Sunday, March 08, 2009

More on the bullying bill

I was going to respond in the comments section to some of the questions and criticisms of my post on the bullying bill, but decided to do it in another post, since it will be a little long for a comment.

First - what specific language in the bill do I find troubling, and why? The problem I have with this bill is that it would subject normal child and adolescent behavior to formal school discipline proceedings, and possibly even legal proceedings.

Here's how and why: The bill requires districts to put in place policies and disciplinary procedures for bullying, harassment and cyberbullying. It defines these terms as anything that, among other things, has the effect of

"Creating a hostile educational environment, including interfering with the psychological well-being of a student."

So here's the problem. Many commenters feigned shock and dismay that I was using such "sexist" terms when I suggested they just issue the boys pink panties. I did that for a reason.

That is EXACTLY the type of remark that would get a kid in school rung up on harassment charges under this bill. Suppose one boy says to another, "Hey you sissy, show me your pink panties." It is easy to imagine some school counselor considering that "interfering with the psychological well being" of the kid.

Perhaps you think that a boy saying something like this to another kid SHOULD be cause for disciplinary action. If so, I feel sorry for you. You apparently want us to be a nation of victims.

For almost two decades, in an effort to rid the schools of "gender bias," the public school establishment has been defining typical boy behavior as cause for discipline. A great book on the subject by well known feminist Christina Hoff Summers, called The War Against Boys examined all the different ways the feminist movement have made schools hostile to boys.

This is just another example.

Really, isn't it better to let kids figure out a few things by themselves? Sure, there is a time and place in which adult intervention is prudent and necessary when someone behaves badly toward another student in a school. But this bill would result in hair trigger disciplinary proceedings - and perhaps even criminal proceedings - for behavior that is at most, slightly untoward.


Anonymous said...


A couple of questions:

Has this sort of language been used in legislation in other states? If so, how has it been implemented?

If it happens once, it's not harassment, but if there's a regular pattern of this, it could be a different story.

You do see that if someone were treated this way every day, or most days, that it would be a problem, don't you?

How would you suggest dealing with this issue? Do you think it's not a problem, or do you see better ways to deal with it?

Rob Kremer said...

I don't know the answer to your first question, but if other states have done it, it is wrong there too.

If a kid is constantly harassing other kids, intentionally trying to hurt their feelings with words, verbally attacking others, etc - sure that is a problem and the school should take steps to deal with it. And they already do this. Counselor tries dealing with the kid, and then brings the parents in, etc.

Is there some problem that schools were systematically dropping the ball on this that brought this legislation about? I don't think so.

It's just special interest legislation. All the victim groups like this kind of stuff because it keeps them in business.

Anonymous said...

Victims groups? You mean like Steve Doell?

It seems as though your comment was just a knee-jerk reaction--it's all based on assumptions, and you've done exactly zero research on the bill. And to think people pay you for your (uninformed) opinions.

You're great at throwing the buzzwords around, but there's still not much content here. It appears as if you have no idea what the situation is regarding bullying in Oregon schools.

By the way, calling Christina Hoff Sommers a feminist is like calling Roy Cohn a gay rights activist.

Charley said...

From hb2599

"Substantially interferes with a student's educational
benefits, opportunities or performance"

"Creating a hostile educational
environment, including interfering with the psychological
well-being of a student"

Who decides these things following a complaint? The student's family, any student counselor, the school admin staff, the police, the courts? Just wondering....

rickyragg said...

Victims groups? You mean like Steve Doell?

That wasn't a "knee-jerk" reaction - that was a just a "jerk" reaction.

Only a complete asshole would equate Doell's group, formed after the murder of his daughter, to what Rob is describing.

It seems as though your comment was just a knee-jerk reaction--it's all based on assumptions, and you've done exactly zero research on the bill. And to think people pay you for your (uninformed) opinions.

Interesting comment from someone who fits his own description of others.

"...seems as though..."

"'ve done zero research..."


"...based on assumptions..."

" appears..."

I'd sat "priceless", but "worthless" is much nearer the mark.

Anonymous said...

