@chazzmoe

Next time you get on a highway, bridge, fill up your car with government-subsidized gas, eat vegetables trucked in from California, cheer on the U.S. military, turn on the lights, call the fire-dept., receive medical care, drink clean water, etc., the best thing might be to stop what you're doing, because none of those services, all subsidized or paid for by the government, could have been supplied with the level of taxation collected in the 1776. Even your Gh2 is doubtful, without government-funded research, and this conversation wouldn't be happening without massive U.S. government investment in the internet.

As for rewriting history, our conservative friends insist on telling us that God inspired the constitution and that our forefathers were ever bit as reactionary as they are, but history does not support that view. Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, etc. took their inspiration from Voltaire and Rousseau, both of whom believed in the "social contract", not Grover Norquist or Pat Robertson. It's true that there were some reactionaries in the bunch -- John Jay is famous for insisting that "those who own the country ought to govern it" -- but he was something of an outlier at the time, already fighting against the lazy rabble who love to starve but who still insist on voting and ruining everything for all us hard-working folks.

backroom RFID abortion clinics will sprout up everywhere. :)

If the United states forefathers knew people that worked for a living would be taxed at 26-50% (when state taxes added to federal) they would have stayed at their home countries...

Really? The issue at the time of the American revolution was "taxation without representation", but our "forefathers" never questioned the right or ability of the State to collect taxes. The forefathers were, after all, inspired by the writings of the European Enlightenment ("big government", the "nanny state"), as clearly seen in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

And while it's true that many Americans would rather go hungry than give up their guns (or maybe just keep their guns and want other people to go hungry), the number prepared to fight for actual rights would appear to be pitifully small.

Some people are afraid of liberty and freedom.

Thing is "liberty and freedom" have exactly zero value by themselfs. I can say more - most of the time they have negative value.

Let't make an example. US is cutting all food stamps, all unemployment spending. And provide complete freedom..to find food by yourself, in waste, as in Spain. I am sure all will be really happy and grateful.

The federal district judge ruled that the John Jay High School principal, Robert Harris, violated Andrea Hernandez's constitutional rights. So step one in her favor, but the process is still in the early stages.

Also, the issue is more widespread as I was not previously aware of several of the incidents discussed in this article (including the one where at least one teacher monitored a student at home via their laptop, though not using RFID technology, etc.). http://patriotpost.us/opinion/15644

The school could have saved all the money they spent on tracking devices and just followed the kids around using their own phones' geolocating service.A "My Kool Skool" app and they're all yours, up to and including access to who they're seeing, what they're googling ...

http://donttrack.us/

The 9/11 lie and the so-called "never ending war on terror" has been used to justify the loss of a great many civil liberties and much more is yet to come.

All I'm saying is, even if every word of the second two paragraphs is true, that does not mean the first one will be.

Thank about how often companies, actors or politicians try to come off as "being discerning" or "protecting their constituency" when all they are doing is attacking opponent for the purpose of promoting themselves? There is no inherent reason why a company cannot give the appearance of being "on someone's side" by speaking out on an issue that does not otherwise directly affect them in order to have more leeway in dealing with areas of greater importance to them.

Companies are neither inherently good nor bad. They are motivated by priorities that are often very different from those of their consumers, but that does not mean they will inherently act contrary to the interests of their consumers. It just means they won't typically do anything to help those consumers if they cannot see a clear benefit (with financial benefit being paramount, whether direct or indirect).

All I'm saying is, if companies want to manipulate the populace, they have often have an easier time doing so when their manipulation is less obvious so that it is more difficult to perceive and resist.

In some situations, a competing company (or competing industry) can be considered a very real threat. Increasing market-share while taking jabs at a competitor would be very tempting (and lucrative) for a number of companies. I'm not talking about idealism - just corporate strategy.

These are my own viewpoints, not those of my family, and should not be confused with their writings on the topics of their experiences while starting or running various Fortune 500 companies and doing consulting work for the Swedish, English and U.S. national governments.

I am neither confirming nor denying the control of the elite. I simply do not believe that policies will be embraced by a wide enough cross-section (whether they be considered elite or general populace) to facilitate their long-term implementation.

One of the most powerful lobbies in the United States is the National Rifle Association. Think about the NRA's position regarding gun control and the relationship of their perspective on personal liberty, choice and freedom. They represent one of the more conservative lobbies in the country. But consider that sometimes they end up on the same side of an issue as the American Civil Liberties Union (which is often considered to be one of the more left-wing liberal groups) in their respective attempts to protect individuals from what they feel to unfair government practices.

Think about the market economy as it relates to the various financial interests involved in this issue. On the one hand we have the electronics and telecom companies that could benefit from the increased sales and use of their product, from increased government markets - and alongside this we have the school administrators that may benefit more from funds under the current government policies. But there are a wide number of companies and individuals that could leverage their own brands, products and PR by appearing to be supporting students in "fighting the system" or show-boating politicians that want to gain the spotlight by making an issue of "big business intruding on our schools" or "the un-tested dangers of RFID on our children" etc. We are talking brands, movies, politicians, movie stars, etc. that could all increase their visibility (and in the process, their revenue and recognizability or political clout).

The telecom companies and mass media often expand as a result of the election cycles, but they are not the only political or market force in the country. Other large companies without a clearly defined interest in propagating these measures remain undecided. The largest private employers in the United States are not telecom companies: they are Walmart and McDonalds. Those two companies are likely to sit this political battle out - but they are examples of tremendous powers that are not inherently aligned with the implementation of RFID programs in schools.

All I'm saying is there are many potential influential players in this process that could oppose the trend. If they feel they can make more money or gain more influence by doing so, they will. And some of them may be uncomfortable with the rising power of companies like AT&T (cited in one of the articles above as providing RFID badges for programs like the one critiqued though not specifically to that program) that stand to benefit from these programs.

I understand the cynicism, I really do. But I don't fully share it. :)

This is happening in a country where some people choose to live on compounds rather than submit to certain forms of government intrusion and where the government has repeatedly been barred from impinging on most religious freedoms.

In previous decades, there have been periods of reaction against various real or perceived threats in the U.S. in the past that violated the rights of its citizens (the Japanese internment camps, the McCarthy hearings, etc.) The country eventually compensated for what it perceived to be an over-reaction to these threats. My hope (whether over-optimistic or not) is that the country's culture will not long tolerate a combined intrusion by both the schools and the companies providing the RFIDs into the unfair tracking of America's children without respect for the will of the parents.

Since the laws of the country are partially determined in large part by the percentage of people that vote and take action, it seems like the only way these measures can remain in place is if the majority of people are willing to accept them and take no action.

I don't think that needs to happen.