are many others where the students cannot and should not. Still though, in these cases, a teacher can only encourage reporting, not mandate it.

I don't tell you how to doctor, don't tell me how to teach. You are demonstrating how you are part of the problem in terms of the school/parent/child/community relationship. You demonstrate an utter lack of respect for educators and claim to know better when you have no such training. If you continue insulting me (or bullying, if you will) I will do the responsible thing and allow to to ramble your nonsense to demonstrate your ignorance to the world.

Your constant imprecision ["I will NOT, however, claim that every single situation of bullying MUST be reported....[W]hile in many cases, they can and should empower themselves by taking charge of a situation, there are many others where the students cannot and should not."] cries for specificity.

Again, cut-to-the-quick...and depict a set of circumstances that would absolve the student/child-witness to bullying NOT to report it to the school-based authorities.

You haven't answered this question, despite my having posed it dozens of times.

I think I know why you can't, for you would be forced to admit pervasive-error.

Way to continue evading and ignoring Bobby. I will wait for you to demonstrate you have read and comprehended everything before this discussion continues.

To recap your evasions [after I have documented what you had disclaimed you had said]:

I state affirmatively: "Schools MUST be FORCED to ENCOURAGE reporting, there is NO space for the child to choose not to do so."

You claim: "Automatic reporting triggers automatic punishment"…”all such reporting must be punished else parents will sue”… "Students who report are seen as weak by other students and more of a target"..."any such reporting would automatically be conveyed via school authorities to the police"].

Ultimately, you must answer this question: "Under what circumstances would you countenance a student NOT reporting a bullying incident?"

See below.

Now you are on witnessing and not the person bullied? Come on! Stop switching who you are forcing to report!

Would leave them open doesn't mean that it would happen every time. Obviously.

So you can acknowledge that the most learned and knowledgeable person quoted in the article disagrees with you and you are fine with that? Great. I'll take the learned man over the ignorant any day.

@ "JF":
I am resolute; there is no "discretion" inherent in the definition of "encourage" whatsoever, and you STILL haven't defined any circumstance when a student who witnesses bullying should NOT report it.
You wrote [just now]: "I have never stated that the parents intervening will always end in the suing of the school; you invented that one."
You wrote [supra]: "For school authorities to not punish even the smallest infraction of bullying reported would leave them open to lawsuits from parents."
And I am not ignoring the article's last-line, for discussion thereof is integrated both within the rest of the piece and all of my commentary related to this topic.
Your fundamental error was captured supra {“You are trying to take away a child's self-reliance, self-worth, and power when you neuter them [sic] by forcing them [sic] to report to adults every single problem.”}
First of all, you employ pleural-pronouns when the antecedent is singular; use “children” or “him/her” instead. Second, you misapprehend the positive interaction that transpires when a student functions as a “good citizen”; reporting problems to authorities should become a lifetime pursuit when, for example, an individual is known to have been abused.
You presumably slept well, but you are now committing more profound errors of thought/composition than previously exhibited.

My commentary relates BOTH to the individual involved AND to anyone witnessing a problematic behavior.

Evasive evasions won't permit you to evade the key-question: Under what circumstances would you countenance a student NOT reporting a bullying incident?

Don't hide behind the rhetorical-error of adopting-by-reference; ANSWER THE QUESTION!

See below.

Again, you go ad-hominem...instead of focusing upon the issue-at-hand; I'd thought that a good night's rest would have helped you recharge your batteries but, instead, they apparently have become dead.

"My commentary relates BOTH to the individual involved AND to anyone witnessing a problematic behavior.

"Evasive evasions won't permit you to evade the key-question: Under what circumstances would you countenance a student NOT reporting a bullying incident?

"Don't hide behind the rhetorical-error of adopting-by-reference; ANSWER THE QUESTION!"

Not ad-hominem, just an observation of your responses.

Evasive evasions? Lame.

Read what I wrote, comprehend it, then let me know if you have any real questions that were not previously answered.

To recap your evasions and to reply succinctly, I state affirmatively: "Schools MUST be FORCED to ENCOURAGE reporting, there is NO space for the child to choose not to do so."

You claim: "Automatic reporting triggers automatic punishment"…”all such reporting must be punished else parents will sue”… "Students who report are seen as weak by other students and more of a target"..."any such reporting would automatically be conveyed via school authorities to the police"].

Ultimately, you must answer this question: "Under what circumstances would you countenance a student NOT reporting a bullying incident?"

