First thing I'd do if my kid came home with one of these is toss it in the microwave for 5 min on high!

ACLU Criticizes Plan to Electronically Track Middletown Students
Monday, January 07, 2008


PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A civil liberties group is criticizing a plan in Middletown to track the movements of elementary school students by attaching computer chips to their backpacks.

The Rhode Island chapter of the ACLU says the pilot program to track students from the Aquidneck School when they're riding the bus to and from school raises enormous privacy and security concerns.

A similar proposal in Northern California was abandoned after protests by parents and privacy advocates.

Superintendent Rosemarie Kraeger says the program will be in place January 17 and they'll try it for a few months. She says they're hoping it improves communication with parents and keeps better track of students.

A spokeswoman for the company that makes the system says it will only be used to track children on buses. She says the tags only contain an ID number and can't be used by anyone outside the school to get a student's name or address.

Actually there are a lot of cases where the ACLU sides with people who wind up being on the conservative end of the political spectrum, such as when the ACLU stands up for religious freedom. But ACLU-haters ignore these cases because they interfere with their "ACLU is a liberal atheist America-haters group" mindset.

When it comes down to it, the ACLU stands up for the Constitution, period. Sometimes the ACLU winds up defending some real scumbags, but they are concerned about the larger constitutional issues. Take away a scumbag's constitutional rights and yours are next.

Andrew

Well I agree that this is a bad idea. As a parent I would certainly have problems with my kids having computer chips to track them.

Thankfully our days with school buses are over.

I absolutely would not go along with this.

Actually would just locate the chip and get rid of it. It's our back back, therefore, our choice, period.

If the school were handing out back packs, and did not allow any others, then there might be a case for this. (not a good one, but there would be one, given they could make a defensible case for only allowing school issue back packs)

Personally, I think these kinds of ideas are trying to get around the simple human problem solving necessary to keep the school sane and safe.

"ACLU is a liberal atheist America-haters group.."

You're being a tad charitable with that description of those who challenge the aclu.
The aclu is far worse than that.

You left out 'diabolical,' along with 'defenders of nazis and those who promote child pornography.'

Herb

It's not surprising that those that are willing to piss on the Constitution don't like the ACLU.

Andrew nailed it! "Equal under the law" applies to all citizens, like it or not. Protecting the civil rights of the most distasteful members of society (NOT their actions) is one of the things that makes the US special.

Those that do not understand the aims of the ACLU do not understand what it is to be an American.

It's still a free country, so go ahead and defend the diabolical, who meanwhile have the gall to drape themselves with the American flag.

Our heroic veterans didn't die so some slimeball could urinate on the flag whom they gave their very lives defending, or to those who peddle kiddie porn, or promote nazism.

Herb

You prove my point.

On Edit:
"It's still a free country"
It is as long as we have organizations like the ACLU figting to keep it that way.

Everything else aside, you gotta admire Herb's consistency.

Absolutely stellar.

(and I do mean that in the nicest of ways!)

Those heroic veterans died to defend the Constitution! The same document you're willing to urinate on whilst wrapping yourself in the American flag. That's the sickest part about your position.

My uncle did not die in Vietnam nor did I serve there to protect a piece of cloth. Nor did my dad and uncles during WWII. The ideas of freedom were more important than and even more important now as neo-cons want to take them away. The flag is but a symbol. It serves us patriots and non-patriots alike. Salute it, burn it, my dead uncle, Dad, other uncles — and my wife — and I served to protect either choice.

Thank God the ACLU exists to protect TRUE AMERICANS from those who wish to trample the Constitution.

Constitution tramplers like the troll are COMMIES, desiring to shove their view, and only their view, down our throats.

This is one PROUD AMERICAN saying God Bless the ACLU!

Only straight-faced democrats can insist that by denigrating this nation's symbol of freedom, they are helping our nation.

God help us all.

Herb

P.S. Run, Mike Huckabee, Run.

I don't think legislating morality is American.

Advocating for a leader, who has made it more than clear he's gonna work hard to do that, is not in our best interests, despite how appealing the shorter term gain, in the form of one's moral positions being realized in the law, may be.

If we have reasonably balanced courts, and these matters fall under deliberation through them, and we get judgments, based off what we know at the time, I'm ok with that.

These things are malleable, and as we learn more, we improve our position and life gets better.

Honestly Herb, your support for packing right leaning judges is likely to be a worse assault on our freedom, than that you see being expressed with the flag. (And that goes for anybody doing the same thing, so it's not personal --you need to know that.)

