School Bullies

We must not allow bullies in schools because they detract from the school's mission. 

Bullies are kids; kids have parents. Parents are responsible for their kids' behavior in school. 

Schools need to notify parents after each incident of their child bullying another child in order to give them an opportunity to correct the problem themselves. 

After each incident the school needs to escalate its involvement with the parents.  The first warning needs to include a tip sheet for teaching their kids not to bully other kids, as well as the consequences for the child and the parents if the child continues to bully other kids. By the way, the warning and related information needs to be communicated from the school directly to the parent by phone and registered mail, NOT sent via the child as a take-home note. 

The school's involvement with the parents should focus on educating the child and the parents on bullying and how to prevent it. This may involve discovering and solving any issues that are present in the child's home that foster or contribute to the bullying behavior. 

If educating and helping doesn't work, then punishments for the child and parents should start with effort or time-based punishments and then escalate to monetary fines and expulsion.  Effort and time-based punishments are fair across all economic backgrounds. They hit busy parents the hardest which is good because it will make those parents rethink how they spend their time, and hopefully lead them to invest their time in their children until the problem is solved.

Suspension should not be used because it provides a sort of vacation for the child which may actually be received as a reward, encouraging future bad behavior, and when a child is suspended too often he or she may fall behind academically and that pressure can also foster bad behavior. 

Consequences for subsequent incidents should include:

1. the child writing an essay about why it is wrong to bully

2. the parents writing an essay about what techniques they are using at home to teach the child not to bully others

3. the child attending counseling about his or her behavior for some minimum number of sessions

4. the parents attending a course on parenting specifically geared towards teaching their child not to bully

5. additional duties for the child at school, such as supervised cleaning or gardening

6. additional duties for the parents at school, such as road guard, cleaning, or gardening.

7. monetary fines for the parents - small enough to be affordable, large enough to get them motivated to spend time with their kids on modifying their behavior. The fines should be payable to the state, not the school.  The fines should increase with every subsequent incident. If the parents say they can't afford the fines, allow a payment plan. Any outstanding amount from any grade level starting at kindergarten must be reported to the state and the state should add it to the parent's next tax bill. This arrangement must be part of the enrollment contract.  

8. expel the child from school.  If the principal believes that no amount of fines will deter the bullying behavior, the best thing to do is to expel the child. The parents can then pay for private school or try home-schooling. If the child is expelled with fines outstanding, the state should add those fines to the parent's next tax bill. 

The point is that the state is providing free education for all children. In order to make it work, children need to behave appropriately at school. Teachers already do a lot to teach children how to behave at school but various factors at home can greatly affect their behavior. Parents are ultimately responsible for their children's education and behavior at school. If the child is causing a problem for other children at school, then parents need to fix it. If they don't, the problem needs to become their problem. It's not fair to the other children to suffer a bully. 

Separation of Church and State

We claim to separate church and state but we really don't.

Many parts of our state, beyond having their foundations in religious beliefs, have direct religious references. Our currency states "In God We Trust". Our state governments require citizens to get a marriage license. Our pledge of allegiance mentions God. The entire country operates around Christian holidays.

We did specifically forbid the government from promoting or favoring one religion over another, with the exception of the de-facto endorsement of Christianity, but that's more like a limitation rather than a separation.

If we wanted to construct a government that was truly separate from religion, how would we do it?

The main issue that comes to my mind is crime.  Governments create laws and people who break the laws must be punished. But is there a difference between committing a crime and breaking a law? Or between committing a crime and sinning? Is there such a thing as a victim-less crime? Are some acts crimes in one religion but not another? Is it fair for the government to pass laws that essentially echo the laws of a specific favored religion?

I think that because religions regulate behavior, it's not possible to construct a state that is completely separate from religion - the state needs to either adopt a specific religion (or atheism) and align its laws with it, or it needs to maintain a minimal set of laws to set a basic standard of behavior and then regulate the religions that can operate within this minimal framework.

Should religious institutions have the authority to punish their members for acts that violate the laws of their religion? What maximum punishment will the state allow?

What should happen if a member of one religion commits an act that hurts a member of another religion in some way, and the two religions have different positions on the act? What if the perpetrator's religion declares it allowed and the victim's religion declares it is not allowed? What if the opposite happens - the perpetrator's religion allows the action but the victim's religion forbids it? Should the state handle these cases or should there be a regulation on how they are handled and how disagreements will be resolved?