This bill has the potential to cause mass pandemonium in schools, and I hope students and teachers take full advantage.

Here's the bill, judge for yourself;

R. L. said...

Lets not protect victims because it will cause "pandemonium"? What in the bill is so terrible? How will it cause pandemonium?

The bill requires school districts to establish a policy and procedure "... after consultation with parents { + , + } { - and - }
guardians, school employees, volunteers, students, administrators
and community representatives."

It requires that incidences be investigated (and sanctions false accusations).

It also requires that the rules be readily available and explained to parents, students, etc., so that there are no surprises.

A couple of informational resources:

School Bullying is Nothing New, But Psychologists
Identify New Ways to Prevent It American Psychological Association's Psychology Matters website

The consequences of bullying: Children who are bullied may be afraid to go to school. They may complain of headaches or stomachaches and have trouble concentrating on schoolwork. In the long term, the consequences of bullying may be even more severe. Children who are bullied have higher rates of depression, anxiety, low self-esteem and other mental health conditions. Children who are bullied are more likely to think about suicide. Some of these wounds may linger into adulthood. From the Mayo Clinic

Rob - I think your justification for the panties comments is disingenuous. It wasn't an "example". I think it was a very clear statement that you believe that students who are bullied should either fight back or just shut up and take it.

Anonymous said...

R.L., good comment.

It seems that most of the argument against the bill so far amounts to "it will have to be interpreted."

Of course that's true of all laws.

R.L., I think that Rob realized how bad his "pink panties" comment was, but couldn't bring himself to admit it.

Rob Kremer said...

Anon 9:41
Christina Hoff Summers is not a feminist? Why would you say that? Because she doesn't adhere to the feminist liberal political dogma? Gee, I thought a person who believed in female legal equality was a feminist. I guess you have some other criteria. Would love to hear it.

No, my pink panties comment was to deride the supporters of this bill for yet another attempt at feminizing the schools in a way that is inherently hostile to boys. That was pretty much the thesis of the book written by Christina Hoff Summers.

I watched some of the hearing on the bill today in Salem. As I thought, a parade of victims. Some with heartbreaking stories about how they or their child was ruthlessly teased and harassed while the schools did nothing.

Which made me wonder: so they now want this bill to pass so these very same school officials will now somehow have a change of heart and the schools will be more accepting of their kids?

This bill is written so broadly that it will criminalize behavior that is easily dealt with interpersonally.

One kid says to another somethat offends him, and a complaint can be filed. If the plaintiff is part of a protected class, then the schools are required to inform the parents of their options to file a criminal complaint.

Johnny calls Derek a faggot. Juvie hall for him until the re-education can be completed!


Anonymous said...

Rob, you have sta(ed several times that the proposed bill would criminalize certain behavior, yet you have not cited the language that would do this.

R.L. Talked about some specifics in the bill, yet you have failed to do so through two posts and several comments.

It's as though you're just regurgitating talking points've heard.

R. L. said...

You've taken it to an extreme, of course. I don't see anything in the bill that would necessitate calling the police. Sounds more like they'd call the little homophobe into the office and tell him or her that name calling isn't OK. Damn, can you imagine not being allowed to swagger through the hallways calling people fags and homos? The horror.

If it is so easy to deal with the issue "interpersonally" why is it such a chronic problem?

And, we're not just talking about a single incident, are we Rob. In many cases, if not most, it is a pattern of harassment and intimidation. There a few little sadists in every school who get off of on the power trip.

I think you've shown what you truly think of the people who want to address this issue when you write "As I thought, a parade of victims." I don't think you have any idea of what its like, or how serious the problem can be. Nor do you care. No, to you they are just a bunch of whiny victims.

Simply because I'm curious, how is ending bullying (or trying to), "feminizing the schools." Do you think it really is a positive and necessary thing for students to go through? Is it of benefit to both the bully and the victim? Maybe you think it's ok to slap thugs-in-the-making on the wrist with a little wink and a "boys will be boys." Especially since you're evidently unaware that girls suffer from the same issue.

What is the solution Rob? Do nothing? Everything is fine as it is? I guess it just sucks to be the one that gets bullied in your world. Better that they should suffer in silence then "parade" themselves through the legislature and try and find a solution.