Bending the courts one way or the other, with intent to realize some beliefs over others, without due consideration, degrades the freedom we all share. It is more than symbolic in that the consequences may well be many of us having to live lies, or spend more time than would otherwise be necessary, dealing with the simple matter of freedom.

We have a first amendment that permits a wide range of expression. Remember, it's only words, and they can only have the damage you think they do, and what all of us thinks matters, which is why we have the amendment in the first place.

We need the ACLU, for exactly these reasons. They take the cases that might infringe on freedom as a whole. If we didn't have them checking people with serious control issues, we would be considerably less free than we are today.

(and that's not as free as we were just a few years ago)

At the end of the day, any of us are likely to find some expression offensive, some belief to be indefensible, etc...

What we do as real Americans is deal! We talk about it, we deliberate it, we seek the facts surrounding it, and we engage in advocacy to others about it.

We don't just go off and legislate it, without a damn good reason, and "God says so", or "I find that horrible" just isn't a good enough reason.

We only limit speech when harm is proven without a doubt and said harm can be directly linked to the speech in question.

This goes for a lot of beliefs too. Lots of people believe lots of things, found in lots of places, in many times. Our law is built around the idea that we build it, vet it, and are all equally subject to it.

If we were to just start incorporating things we cannot back with facts and in general make a defensible case for, then we soon will be bound to a state of lesser freedom, that is equal to that subset of below ordinary actions not found offensive to anyone in particular.

That's not a free society, but a scared and selfish one. No thanks!

I can easily tolerate some foul speech. It's only a big deal if I want it to be. I cannot so easily tolerate a bad, or offensive law. Nobody can, which is why we have norms!

Advocacy is fine, encouraged actually! Playing dirty pool to just get it legislated, whatever it may be, isn't. It harms us all, and on that basis alone, places such an action beyond the realm of pure speech, and into one easily characterized as "legislating morality".

Hate it, always will. Will go the absolute distance to prevent it. It isn't American in any form.

"Bending the courts...ONE WAY OR THE OTHER...[caps added] with intent to realize some beliefs over others, without due consideration, degrades the freedom we all share."

Now wait a minute. Can you seriously keep a straight face with that one? I mean, really.

FDR, admittedly one of the great liberals, packed the supreme court unashamedly. And from then to now, it has become as much a liberal tradition as any.

What we're left with from democrats is that if it's THEIR candidate, then packing the court to liberal viewpoints is fine. But don't try this if you're a conservative.

It honestly reminds me of Ted Kennedy, Mr. green Leftist himself, strenuously opposing any windmills near his compound. In other words, and not even including Chappaquiddick, it's 'Do as I say, don't do as I do.'

I'm trying not to laugh, but sometimes democrats make it very difficult to listen to you guys with a straight face.

Herbert Milhous

No one is laughing. The ACLU ensures that the Constitution is protected from people like the COMMIE TROLL and his anti-American hatred way of stifling things he does not like.

The ACLU helps Americans remain proud of their GREAT country -- the United States of America!

God is greatly impressed with the ACLU and their desire for Americans to have a rightful opportunity choose whatever God or non-God to worship without any interference from commie trolls.

We are twice blessed indeed!

Herb writes:

You're being a tad charitable with that description of those who challenge the aclu.
The aclu is far worse than that.


You think that of ANYONE who disagrees with your ultra-right wing positions. I for one am grateful for the ACLU. They do a hell of a lot more to protect my liberties than your hero in the white house.

"FDR, admittedly one of the great liberals, packed the supreme court unashamedly. And from then to now, it has become as much a liberal tradition as any."

Different time Herb, different issues.

I for one would not want a totally left leaning Supreme Court. I want a court that views each case for what it is and looks at the laws on the books and not political agendas and personal preferences.

You’re very good at bringing up the past, which should only be a guideline and not a directive of how we should run things today.

"...without due consideration..."

What the heck does that even mean, Missing, unless it's code for 'think like the left or you're outta here.'

Herb

"without due consideration"

Means an inclusive and robust debate among the people.

Put another way: One needs to consider more than ones own view as to a given persons merit, where being appointed to a court position is concerned.

Ideally, we've a court full of rational people, willing to reason their way through their judgments.

Any court packing is simply unacceptable --and that means any --be it left or right. We need both, and some other positions as well.

I don't want anybody thinking a specific way. What I do want --and believe we all need, is for people to be rational and to do the work necessary for their positions to be defensible.

Now, that's a tall order for a very large segment of the population. If it wasn't, we quite simply would not be in half of the messes we currently are in.

Of course, that is also exactly why we have courts! They help us to sort these things out, and do it in a structured way, that's traceable back to common law, and before that even.