Don't Ask Don't Tell

If discussing sexuality is allowed in the military, will the government pay for gays & lesbians to have separate individual (not group) quarters and showers? Or will it, in the name of fairness and equality for all, completely abolish separate male & female quarters and showers?

Either way, it's completely unfair to force the military to deal with this issue when society at large still hasn't granted complete equality to gays & lesbians.

Congress must abolish the practice of marriage licenses and restore full authority over marriage to religious authorities.

Any two adults living together for at least a year and filing a joint return should get the same tax benefits from the IRS, and any adults filing a joint return and having custody of children should get the same benefits from the IRS.

The military must not be used as playground for social reformers. DADT allows the military to ignore the gay & lesbian issue until society resolves it, and DADT should stay in place until then.

Relativity of Simultaneity

So I read Relativity of Simultaneity on Wikipedia. The "train-and-platform" thought experiment is supposed to show how two events can appear to be simultaneous from one frame of reference while not appearing simultaneous in another.

Setup quote: "A popular picture for understanding this idea is provided by a thought experiment consisting of one observer midway inside a speeding traincar and another observer standing on a platform as the train moves past".

Observer on the train: "A flash of light is given off at the center of the traincar just as the two observers pass each other. The observer onboard the train sees the front and back of the traincar at fixed distances from the source of light and as such, according to this observer, the light will reach the front and back of the traincar at the same time."

BUT, I propose there's more to this observer-on-the-train scenario than was discussed. The observer can't actually know when the light hit the front and back of the traincar until the light reflects back from those surfaces and returns to the observer.  Therefore the observer's measurement of when the light reached the front of the car is the time it took the light to reach the front plus the time it took the light to return from the front to the observer.

Let the first observer in the traincar be oC and the second observer on the platform be oP.
Let rCF be the ray moving from the center of the traincar, the location of oC, to the front of the traincar.
Let rCB be the ray moving from the center of the traincar, the location of OC, to the rear of the traincar.

If the car is moving forward, then the front of the car is actually moving away from the light, and so the light rCF will take longer to reach the front of the car.  Let tF be the time required for the light to move a half-traincar-length in the same direction the traincar is moving. On the other hand, the light moving toward the back of the car rCB has less distance to travel because the back of the car is also moving toward the source of the light so it will get there faster.   Let tB be the time required for the light to move a half-traincar-length in the opposite direction the traincar is moving.

However, once the light moving forward rCF is reflected, it will have less distance to cover on the way back since the middle of the car is moving toward it,  and when the light originally moving toward the back rCB reflects it will then take longer to reach the middle because the middle will be moving away from it.

So the total time for the light moving toward the front to return to the observer is tF + tB,  while the total time for the light moving toward the back to return to the observer is tB + tF.  The total is the same.

The net effect is that the light moving forward and backward will appear to reach the ends of the traincar at the same time because the reflected light will reach the observer at the same time.

Now the observer on the platform: "The observer standing on the platform, on the other hand, sees the rear of the traincar moving (catching up) toward the point at which the flash was given off and the front of the traincar moving away from it. As the speed of light is finite and the same in all directions for all observers, the light headed for the back of the train will have less distance to cover than the light headed for the front. Thus, the flashes of light will strike the ends of the traincar at different times"

That's right, but that's not any different than the first half of the solution for the first observer.  Since the second observer is not moving with the train, the second half of the solution is different - the second observer will see light reflected from the back and from the front of the traincar toward him. The light reflected from the back will reach the observer first because it will have less distance to travel than the light that is reflected from the front of the traincar.

BUT, what isn't accounted for in the second observer's story is the fact that the in the second half of the solution, the light rays start at different distances from the observer.  This is because the light that moved from the center of the traincar toward the front actually moved more than one half traincar lengths forward before it reflected (let this be dF), and the light that moved from the center toward the back actually moved less than one half traincar lengths backward before it reflected (let this be dB).  So the rays of light are no longer the same distance away from the second observer when they reflect.

The ray reflecting from the back of the traincar will reach the second observer faster because it has less total distance to travel from its origin to the back of the car than the ray moving forward travels from the origin to the front of the car, and in addition because the car has been moving forward, the back of the car is moving closer to the second observer so that the ray moving toward the back has less distance to travel from its reflection point toward the second observer than the ray that moved toward the front does when it reflects.