To recap your evasions and to reply succinctly, I state affirmatively: "Schools MUST be FORCED to ENCOURAGE reporting, there is NO space for the child to choose not to do so."

You claim: "Automatic reporting triggers automatic punishment"…”all such reporting must be punished else parents will sue”… "Students who report are seen as weak by other students and more of a target"..."any such reporting would automatically be conveyed via school authorities to the police"].

You ascribe these stances to your experience, notwithstanding the fact that they are contravened by the NY-Times article you cited...and you have refused to provide any additional citation of any academic study that would support your [erroneous] assertions.

Ultimately, you must answer this question: "Under what circumstances would you countenance a student NOT reporting a bullying incident?"

See below.

Humor me, and reply to the above summary succinctly; I'll make it easier for you by reversing the order of the key-issues:

Ultimately, you must answer this question: "Under what circumstances would you countenance a student NOT reporting a bullying incident?"

You claim: "Automatic reporting triggers automatic punishment"…”all such reporting must be punished else parents will sue”… "Students who report are seen as weak by other students and more of a target"..."any such reporting would automatically be conveyed via school authorities to the police"].

You ascribe these stances to your experience, notwithstanding the fact that they are contravened by the NY-Times article you cited...and you have refused to provide any additional citation of any academic study that would support your [erroneous] assertions.

Go for it!

Circumstances are individual. Bystanders should report in the vast majority of cases. For the most part my statements relate to the person being targeted for bullying. The bullied child may not report for many reasons that are individual and relate to the child's mental, physical, or social well being.

I never claimed that it will always end in the parents suing. I am still unsure where you get this from so you should let me know or just drop it. I also never said all reporting goes to the police. Again, please find the exact quote where you think I said this.

They are not contravened by the article I referenced. The article is strongly advocating alerting adults of bullying, but stops short of saying that it is a good thing for mandatory reporting and ends with a quote from a highly distinguished individual who completely disagrees with your view. I have said time and again why I will not do your work for you on your last point, so please, stop being lazy.

@ "JF" - I:

I ask: "Under what circumstances would you countenance a student NOT reporting a bullying incident?"

You write: "Circumstances are individual. Bystanders should report in the vast majority of cases. For the most part my statements relate to the person being targeted for bullying. The bullied child may not report for many reasons that are individual and relate to the child's mental, physical, or social well being."

I ask again: "Under what circumstances would you countenance a student NOT reporting a bullying incident?"

You have failed to specify any such circumstances, either with regard to the bystander or to the abused-child.

*

I quoted how you introduced the potential for parental litigation as a reason not to ensure reporting always occurred...because, in your view, reporting must always yield punishment else the parents would intervene. This implied threat [no matter how rare such an intervention may have been] was established by YOU as a factor in this equation. I have ID'ed it [twice] supra. It is not being dropped because it is so absurd; instead, you should rescind the insinuation that such a force would be relevant in this venue.

[to be continued]

@ "JF" - II:

You write that the following quotes "are not contravened by the article I referenced." Therefore, please cross-reference these cites:

Automatic reporting triggers automatic punishment"
"all such reporting must be punished else parents will sue”
"Students who report are seen as weak by other students and more of a target"
"any such reporting would automatically be conveyed via school authorities to the police"

*

You write: "The article is strongly advocating alerting adults of bullying, but stops short of saying that it is a good thing for mandatory reporting and ends with a quote from a highly distinguished individual who completely disagrees with your view."

The article mandates the schools promote these programs, to the point whereby private entities have established programs to assist them in this process. The final-quote is a truism that is not inconsistent with my viewpoint: "“Kids have to learn to deal with conflict...What a shame if they don’t know how to effectively interact with their peers when they have a disagreement.”

You equate "conflict" with "abuse" unjustifiably and, therefore, this quote hardly contradicts anything I've typed regarding the latter.

[to be continued]

@ "JF" - III:

Therefore, again, you must long ago have begun to taste the dryness of "defeat" and must now share publicly the feeling this status engenders.

You haven't cited specific circumstances that would absolve a child from reporting an instance of abuse.

You have inserted subsidiary quotes based on your experience but not the literature.

You have provided an article that--admittedly--supports the need for such reportage, even as its coda provides perspective that doesn't contradict this posture.

Therefore, you are again invited to concur that schools must encourage reporting, absent ambiguity, obfuscation, and/or alleged social-pressure.

