However, if there is anything in which I have confidence, it is this administration's commitment to slow, methodical, blame-laden screwings of the lower- and middle-class.

In what way has the lower and middle class been screwed by the present administration? I'll agree that the previous administration was great for the rich and crappy for everyone else, but I posit it's slowly improving.

The lower and middle classes have been getting royally screwed for at least half my life, and I retired earlier this year. The screwings started with Reagan's Capital Gains cuts, which caused an orgy of hostile corporate takeovers leading to layoffs and lowered hours. I was hurt badly when my employer staved off an attempted corporate pirate raid.

No, that suppository arrives with the Clinton Administration. I reckon she's wreckin'.

I certainly hope so, it would be nice for the US to raise to the level of the rest of the industrialized world from our historically barbaric health care "system". American health care is far from #1 in any measure except cost; ours is the most expensive. It's neither logical nor rational.

As to Clinton, if she's elected and half as good as her husband the country will be in fine shape. It would be incredibly hard for her to be anywhere as bad as George Junior, the worst President in my lifetime (AFAIC we've really only had two good Presidents in my lifetime, Eisenhower and Clinton, and as I was very young I could be wrong about Eisenhower but love that interstate highway system, as well as his cautions about a military industrial complex).

I'm more worried about Illinois. Dillard was Chief of Staff under Thompson and Edgar, and Illinois did pretty good until Ryan got in, and it deteriorated worse under Blago. It hasn't gotten much better under Quinn, but unfortunately Dillard lost the primary and the stupid Republicans nominated the only one of the four candidates that would get me to vote for Quinn.

Liars always lie. I think people mistrust statistics because they don't understand statistics, or worse, understand a little, just enough to be dangerous.

I worked with data and statisticians my whole career. I'm not a statistician, but learned a lot about the discipline from working with them. One of my co-workers had written a textbook on the subject that was used in colleges. Very interesting discipline.

I can't speak for the detective, but I'd have approved.

Oh yes, please send the poor little bully into counceling, the poor little misguided soul should be shown just how much pain he caused his victim so he learns just how much better it would be not to hurt someone. But we shouldn't make him apologize, it would probably humiliate him too much and shatter his precious little soul.

Like that?

Why so complicated? Hold schools responsible for bullying, including any and all costs for medical bills, psychological and otherwise, that can be linked to it, payable by the school's budget. Unless they can show that they did their best to get rid of the bullies instead of the usual tactics of turning a blind eye to it so the bully doesn't find other targets (like school property or faculty) they are responsible, fully. In public schools you can also fire anyone who could have responded and didn't. Private schools should be sufficiently motivated by the fact that the fines can make up a multiple of the tuition fee they lose by throwing the bully out.

The main mistake the parents made was assuming the school had any interest in the bully being stopped. Far from it. The school has an interest in the bully having an easy target. It means that a potential troublemaker (i.e. the bully) has an outlet for his aggression and won't take it out on school property, faculty or outside the school where they don't have such an easy way to contain it. Bullies seem to understand that "unspoken contract" between the school and them and play along those rules: You get to beat up your victims as long as you don't cause any trouble to the school itself.

Once the victim of bullying starts to report it or (worse even) fight back, the school has a problem. As perverted as it may sound, from the school's point of view the victim is the troublemaker when he doesn't want to be a victim anymore. Because as long as he's "willingly" the victim there's no problem the school would have to take care of.

So yes, the school sides with the bully. And as long as there is no responsibility for the school not to, this will continue.

This. Ask them if they have taken care of things like this. The answer to this alone will tell you whether there is some kind of deep consideration behind it or whether some PHB had a consultant toss the cool buzzword "change advisory board" in his direction.

If it's the latter, run. Run like the wind.

Ok, I bite. What's your suggestion?

Hey, I'm as extroverted as the next guy, I look at your shoes when I'm talking with you!

Threats have to be followed through. One of the reasons why I don't use threats. Mostly because a threat always also includes the option to avoid it if the other party changes its behaviour.

By the time I ponder what to do to someone, he already did enough to have forfeited the chance for a choice.

The alternative proposal would be that schools be held responsible for bullying. Simple as that. Only if looking away gets more costly and inconvenient than interfering a school will do it.

Right now, the best thing a school can do, from the school's point of view, is letting the bullies rule the school yard. It only has advantages for the school. Bullies are usually potential troublemakers. They are the kind of people who would get into trouble if the chance presents itself. Allowing bullies to beat up weaker kids gives the bullies and outlet for their aggression so they won't take it out on, say, school property or other property around school that might reflect badly on the school, and bullies honor that "silent agreement". After all, they get what they want, they get to beat up someone with impunity, so they don't have too much of a problem to play along the "rules".

That is a very favorable situation for the school because they don't have to deal with the bully problem. It does create a lot of really messed up kids, some of whom will spend a lot of time and money during their adult years in therapy to get over the trauma. Or it might end in a sad report about yet another kid who couldn't take it anymore taking a gun and revenge instead.

I'd rather have my kids use "excessive force" than endure bullying. I can help them with the former. It's way harder with the latter.

Actually, "becoming the karate kid" can be just as bad if not worse. Because then HE is the bad guy. Everything was fine while the bully beat him up, the bully was happy and he was the punching bag, now suddenly there is a bully that was beaten up with parents that cause a shitstorm. And all because that punching bag had to fight back.

That simply isn't done, ya know? You disturbed the peace of your school!

Pot, meet kettle...

Yeah, but wouldn't it be kinda hard to find someone who kills himself in the end for money?