So while the second observer perceives rCB first, he will also observe that the origination point of rCB is closer to him than the origination point of rCF, and if he calculates the time it took rCB and rCF to reach him from their origination points he will also note that rCB started moving toward him before rCF. And he will be correct, because if you recall from the first observer oC's story, rCB did actually reach the back of the traincar and reflected before rCF reached the front of the traincar and reflected.

In other words, the "simultaneous" nature of the two events reaching the second observer is a complete misconception. While the origin of the two rays at oC was simultaneous, their reflection times and locations sending them on their path toward the second observer oP were neither simultaneous nor equidistant from the second observer oP.

And let's consider a third story that wasn't mentioned on Wikipedia:  Let's assume that by some arrangement, the light originating at the center of the traincar the moment that oC and oP pass each other is equidistant from oC and oP.  This could be done if we acknowledge the traincar has width and we assume that the light source is on the platform side of the car while oC is standing in the center of the traincar length-wise but on the opposite side of the traincar, one traincar-width away from the light source, while oP is standing on the platform one traincar-width away from the light source as well.

In this third story, we consider the path of two additional rays of light:  rC traveling from the light source to the observer on the traincar oC, and rP traveling from the light source to the observer on the platform oP.  Obviously since the traincar is much longer than it is wide, rC will reach oC much faster than either reflected ray. And since light travels the same speed regardless of of the velocity of its source, rP will reach oP at the same time that rC will reach oC's original position, because oC's original position and oP are the same distance away from the light source.  Of course, because oC is moving forward with the traincar, it won't be at its original position when the light reaches it.  In fact, the ray of light rC that was headed from the light source to oC's original position will never reach oC, it will simply hit the side of the traincar behind oC.  Another ray of light, rC', headed at an angle somewhere between directly at oC and directly forward, is the one that will reach oC.  This ray of light rC' will travel a distance longer than one traincar-width to reach the forward-moving oC because it's moving along the hypotenuse of a triangle that has its right angle at oC's original position.  Because rC' travels a longer distance than rP, rC' will take longer to reach the first observer than rP will take to reach the second observer.

The origin of the light was simultaneous but the two observers will not observe the light at the same time because in fact it does not travel the same distance to them.  If they compare notes on the event they will be able to calculate the speed of the traincar by using their known starting locations and the times at which they observed the light rays rC' and rP.

This explanation works for any speed of the traincar from 0 m/s up to and including the speed of light.

At the speed of light, there are some interesting results: When the traincar moves at the speed of light then rF never reaches the front of the traincar and never reflects, and rC' also never reaches oC because they start at the same time from the same track position and they're both moving at the same speed c so rC' would end up missing oC, and oC will not see any beam of light at all from the source as long as he's moving at the speed of light.  Then again, as long as oC is moving at the speed of light, he won't be able to communicate with oP to compare notes on the timing of the light rays.  After oC slows down or stops, the light ray rC' will catch up with him and oC will have a time measurement to compare with oP. When they calculate the speed of the traincar, the result will be below the speed of light and this accounts for the moments in which oC was slowing or stopping from the speed of light to allow rC' to reach him.

My physics teacher in college convinced the entire class that time has somehow passed more slowly for the traveler, and this is the origin of science fiction tales in which a space traveler arrives at a distant future where the world has aged faster than he.  In reality, light takes longer to reach the traveler because it has to travel a much larger distance to reach him when he travels at nearly light speeds. Now, how might a traveler might cope with the fact that light doesn't even reach him from the other side of the traincar? I propose that the speed-of-light scenario isn't even possible, that only light can travel at the speed of light, and that if you want to travel at the speed of light, the universe won't let you be anything else but light.

Mosque in New York near former World Trade Center site

Some people here are talking about freedom of religion but they don't understand that the Muslim culture is two-faced BY DESIGN.  The Koran teaches Muslims that non-Muslims are inferior.  Muslim history is replete with Muslims using violence and architecture to show their dominance over other cultures. For example, in areas under Muslim control, synagogues and churches cannot be built higher than the mosques.

Building a new Mosque anywhere near the site of the destroyed towers will be a symbol of victory to radical Muslims world-wide.  If you think it will show them that we tolerate Muslims and you think they will love us for it, you're wrong -- it will show them that we are weak and it will embolden them to strike at us again.

We must remember they are a different culture and they have different values.  We try to show tolerance and they see it as weakness.  We try to show respect and they see us subjugating ourselves.