@ "JF" - I:

"The bullied child may not report for many reasons that are individual and relate to the child's mental, physical, or social well being." I believe that is specific enough.

I DO NOT. DEFINE *ANY* MENTAL/PHYSICAL/SOCIAL CONTRAINDICATION TO REPORTING BULLYING.

Schools immediately punish bullies when they are reported.

NOT NECESSARILY; THEY MAY BE COUNSELED, ETC.

Go look up this section from any school code.

I DID, IN ABINGTON, A FEW MONTHS AGO, AND THE POLICY DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY YIELD PUNISHMENT; IN THE OTHER INSTANCE [IN A BUCKS COUNTY DISTRICT] THIS ALSO DOES NOT EXIST.

The article mandates nothing. It describes a law and is somewhat critical of it.

@ "JF" - II:

If they did not, parents would get upset, but I by no means said that this would ALWAYS end in parents suing schools. Again, I am unsure why you find this so surprising.

"PARENTS" GENERICALLY CANNOT MANDATE A SCHOOL DO ANYTHING THAT VIOLATES ITS POLICIES, EVEN IF THE OUTCOME MIGHT PROVE UPSETTING; ILLUSTRATING YOUR ILLOGIC IS THE POTENTIAL THAT THE INTERESTS OF TWO SETS OF PARENTS MAY DIFFER. YOU INTIMATED THAT THE THREAT OF LITIGATION WOULD MILITATE AGAINST THE INSTITUTION APPLYING REASONABLE FLEXIBILITY WHEN DETERMINING THE OPTIMAL COURSE OF ACTION. YOU INTRODUCED THIS CRITERION,NOT I, AND YOU MUST DEAL WITH ITS CONSEQUENCES. I FIND IT SURPRISING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE RAISED THE SPECTER OF THIS TYPE OF ADVERSE-FORCE WHICH IS SO OBVIOUSLY TANGENTIAL TO DETERMINING THE WELL-BEING OF THE CHILD.

"all such reporting must be punished else parents will sue” "any such reporting would automatically be conveyed via school authorities to the police"- I never said either of these. Please stop writing lines for me so you can attempt to prove me wrong. The rest are not contradicted by the article.

I CAREFULLY TRACKED EACH QUOTE AND--WHEN YOU REBELLED--I PROVIDED THE THREAD BACKWARDS TO ITS ORIGIN. IF YOU CARE TO DISPUTE ANY ONE OF THEM, DO SO, AND I'LL RETRACE MY/YOUR STEPS. AFTER I HAVE DONE SO, THEN YOU WILL BE INVITED TO DEFEND YOUR WILD ASSERTIONS...AGAIN.

Really? Then you obviously have no business talking on this subject.

Schools do. Don't assume. Check school codes of conduct (http://www.psba.org/districts_policies/C/102/POLCBUC249.pdf for instance). Also, note that to a student who bullies, a conference can be seen as punishment as, to the student, they are being disciplined for their actions.

@ "JF" - III:

The quote is used about bullying. Bullying is a type of conflict. Don't play semantics as it makes for weak arguments.

THIS IS NOT MERE SEMANTICS. YOU IMPLY WHAT WAS NOT INFERRED. THERE ARE MANY TYPES OF CONFLICTS, BULLYING BEING ONLY ONE OF THEM.

WHAT I VIEW, WITHIN THIS CONTEXT, HIS INTENT TO HAVE BEEN IS TO HAVE "DELETED" THE HEINOUS COMPONENT OF WHAT MIGHT HAVE TRANSPIRED, AND THEN TO HAVE ADVISED THAT INTERPERSONAL SKILLS COULD BE INVOKED TO RESOLVE WHATEVER HAD TRIGGERED THE EVENT.

THIS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM "BULLYING" AND, THUS, YOU CANNOT AVER THAT THE QUOTE CONTRADICTS MY VIEWPOINT.

Your whole third part is congratulating yourself for no reason.

PROVE ME WRONG.

I'm sorry, parents/guardians, but they can. First, parents can go to principals, then school boards, then the local news. There are many ways to solve problems.

I double checked this page. I found those quotes to be yours, attempting to summarize my views. Nice try.

Of course, parents can become noisy; but this doesn't mean that administrators will reflexly cow-tow to what they might want...hoping to preclude adverse publicity. Your claim that this would be a controlling factor in administrators' behavior was simply incorrect.