This is an absolute core thing with me.

Giving someone, or something, their, or it's due consideration means having the balls to put up your best reasoning, and to also consume the best of your peers. It means having the strength of character necessary to understand a point well taken, and abide by what that means --or defer that, barring there is some additional work done to balance the score.

Rendering a court full of like minded people does us absolutely no good.

Where we have established truth, things are fairly clear, and like minded really means those who understand what we know to be true, and what we don't know to be true.

Where we have no established truth, the best we can do is robust debate. From there, we reach a balance all can live with.

That too is a core thing with me.

Acceptance of the reality of our ignorance on a great many things is difficult, but it is necessary if one is to get along with others and act in a rational way.

It also means listening as well as talking. As I have written here many times, real conversations --where the self is exposed, and change is on the table, are not easy conversations! The idea that any of us might just not have it right, is not an easy idea to deal with, thus it is largely ignored.

We need these things because NONE OF US HAVE IT RIGHT. None. When we work together, put our best reasoning and understanding to the test, we then improve one another and our collective understanding grows.

Between us peers here, on this wonderful board, we do this because it matters to us, for whatever reason. I've learned so much --I can't even describe! Some of that has changed me, some of it hasn't. This churning of ideas and passion then set the stage for greater things to come.

Between us, in the courts, it's serious game then. The stakes go right to the core of who we are, what we are permitted to do and not do, and our mutual respect for and being subject to the law, serves as a strong incentive to not abuse the system, or risk the consequences that may come for the ride.

It is those unknown consequenses --implications, that we all know are there, that (should) drive us to honor the system in the best way we can. Too much to lose to do otherwise.

Sadly, there exists a lot of us, not willing to stand up and deal with that reality. Instead, we just push hard for our way, or no way, thinking that if we can plant the flag first, no other will dare follow!

In the short term, this is quite likely true. In the longer term, reason always trumps this stuff, there are big corrections and we leap forward, only to be nudged back one ignorant, but passionate person at a time.

We do suck at times, and that's one of our worst times.

Due consideration, is something received, when given in earnest, and true.

Put into the context of this discussion then, it means we've got an unbalanced court, we all know it, and should work to fix it and keep it fixed, NO MATTER WHAT. The fact that we don't means greed and self-interest trump our civic obligations to one another, and we suffer diminished self-governance as a result.

Aw, it just sounds like an attempt to justify when the left wins. Then, all they need do is to declare that there was sufficient debate, or consideration, or that the 'people have spoken,' declare a mandate, and they're off...little different than the party they so vigorously oppose.

The problem with what you lay out is that it's all grey. Like playing tennis with no boundaries. But then again, to secular progressives, grey is what is appears to be what it's all about. How else could they support some of their positions?

Herb

Only straight-faced democrats can insist that by denigrating this nation's symbol of freedom, they are helping our nation.

So when DUHbya and Co. piss all over the Constitution you're happy?

"The problem with what you lay out is that it's all grey."

World's grey, Herb. That's why we have courts. Wouldn't need them if the world was black and white.

If this board was being monitored and all of our discussions deemed dangerous and /or subversive, all of us could count on the ACLU for help in defending our civil rights. All of us. Don't think that you'd be "safe" because you support a particular position. Every participant would be under scrutiny, and the ACLU would be right there keeping watch.

Totally! That's perhaps one of the most important things the ACLU does.

They too, are not always right. Cases are lost. The important thing is they are argued.

Re: To justify when the left wins.

Man... It's not a left-vs-right thing! We all have our leanings, this way or that. The important point of note is this:

None of us are entitled to that win! That's what the debate is for. And that's Ed's grey world right there.

The most important part about any conversation, and the courts are a very formal and structured conversation, is the expectation that we will be better for it. We cannot harbor that expectation, if we do not exchange what we think we know, vet it, and come to greater realizations about it.

Again, nobody has it all right. Nobody. Additionally, there are many things where we simply do not possess the understanding required to establish "the right way".

On these matters, the best we can do is reach a defensible state. From there, it's a matter of value judgments and we are all free in this.

And that's why I encourage advocacy and real conversations, over leveraging means and methods that circumvent them. I want the freedom to do the right thing, as often as is possible.

That's not gonna happen if we are not having those conversations regularly. (courts deliberating, people talking advocacy, legislators representing us, etc...)

Say the left wins, or the right wins. Given neither extreme position is correct, we then suffer diminished choice in our lives --and it's for no good reason, other than some others wanted it that way.

To me, that's simply not defensible, and is always subject to challenge. If I am to submit, there had damn well be a good reason, otherwise, I think I would prefer to choose.