Anonymous said...

Frankly, it's frightening to think of Rob having anything to do with running any schools. Thank God he didn't beat Susan Castillo.

R.L., you keep hitting the nail on the head--Rob clearly identifies with the bullies, not on those on the receiving end.


Me said...


Your imaginary world is scary.

There's nothing clear to you.

In fact I suspect you are the BO Carla conducting more political hackery.

I am Coyote said...

"Substantially interferes with a student's educational
benefits, opportunities or performance"

Wouldn't that be the Teacher's Union?

It seems as though your comment was just a knee-jerk reaction--it's all based on assumptions,

Take a look in the mirror. You offered nothing of any merit except to make personal accusations of the author. Then lean on RL's analysis.

Here's a hint: If you don't know how to argue for something you feel strongly about, start first by not making personal accusations based on assumptions without merit.

I do not know anything about this bill and do not know how I feel about it specifically.

However the comments on this thread by apologists of the bill are so based on emotion and devoid of reality that it would concern me that it would be people like this actually ENFORCING the bill should it become law.

Guess what? There are certain behaviors that many boys carry out. Those behaviors are not always pretty and should be dealt with individually based on the situation.

To attempt to create law that is devoid of some basic understanding of human nature and basic biology is foolish and runs the risk of creating bigger problems in the future.

Meanwhile Oregon's unemployment rate continues to sky-rocket and the Democrats in the legislature want to do nothing about it.

Meanwhile the education system in Oregon is in shambles and the Democrats in the legislature want to shut down the largest school district in the state (Oregon Connections Academy.)

And these are the people who are supposedly going to fix the "bullying" problem?

Why shouldn't folks be at least a tad bit skeptical.

Anonymous said...

Of course there are malicious students who intentionally hurt other students. A School's staff already has to take responsibility and action for too much of students personal issues. Schools resemble day care more and more each year. If that's the case; if we want public school teacher to take on a parental role, than we should pass this bill.

But it is impossible for a public school to protect everyone who needs protection while still allowing students freedom to be gay, religious, or another protected class. Parents are free to raise their kids according to their own beliefs, and different beliefs dictate different tolerances.

In a public school especially, you can't expect all these beliefs to come together harmoniously. Students are still going rub each other the wrong way on a daily basis. Now simply being rubbed the wrong way (for members of the protected class) empowers a student to have someone investigated. The district can investigate all they want, cause a family grief, single someone out, make an example of them and draw their conclusion.

What happens when gay students A & B were making out in the hall in front of student C who is X religion, student C make a comment, students A & B retaliate with a comment and report student C? Does the district dare take a side or tell some one they are wrong?

I think Rob asked a great question; "Is there some problem that schools were systematically dropping the ball on this that brought this legislation about?"

That's just what we need. More people thinking they are a victim. I don't think this bill is going to prevent anything. All it does is designate someone to take action after bullying has occurred. But it carries the potential to hurt kids for simply testing each others patients - not a good idea.

R. L. said...

When Rob talks about how we should just put boys in panties, and a "parade of victims", he is not taking the issue seriously. He is simply dismissing what can be a very serious issue for some students. It seems quite clear to me that he thinks things are fine the way they are, and that there are really no problems at all. An opinion, you'll note, that he has not found credible sources to confirm yet. In fact, Coyote, his very opposition to the bill is "devoid of reality" and "based on emotion". The very faults you accuse us of. Where are his facts? Bring forward the experts who say that bullying isn't a serious problem. Or are we the only ones required to "prove" our case?

The bill mandates that the schools establish a policy to deal with bullying be asking for input from teachers, parents, students, etc... Tell me how that is a bad thing?

"Guess what? There are certain behaviors that many boys carry out. Those behaviors are not always pretty and should be dealt with individually based on the situation."

How does the bill not do that? I requires that the schools start dealing with the issue.

"However the comments on this thread by apologists of the bill are so based on emotion and devoid of reality..."

I linked to the American Psychological Association and the Mayo Clinic. Both of which are reputable organizations. What facts from experts are you bringing to the table?