{I was using ALL-CAPS to differentiate my comments from yours, instead of relying upon quotes [and quotes within quotes]; if you equate this with SCREAMING, then I'll revert to the original format.}

This shows you don't work with schools. Administrators do try to please parents as frequently as humanly possible. You, again, are making assumptions and pretending they are facts.

Yes, please change to the original format. I figured you weren't screaming, but trying to read all caps is just bothersome on the eyes.

of course administrators try to please parents as much as possible, but you raised this parameter to heights that are unrealistic and unjustified; fearing parental reactions may be a criterion that prompts strategic planning, but this transpires only after the decisions are made on behalf of the child[ren].

"Bullying" can indeed be a TYPE of conflict and, thus, a quote that applies to conflict-resolution may or may not encompass Bullying.

Create a Venn Diagram, if that will help you to understand this rather simple concept.

Thus, the final-quote is not applicable to all cases of potential bullying.

Absurd. It was obviously about bullying. You are getting hung up on word choice instead of substance. You are really just playing dumb at this point.

Also, the quote itself never says that it applies to ALL cases. You assume too much and you know what they say about assumptions...

the fact that you feel compelled to read your intended meaning into the precise words uttered reflects intellectual bankruptcy; the plain meaning of the assertion does not encompass bullying because, instead, it restates a truism that should guide those who must assess lower levels of conflict-resolution

In any case, it doesn't contradict my statements and, instead, it undermines yours.

ok

the parting quote can relate to the rest of the article without being subsumed by it

in this instance, the quote illustrates the lack of absoluteness you have conveyed

this automatic-punishment stuff/fear is simply nowhere to be found in this piece

If the quote gotten for the article was not about bullying I will quit my job to learn to BS under your tutelage. You should track down the quoted person to find out.

I am against absolutism in terms of reporting. I have said this consistently.

Absence doesn't indicate a contradiction.

its plain meaning was tangential to the narrower topic of bullying; it suggests "alternative resolutions" can be invoked successfully when kids "fight"

when you suggest i "track down" the author, you diminish your credibility

absence supports the impression that you feel compelled to read into it

Its intended meaning was clear. You are complicating matters to suit your purposes and it makes no mention of fighting. Putting words in "quotes" should only be done when actually quoting something.

I do this to demonstrate the degree to which I believe you are wrong. Also, I said the quoted person, not the author.

That is just blatantly untrue. If I were to write a paper covering it, then there is the possibility that is true. In a 3rd party source, that is completely false logic.

[change "fight"...which was invoked euphemistically...to "conflict"]

i'm not chasing-down anyone; you keep avoiding the need to rectify prior issues

"nature abhors a vacuum" and so do demagogues who wish to manipulate debate

You are the one misinterpreting things to fit your needs and you used the word euphemism wrong. Euphemisms are supposed to be used to sugarcoat things, you used it to make the phrase worse, also demonstrating your attempt to misinterpret to fit your needs.

When used euphemistically, such as when it is advised "let you and him fight," it can indeed "soften."

[I'll be sure to use the original word "conflict" formally instead any synonym.]

Now, don't allow yourself to become distracted....

That is in no way softening and you weren't using it as a synonym. You put it in quotes which implies that it was said to make it seem like I was advocating physical violence as some less informed people do.

Don't try to say you aren't manipulating language when you do things like this. You know exactly what you are doing as you have been doing during this entire exchange.

We have just experienced the imprecision of language, and how conflict resolution results from communication.

Let us now recognize that the precise use of the word "conflict" was not viewed as synonymous with the word "bullying" [formalistically] and it is impermissible to mind-read to befit your intended outcome. Thus, you are still left with a quote that [1]--doesn't contract my views, and [2]--contradicts yours. And, lest we forget, the rest of the article also both [1]--doesn't contract my views, and [2]--contradicts yours. Remember, YOU produced this item, notwithstanding the fact that it contravenes your perspective.

Sklaroff translation: NUH UH! I READ BETTER THAN YOU!

Come on. You can do better than try to manipulate language to pretend to "win."

I invoke the precise language to PROVE that I won!

HA! You are quite the jokester. Just admit I caught you manipulating language. I've had students try to do this before and I don't let them do it either. I also have coached and judged debate and I can tell you judges don't accept those typs of arguments because they are lazy.

No, we rectified how language can be used linguistically by two individuals to connote disparate concepts, 'tis all.

Now get back to the main-points, which [per your advice] have been focused @ the bottom of this page.