Don't bother trying to show "mainstream Islam" that we tolerate them and respect them because it doesn't matter... Those people aren't the ones attacking us.  The same message will be interpreted by the terrorists as a sign of weakness and will encourage them to attack us again.

So it's better NOT to allow any new mosques in New York City period.  Frankly they don't deserve them.  We don't want an increase in Muslim populations here because more Muslims means more  support for terrorists... places to stay, money, food, etc.  Remember the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 were living here as they planned and prepared for the attack.  They had support.

Sure, not all Muslims are supporting terrorists but there is a percentage that does and since it's impossible for us to tell them apart.  We want to be tolerant and let everyone into America but we are forgetting that these people are coming here and NOT conforming to American culture. They are not adopting our values.  We show tolerance to them and they will show violence toward us.  We'll be afraid to strike back because of our laws and our values but that makes us look weak to them.  They are just living here, bleeding us slowly until the day that we are subconsciously so afraid of they can openly dominate non-Muslim Americans.

You think this is a tall tale?  Look at Europe.  They thought they were enlightened and now they are paying for it.

The only way to co-exist with Muslims is to disintegrate from them.  Deport them back to the Middle East where they have their holy lands and don't let them back in. Stop trading with those countries. We don't need their oil or their endless sands. If they provoke us, attack them and win. Then LEAVE and don't waste billions of dollars trying to "repair" their low-life economy.  Show them a strong hand and they will respect us and leave us alone. Encrypt our public communications so they can't receive our news or entertainment from the satellites or radios.  Spend billions of dollars AT HOME to develop Earth-friendly power sources and eliminate our reliance on oil.

We have to recognize that our freedom of religion applies only to religions that are compatible with our core values - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Islam doesn't value life, it values surrender to Islam above life. If you don't believe that then read the Koran. Islam doesn't value liberty, its very name literally means "surrender". Islam doesn't value the pursuit of happiness, it dictates happiness and subjects who don't comply can be beaten or killed.

I know it sounds harsh, but remember that Muslims, BY THEIR DOCTRINE, do not value freedom of religion. And if they could have their way, they would convert or kill anyone who is not Muslim. Building a mosque - a symbol of their power - near the site where thousands of people were murdered by Muslim terrorists is just another step in the direction of Islam.

I have friends who are Muslim, yet they do share the American values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  They and all other Muslims like them are the exception, not the rule. They are the progressive fringe.  They are to the rest of the Muslim population what modern Christians are to Christians of the last few centuries.  I wish all Muslims were like my friends but it's just not so. 

Innocent mistake or bold scam?

I received a letter with the following envelope information:

FROM:
MFS MUTUAL FUND SETTLEMENT
In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 9410
Dublin, OH 43017-4510

TO:
MFS HERITAGE TRUST CO TRUSTEE
IRA A/C RICHARD R DUFFIELD
(my street address here)
(my city, state, and zip here)

The letter is not addressed to me so I did not open it.  But  I am the first home owner at my address and the house was built to my specifications a few years ago.  So I know that a Richard Duffield could never have had this address.

It could have been a mistake in the address, but I suspect it's an attempt at fraud by pretending an administrative mistake and  luring someone into paying fees to receive someone else's settlement. Once the victim takes the bait the scammer can also blackmail them because technically the victim also committed a crime by opening mail addressed to someone else.

I didn't open the envelope. I marked it "not at this address" and put it back in my mailbox for the postman to pick up. I think that's the right thing to do when receiving mail addressed to someone else who I don't know.

Settlements

Someone (DoofusOfDeath) on Slashdot posted his opinion on settlements, in reaction to the settlement that Dell reached with the SEC regarding Dell cheating on their financial statements. I think I agree with him:

1. settlements are shakedowns, not justice.  Maybe the government thinks you're guilty but isn't sure it can prove it, or you know you're guilty and don't want a conviction, or you're innocent but settlement costs less than a full defense, or - the worst - the government knows you're innocent but is hoping you'll go for settlement instead of a full defense.

2. wealthy people can buy their way out of criminal convictions, whereas the poor cannot. that is unjust.

3. settlements allow corporations to protect its employees from responsibility for their actions; of course that's the purpose of a corporation but settlements allow the business to continue as usual, whereas a conviction would allow a higher penalty and possibly the end of that corporation's right to exist which means the punishment to the employees would be the loss of benefits and possibly loss of a job.