Topic moved to high moderation status.

Mass media stampts and just unfounded slogans are not allowed. Arguments backed by facts are fine.

It's highly unlikely, for example, that Al Gore (had he been elected in 2000) would have invaded Iraq. Try telling millions of Iraqis, and the hundreds of thousands of dead bodies attributed to that invasion, that U.S. presidential elections have no consequences.

Odd. I made this exact point to VK tonight in email.

This is bad point, really bad. As it is just pointless assumptions.

True, it's speculation, although there's documentary proof that the Bush team had plans to invade Iraq well before he was actually elected (and long before September 11, 2001). Unlike a lot of American foreign policy, which persists no matter which party is in control, the obsession with Iraq was unique to Bush and his team.

However, there are other examples, though they may be of no interest to anyone outside the U.S. Social insurance, for example. Social Security, which was and is vehemently opposed by the American right-wing, has taken tens of million of people out of poverty. The fact that the center-right prevailed over the far right on this issue has undeniable consequences in the daily life of many, many people.

And as for Social security, I won't be so sure, as looking at all charts and statistics it just means that this guys spent things that belong to their ancestors, not them.

System has worked this way for a long time and it's based on solid moral foundation as far as I'm concerned. I'm not so selfish that I think benefits should only be for the generation currently paying the bills. Perhaps we should make 8 yearolds pay their way through public schools? I mean how dare they expect MY generation to finance them!

I think nothing will convince you that politicians in USA ascribe to different policies that have different consequences for people. Seems like a simple thing to accept when evidence is all over the place.

Vitaliy's remarks brought to mind an insightful article I read recently that explored the contrast between the American conception of "civil rights" versus the Socialist conception of "human rights":

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/201282972539153865.html

Here's the relevant quote:

The US insisted that having the right to work, to free or universally affordable healthcare, free education, daycare and housing (which the Soviet system granted in the USSR and across Eastern Europe as substantive and not merely as formal rights) are not human rights at all. The Soviets, in the tradition of socialism, insisted they were essential for human life and dignity and that the Western enumeration of the rights to free speech, free association, free movement, freedom to form political parties, etc., were "political" and "civil" and not "human" rights. In reality in the West, they were only formal and not substantive rights, except for the upper echelons of society and those who owned the media and could access it and who could fund election campaigns, etc.

Moreover the Soviets argued that it was essential for humans to have human rights in order to be able to access civil and political rights in a substantive manner and that granting formal civil and political rights while denying substantive human rights amounted to granting no rights at all.

Of course, what we've seen on both sides is that oligarchs in both capitalist and socialist societies have ways of making it quite costly for common folk to exercise the rights granted to them magnanimously in principle, but only meagerly in practice.

As for consequences, for people they can seem different,

Seem? The difference between eating well and going hungry is, for example, a mere detail?

Viewed through the lens of 500 years, maybe these distinctions don't matter. But the difference, for example, between living in the state of New York and the state of Alabama can, for some, be enormous -- the difference between life and death. Who's to say these differences are trivial?

Maybe these capitalist systems can't be reformed, but to say that government in capitalist societies doesn't matter, because capitalism is inherently depraved, admits of no distinctions of any kind, when we see very clear distinctions -- for example, the difference between life in the U.S. and life in France, which is again, one of life and death, for some (free-market medical care versus free medical care), though both are capitalist countries. What makes for the difference, except government?

Was a Texas Student Really Expelled for Refusing To Wear an RFID Chip?

But those demonizing the district have ignored one key fact that could keep the case from being the big test of religious freedom, student privacy, and government surveillance that some media reports are making it out to be. The school isn’t actually expelling—or suspending, as some outlets have it—Hernandez for refusing to wear the electronic tracking chip. District officials have repeatedly offered to let Hernandez come to school wearing an identification card from which the RFID chip and battery have been removed.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/11/30/rfid_in_texas_schools_was_andrea_hernandez_expelled_for_refusing_to_wear.html

---

Dystopian Futures:

A New Panopticon For The Age Of Prison Labor

http://cargocollective.com/alexiskalli#HMPark-Life

http://www.alternet.org/print/our-future-going-be-keeping-rich-people-happy-servant-economy

This is when it becomes obvious that people are not bothering to read the links I put up i my first post. ;)

Guys, both these points were addressed in the articles I linked to on day 1.

EDIT: @jleo The very article you mention has Gonazalez denying a (very important if true) claim by Andrea Hernadez's father that his daughter would only be allowed to attend if they stopped criticizing the program.

The Hernadez family claims that Andrea Hernandez was only offered the option after she'd been threatened with expulsion, as well as had been obstructed in her attempts to vote in a student election and prevented from organizing petitions against the program.

I am not saying that one story is right and the other is wrong. Part of the reason for this discussion is that it's controversial what the truth actually is. If you want to give greater weight to the school authority than the family of the student, I can respect that. But to treat at as a revelation seems odd when it was addressed in the earliest articles on the topic. :)

If the claims by the Hernandez family are true, then the school is guilty of illegal coercion and suppression. Whether those issues will be address in a trial is secondary to whether the school is held accountable. If the claims by Gonzalez are true, then the Hernandez family may be guilty of slander.

I'd much rather find out more about the situation than take either party's (inherently self-serving) word for it. Either story seems plausible: if Gonzalez is guilty of the behavior the Hernandez family accuses him of, then his career could come to a very abrupt halt if he did not try to do some damage control. Conversely, the Hernandez family could be motivated by a desire for attention or the spotlight to fabricate controversy (or they could be legitimately convinced that the card violates their beliefs but fabricating stories about Gonzalez behavior in order to try to pressure the school to do things their own way).

The thing is that regardless of which of them is telling the truth, there are several points that are not challenged as of yet.

1) The school has followed-up a program of surveillance that covers over 200 cameras on their school grounds with additional tracking measures.

2) The school has indicated that it plans to use the IDs to track the eating habits of the students (without any indication that the students or parents were presented with the option to opt out ahead of time).

3) No evidence has been presented to undermine the claims by the Hernandez family at this time - only disagreeing comments by Gonzalez about the timing and conditions.

@goanna Actually, since the accusations were originally made to the media, not in court, slander would be accurate. But that's neither here nor there.

Your second point is really the meat and potatoes of the issue. This is happening in too many times and places where the media can't seem to be bothered to give the full story.

A perfectly adequate title for the real story here might be

High School Requires Students to Wear Location Tracking RFIDs

Now, it may indeed be true - or that a student refusing to comply might have received a threat - or that the student's family might have issued a press release to further an agenda of their own...

It really is interesting to see how quickly myths can be put to bed: in each of ABC TV's weekly 15-minute Media Watch episodes, the hidden halves of a number of the week's stories are revealed - often after a simple phone call buy one of the ABC researchers.