Disagree, as you try to use a quote incorrectly to prove your point (once again, not allowed in debate or an educational setting.

I used a word ["fight"] to illustrate a point [about "conflict" not "bullying"]; don't permit this to distract you from the task-at-hand, which has burgeoned during the past 24-hours [vide infra].

It is indicative of how you used the article, thus the point.

the parting quote can relate to the rest of the article without being subsumed by it

in any case, the quote illustrates the lack of absoluteness you have conveyed

this automatic-punishment stuff/fear is simply nowhere to be found in this piece

Not when it is a quote gotten for the article. You are "mind-reading" as you like to say to me so much that the journalist who wrote the article must have framed the question poorly (let alone had the poor journalistic skills to include the quote if done this way) to receive an answer that did not have to do entirely with the subject at hand.

You have always been the one pushing for absolutism in this subject as you claim there should be mandatory reporting and I say it should be individual in nature. As you so often do, you have left no room for a gray area.

Omission of a subject in an article for the general public in no way implies that I am incorrect. The article also does not state that humans cannot live on the sun, but would you bother to argue with me if I had said that?

@ "JF" - I:

Your gobbledegook can be parsed...again, to your detriment.

ME: "the parting quote can relate to the rest of the article without being subsumed by it"

YOU: "Not when it is a quote gotten for the article. You are "mind-reading" as you like to say to me so much that the journalist who wrote the article must have framed the question poorly (let alone had the poor journalistic skills to include the quote if done this way) to receive an answer that did not have to do entirely with the subject at hand."

You cannot assume a quote was acquired to satisfy the journalist's desire, nor can you assume he/she was generating a substandard piece. All quotes need not be encompassed by the lede, and you are mind-reading if you think otherwise. You must deal with what was written; that you resist reflects your rhetorical defeat, as you flail for disparate explanations for what transpired.

[to be continued]

@ "JF" - II:

ME: "in any case, the quote illustrates the lack of absoluteness you have conveyed"

YOU: "You have always been the one pushing for absolutism in this subject as you claim there should be mandatory reporting and I say it should be individual in nature. As you so often do, you have left no room for a gray area."

Your absoluteness relates to your driving intent to "individualize" rather than to ensure all reporting is generated and processed; this quote reflects the fact that conflict-resolution is a mutually exclusive process.

*

ME: "this automatic-punishment stuff/fear is simply nowhere to be found in this piece"

YOU: "Omission of a subject in an article for the general public in no way implies that I am incorrect. The article also does not state that humans cannot live on the sun, but would you bother to argue with me if I had said that?"

Reductio-ad-absurdum doesn't befit you; that a comprehensive article omits citing your mantras regarding fear/punishment cannot be ignored.

1. Journalists get quotes to fulfill their desire, to assume they do not is to assume poor journalism.

2. So my "absolutism" is to make sure that each child is treated with individual care? I'm sorry, but you need to look up the meaning of absolutism as you want a machine of processing children's problems forcing them all to do the same thing... which sounds pretty absolutist to me.

3. Who said the article was comprehensive? It is an article about a law passed in New Jersey, not a comprehensive piece on bullying.

1, Again, you assume the journalist invited a quotation to befit his compositional intent, but you cannot prove this; thus, you are forced to deal with what is written.

2. My absolutism is to ensure reporting, with multiple solutions generated therefrom; yours is to enhance the child's presumed capacity to decide what should be done (or not done) on an individual basis, regardless of the admonition (encouragement) that he report the incident.

3. Omission was emphasized because, initially, you claimed this essay supported your viewpoint and not mine; now, you appear to recognize the converse could be the case, to whatever degree a given issue was encompassed.

1. I assume this because that is the job of a journalist (To break it down for you: compositional intent was to write an article about bullying in response the the law passed in New Jersey, so I assume the journalist asked a question related to bullying and got a response about bullying). Why should you assume the journalist did not do his/her job?

2. Individual choice isn't absolutism. Once again, you need to understand the meaning of words you use instead of using a thesaurus.

3. First, it doesn't contradict me, it omits (there is a difference). Second, I cited the article saying something along the lines of, "It's a little overbearing, but it addresses some of your concerns." So, I stated at the outset that it wasn't comprehensive, something you did not take issue with at the time. Once again assuming makes a ________ of you, though not me in this case because I pay attention to what I say.

I win, you lose.
I win, you lose.
I win, you lose.

vide infra

I win, you lose.
I win, you lose.
I win, you lose.