"To attempt to create law that is devoid of some basic understanding of human nature and basic biology is foolish and runs the risk of creating bigger problems in the future."

And this makes you sound like an apologist for the bullies. What can ya do? Boys (and Girls for God's sake.. this isn't just about boys) will be boys. It's part of their nature. Guess what... that doesn't excuse it or mean that it shouldn't be dealt with. We frequently expect and demand behavior that my run counter to their "biology".

What larger problems will be created for the future by not allowing bullying to continue in the schools? Will the bullies miss out on an essential part of their educational experience?

This issue is separate from the others you mention (although related in some cases). Since it is before the legislature now, and is being considered, why don't we discuss the merits of the bill. The other issues are worthy of discussion too, but have no bearing on the importance and wisdom of the particular bill.

R. L. said...

Anon 10:44

This bill is not just about protected classes. That is one element of the bill, but not the only. Kids who are bullied aren't necessarily gay. Frequently they are not. What they are is an easy target. Few friends, self-esteem issues, depressed, perhaps not as physically inclined. They are easily targeted, and their torment is easily ignored by everyone else.

Lets turn it around, though. Lets say C belongs to X religion. An unpopular religion. Is it OK to torment them, make fun of them, denigrate them, because of their religious beliefs? No one is asking that religious student C accept A & B for who they are. We are saying that, in the school, that C's action of insulting and harassing A & B is wrong. Should A & B be allowed to mock C for his or her religion?

Tolerance can, and should be, equal and systematic within the school. There is a huge difference between not liking something, and feeling the need to harass someone because they are the thing you don't like. Think of it as good training for the real world, because very few workplaces will tolerate that behavior. Even more ironic, the very behavior that people like Rob seem to find excusable in the school would not be tolerated in their own homes. Honestly, Rob, would you stand by and allowone youth in your home to systematically harass, demean, and bully someone? We're not talking about the standard banter between friends. I'm willing to bet, however, that even if it was between friends you'd step in if it go to be too much. Why do you accept behavior in the schools you most likely wouldn't accept in your home?

The reason the bill is necessary, is because the schools have been woefully inadequate in addressing the issue. They only intervene when it becomes too extreme. At the point when physical harm is being done. The problem is real, at least according to several respected and authoritative organizations. Wouldn't it be better to try and nip it in the bud? Or.. perhaps if parents did a better job of raising their children and instilling in them a basic tolerance or respect for all people who are simply living their lives the best they can, then we might not be having this problem.

"I don't think this bill is going to prevent anything."

Prevent it? No. But then laws against rape, burglary, murder, assault have never prevented those crimes from happening over and over again. But, I believe that it will lessen bullying. The bill will, at the very least, send a message that those sorts of actions are not acceptable in an educational setting. It requires school to explicitly address and issue they have ignored.

So let me ask you. Do you feel things are as good as they can be at the moment? That nothing else needs to be done. That all we can expect is for the school to step in when the harassment and intimidation are so egregious that the students physical well-being is at risk? Well? I hear a lot of talk about how bad the bill is, but what I don't see is either a different plan, or at an admission that you (or any of the other critics) don't really think there is a serious problem. That this is just the way it is, and that the victims (and they are victims) just have to suck it up: sorry, but that's just the way it is.

R. L. said...

And to be even more explicit - I think one of the major problems with this issue is parents/adults like Rob who really don't see a problem. I suspect because his son was never the target of that kind of bullying Because, if he was, I'm pretty damn sure that Rob would be camped in the principals office asking why something wasn't done. Why it was allowed to continue and exist in the school. After all, it's a school, not a social experiment in recreating The Lord of the Flies

I am Coyote said...

"Or are we the only ones required to "prove" our case?"

Well, yes, because you are the folks seeking to CREATE new law.

Therefore the burden of proof is on you.

"What larger problems will be created for the future by not allowing bullying to continue in the schools? Will the bullies miss out on an essential part of their educational experience?"

Now you are being ridiculous. And you expect me to entertain a serious conversation with you when you so misrepresent my point.

1) Bully starts bullying. Probably in part because home life is not real good.