Will I be better off for it? Maybe. Will my fellow people? Maybe, but here's the kicker:

,if that choice is made for me, or anybody really, would I be better off?

MAYBE!

Will my fellow people be better off?

MAYBE!

That right there is the primary reason why it is justified to keep law to a minimum, and personal choice high. We don't know the result is the best result, either way; therefore, we have little reason to keep people from making their own damn choices in life.

The default state of any one of us is freedom. We get to think what we want, do what we want, etc..

When we apply law, norms, money, physics to constrain that, there must be a matter of property or harm that is addressed for our greater good, or said constraint is unjustified.

To circle back around then, having any side dominate is not good! Freedom is always diminished without solid justification. One could argue also that said over-constraint limits our potential, and we all suffer as a result of that.

To put this back on topic, the ACLU provides a very necessary service; namely, empowering most anyone to bring a case to court (participate in the conversation), when they believe their rights have been infringed on, whatever they think they are.

This keeps the more substantial people (and entities) among us, from constraining others without first demonstrating it is necessary. Interestingly, the people most vocal and opposed to what the ACLU does and stands for, are those with the most control issues!

They are the ones, who want all the choices made and decided, despite us not being in a position to justify doing so!

That's not ok, because it simply does not answer the question, "why?"

Before submitting to the will of another, we all deserve a solid answer to that question, or we lack the self-respect necessary for any of it to matter.

"...It's not a left-vs-right thing..."

I wish it were true.

The fact is that time after time, the vast majority of the aclu's positions are left-leaning if not downright subversive to our nation. They fight to remove the Bible, yet fiercely defend child pornographers.

It is a left vs. right thing. I wish it weren't so, as people of faith could use some help.

Herb

If defending the Constitution is left leaning, then sobeit.

Try attaching yourself to child pornographers and you'll find that even loyal democrats will let you twist in the wind.

There remains some hope for the democrat party.

Herb

Herb I think you have proven Missing's point. Your view of the ACLU is left leaning thus it will always be a rub to you.

Also, just for my sake due to ignorance, give me a couple of instances that I can research myself where the ACLU has fought to remove the bible and fiercely defended child pornographers. A couple a links would be nice.

Thanks in advance.

"...Your view of the ACLU is left leaning.."

Chris, it's because the aclu IS left-leaning. That was the whole point.

http://libertyblogs.blogspot.com/2007/04/gideon-bible-distribution-in-public.htm l

http://blog.nola.com/tangipahoaview/2007/05/aclu_sues_tangi_school_board_f.html

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/16/123428.php

Herb

Gideon Bible Distribution in Public Schools: What if students where distributing material to other students on school property discussing gay issues? Or how about pro-abortion material? Where do you draw the line? The bible, and any other publication advocating controversial material should not be allowed on school property. The Constitution requires equal treatment, and allowing the bible and not other material while on public property is unconstitutional. Constitution 1 Herb 0

Tangipahoa Parish School: Allowing one group to pass out bibles to all students on school property is a direct violation of The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which requires government neutrality in matters of religion and non-religion to prevent tyranny by the majority. Schools are public property, big no no and clear cut, case closed. Constitution 2 Herb 0

In 1982, the ACLU became involved in a case involving the distribution of child pornography (New York v. Ferber)[80] In an amicus brief, the ACLU argued that the law in question "has criminalized the dissemination, sale or display of constitutionally protected non-obscene materials which portray juveniles in sexually related roles," while arguing that child pornography deemed obscene under the Miller test deserved no constitutional protection and could be banned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union

Constitution 3 Herb 0

Hey, while we are talking bibles 'n kids, answer this question:

Doesn't everybody deserve their day in court? We give defense attorneys to every scum bag who asks for one, right?

Do we want to "stop defense attorneys" because they defend scumbags?

Chris, it's because the aclu IS left-leaning. That was the whole point.

Herb...
LIFE is left leaning when we are young until YOUR taught or TRAINED to be EXTREME RIGHT!

Yeah, that's right KSKD, why isn't the hypocritical troll on the Hate The Left-Leaning Defense Lawyers bandwagon?

Toddlers are more consistant than the PDXradio troll.

Try attaching yourself to child pornographers and you'll find that even loyal democrats will let you twist in the wind.

I LOVE your stereotyping it's so..... GD STUPID! What in the F does twist in the wind mean?
If you find an EXTREME RIGHTIE you'll find a DIS-honest, lie to your face CON artists that would sell his OWN country to COMMIES!
Stick that in YOUR made up Constitution and smoke it.