2) Victim complains to teacher and authorities. Authorities, then forced by the new law must react to a much greater degree than they probably would have in this case.

3) Bully and bad home life parent or gaurdian is called into office. Re-education is discussed.

4) Parent or guardian yawns says whatever, Seinfeld reruns are on.

5) Bully tracks down victim for further and deeper retribution. Perhaps even physical harm.

It has NOTHING to do with bullies "missing out."

The fact that you decided to go there tells me that you are not going to be honest in your discussion of the matter.

I'm sorry I had given you more credit up-thread. I spoke too soon.

R. L. said...

The "bullies missing out" was sarcasm. Pure, plain and simple. It's based on a great deal of frustration in getting some idea out of the opponents as to what their solution, if any, would be. If the bill is bad, what can be done? Evidently nothing. It's just the way it is, and the way it's always going to be. I think given that, you can see what would prompt a sarcastic remark.

Much of your post was chastising another poster, calling supporters "apologists", claiming that they are "devoid of reason" and that their support of the bill is based on "emotion." The only justification you presented was a generalized and vague assertion that it is in their nature. The rest was a rant on unemployment in Oregon, the state of Oregon education, and a dig at the Teacher's Union.

If, as you admit, that you hadn't read the bill and hadn't formed an opinion, why would you call the supporters "apologists"? On what basis can you claim that they are "devoid of reason" and acting on "emotion"? Isn't that, in fact, misrepresenting my support of the bill? How am I an "apologist" coyote. I linked to two sites that support my position. How is that being devoid of reason? Honestly, if you want the discussion to be taken seriously, then conduct yourself appropriately. Don't expect better behavior from others than you expect from yourself.

You are half right - proponents do have to support their bill with facts. However, the idea that opponents don't have to have reasoned argument supported by facts as well is ridiculous. That's not an invitation to a discussion. That's simply a heckler's veto.

Your contention that the bully acts out because of a poor home life is simply a guess. Unless you can back that up from a source? I suspect it's not ncessarily true. Or even true in most cases. According to the APA, bullies can be among the most popular students, and have average or higher than average self-esteem. Which doesn't sound like your average student from a poor home. Doesn't mean that they're not, but I question where you got that idea.

If #1 is faulty, the rest of the argument falls apart. Except for...

So, if retribution is a real problem, and that certainly is a possibility no matter what the home life is, then what is the answer? Don't complain, it might get worse? Just suck it up and take it? What is your solution? Or do you even see a problem?

Anonymous said...

R.L. You are obviously convinced this bill is going to assist with the presence of bullying in schools.

How do you see it as being effective?

I feel like this bill is taking a swing in the dark.

Me said...


This is ne of those times when all you deserve is a
shut up alreay.

The the bill is bad, and stupid.
What can be done?

Gee let's see????

Oh yeah dump it.

The bill doesn't need studying and no one need research bullying to figure out if the legislature should be passing anew bullying bill.
Find something else to advocate.

R. L. said...

Good enough? Need more? So, can we at least accept that it is a serious problem that can't be dismissed with a simplistic "boys will be boys" attitude? Articles such as the ones below have been appearing for at least 12 years. Evidently nothing is being done in our schools: why is it inappropriate for the legislature to address this issue?

Unless someone has some contrary studies they wish to present? Studies that conclude that bullying really isn't a serious problem.

"Conclusions The prevalence of bullying among US youth is substantial. Given the concurrent behavioral and emotional difficulties associated with bullying, as well as the potential long-term negative outcomes for these youth, the issue of bullying merits serious attention, both for future research and preventive intervention." JAMA, 2001

"Frequent exposure to victimization or bullying others was related to high risks of depression, ideation, and suicide attempts compared with adolescents not involved in bullying behavior. Infrequent involvement in bullying behavior also was related to increased risk of depression and suicidality, particularly among girls. The findings indicate that both victims and bullies are at high risk and that the most troubled adolescents are those who are both victims and bullies." Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2007

"CONCLUSIONS. Being the victim of a bully during the first years of schooling contributes to maladjustment in young children. Prevention and intervention programs aimed at reducing mental health problems during childhood should target bullying as an important risk factor." Pediatrics, 2006

"Conclusions Our study results support the conclusion that psychopathologic behavior, including social problems, aggression, and externalizing behavioral problems, is a consequence rather than a cause of bullying experiences. This causal relation is supported by the strength and specificity of the association and the temporal antecedence of bullying. Because school bullying is a known correlate of youth violence, such a finding adds greater urgency to the search for programs to prevent or diminish bullying among schoolchildren." Archives of General Psychiatry, 2006

"Conclusions An antibullying school policy can reduce bullying behavior. To keep bullying at a consistently low level, schools must continue antibullying measures every year. Continued counseling may help schools in their efforts to establish a lasting antibullying policy." Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 2006

Being bullied is strongly associated with a wide range of psychosomatic symptoms and depression. These associations are similar to the complaints known to be associated with child abuse. Therefore, when such health complaints are presented, pediatricians and other health care workers should also be aware of the possibility that a child is being bullied to take preventive measures." Journal of Pediatrics, 2004

R. L. said...

Anon 4:22 - The bill, as far as I can tell, doesn't establish any particular program. I think that will be left up to the schools to decide upon, and implement. Which may be a strength. Requiring every school to adopt the same approach might be a mistake. Although, obviously, some schools may not take the most effective route, I don't think doing nothing is a viable option. There appear to be some effective programs out there, and hopefully the school districts will do their homework.

And it's bad because you say so, Me? That's it? Wow. That was certainly authoritative.

Unfortunately, it's not our blog. If Rob asks me to, however, I will stop posting. His blog, his call.

Anonymous said...

why do we ned a bill? why can't the teachers just teach tolerance and diversity?

Rob Kremer said...

R.L. I welcome your comments on this blog and wouldn't dream of asking you to not post.

It's not that I deny bullying is ever a problem. Sure it is. But this is a huge overreach. It will certainly cast a net so wide that it disciplines kids who are engaging in everyday banter that we most certainly want kids to learn how to deal with all by themselves without intervention by the "authorities."

Is bullying now a bigger problem than it has been in the past? I doubt it. I think there is a cottage industry out there of APA types who are always trying to empower themselves by convincing us that everyone needs their solutions because of our fragile psyches.

If schools do such a horrible job of dealing with bullies now, do we really think a state mandate will improve things?

I don't.

Charley B said...

Part of the outcry for these new laws seems due in part to the proliferation of bullies using the internet and text messaging to harass.

But I wonder how this proposed new law really tackles the cyber bully issue which seems to be at the crux of the problem? Cyber bullying would seem to me to be the most difficult behavior to control by schools, because it may not even occur during school hours or on school property. How much authority would the school have to actually monitor and engage itself in conduct occurring when the student is at home?

The proposed legislation seems to dictate the activity must have occurred at school for the school to take action.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. The ACLU free speech squad recently came to the aid of cyber bully suspects in Rhode Island, and prosecutors in some states have refused to tackle the free speech issue these criminal cases often present.

R. L. said...

There is always the potential for over-reach. However, if each school is adopting the guidelines with the input of the educational community (and that would include parents) won't that minimize that potential? I don't think that what we see in the literature, and I'm willing to bet what you heard from the "parade of victims", was not "banter".

How is a victim of bullying expected to deal with it themself? That hasn't worked to date, so why will it work in the future?

I think in many of the cases that are the target of this legislation, the method for "workinig it out" is that the victim keeps their mouth shut and hopes it goes away.

No bullying is not a bigger problem than it was in the past. It has always been a problem that has never been addressed because of the "boys will be boys" mentality.

No, again, it will never go away. But, I think it will get better if the schools are required to deal with it. That, of course, is the entire reason for the legislation. They have not dealt with it. They have continued to ignore the issue. Now they can't. And,if they still refuse to deal with it, then perhaps the legislature would be forced to put more teeth into the law. But lets give them a chance. Consider it a wake up call.

By the way, not just APA types, but evidently Pediatrician types, and Social Worker types - you know, those people that see the problem on a regular basis. The people who would know.

So, do you know of any schools/districts that have over-reached? That punish "banter" on a regular basis (I'm not talking about the occasional over-reaction)?

Do you believe things are fine the way they are? That nothing needs to be done? That any solution is worse than how it is dealt with currently?

Charley B:

Yes, cyber-bullying will be much more difficult to address than regular bullying - but at least regular bullying can be identified and dealt with.

Anonymous said...


It's true that some typical boy behavior is cause for discipline.
I would hope that some typical boy behavior, and, indeed, typical child behavior, would be cause for discipline is most homes as well as school.

While "boys will be boys", part of being a boy, and being a kid, is learning that some "typical" behaviors are unacceptable.

Also, it seems as though you're unable to understand that some behaviors may not be a problem when they're isolated incidents, but become problems when done repeatedly.

For example, the "panties" comment isnkt a problem if done once, but if the same student is targeted repeatedly for those types of comments, that's likely a problem. You can see that, can't you?

Anonymous said...

I just want to respond to the person who called me.a jerk for pointing out that Steve Doells's group uses the word "victim".

My point is that if you're toss the word "victim" around in a denigrating way, you should be aware that there will be some collateral damage on your side.

Rob's reaction to this bill is mostly just pathetic, but there is a big-picture aspect to this that's amusing. The G.O.P. Is currently at the mercy of a bully. A few people have tried to stand up to Rush, but, so far, only Newt hasn't turned tail afterwards.

Anonymous said...

Yeah you're a jerk and it's not Rush who is the Bully.
It's the lying liberals attemting to
smear him and paint the GOP as extreme.

Rush's conservative meassage was sound and crystal clear.

The liberal interpretation is pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1052,

When you live by the ad hominem, you'll die by the ad hominem.

Rob's credibility is dying because of his reliance on ad hominem, with apparently no awareness that his ad hominem attacks can hit allies.

Anonymous said...

Oh stop making it up as you go.

rickyragg said...

My point is that if you're toss the word "victim" around in a denigrating way, you should be aware that there will be some collateral damage on your side.

My point was (and is) that you are a definitive jerk. Your conflation of some arbitrary class of "victims" with those who have been victims of murder, assault, etc. - all of which have been established in a court of law - would be laughable if it weren't so pathetically typical of your ilk.

This may be the source of some sort of perverse amusement for your "side", but no one else finds it the least bit funny.

Does your "side" have a conscience, or are you as amoral as your comments suggest?

At least proofread your spew before you're post it, Einstein.

... or are you're a "victim" of public school education - poor baby?

Anonymous said...

Oh, I get it, ricky, you get to decide who is a legitimate victim and who isn't. Nice.

Perhaps you should get your name changed to Hugh Briss.

Anonymous said...

Maybe we should stop over diagnosing kids with ADD, Anxiety, etc and try giving them solutions rather than excuses to be a victim.

If behavior modifying medications were removed from students in public schools the amount of violence would drop and we wouldn't be dreaming up over-reaching legislation that nets kids who aren't the problem.

In my experience working with students I have actually been told, "I can't follow any instructions because I have ADHD."

I wanted to violently shake the child.

I hate profanity and seeing kids pants sliding half off - why can't we try containing that sort of behavior? Real social decency. We have added too much red tape and restricted kids freedoms, yet we allow them to act like animals.

Bullying is not causing some state of emergency - We're on the wrong track!

R. L. said...

Bullying is not causing some state of emergency - We're on the wrong track!

Neither are pants falling off the hips. And I would argue that the emotional toll bullying take on the victims is a more important issue than your offended sense of aesthetics. Much more important.

It has been pointed out that bullying has been a chronic problem for years. Before the problem of over-medicated children.

You sound like you are a teacher If so, I think you prove the point that a large part of the problem is that our educators refuse to take the issue seriously. It is precisely that attitude that requires legislative action.

Anonymous said...

No, I couldn't be a teacher because I believe what these kids really need is a good spanking. My students were not classroom students.

This bill paints 'Bullying' so broadly, I don't know of many kids who are so politically correct they wouldn't be at risk of investigation on a daily basis.