Homeless to be Implanted with Subdermal RFID Tags

An anonymous reader writes "Politech has the scoop on the Bush administration's plans to forcibly implant RFID tags into homeless people in participating U.S. cities. Here's an excerpt from the UPI article: "The miniscule RFID tags are no larger than a matchstick and will be implanted subdermally, meaning under the skin. Data from RFID tracking stations mounted on telephone poles will be transmitted to police and social service workers, who will use custom Windows NT software to track movements of the homeless in real time... A second phase of the project, scheduled to be completed in early 2005, will wirelessly transmit live information on the locations of homeless people to handheld computers running the Windows CE operating system.""

Comments

Re:BZZZZT!

[Doc Ruby]

Here's 1 reason FOR Kerry: he voted FOR the Iraq Jr War, then AGAINST it. In between, Kerry, like the rest of us (who were willing) learned that the war was initiated on a fraud, imminent WMD. And he learned that it would be prosecuted as a quagmire, succeeding only in the personal vendetta of dethroning Saddam. He also learned that the al Qaeda connection was a fraud, the only al Qaeda presence was in Kurdish (Saddam-free) northern Iraq.

So he exercised the control he's charged with as a Senator: protecting national security, and forcing an exit strategy. Which has been thwarted by the Bush-aligned Republican Congress. Note that this reflects Kerry's other best-known military experience. He volunteered to lead real, dangerous combat missions in Vietnam when it was still possible to trust the White House about its necessity, legality, and winnability. After he learned *firsthand* that the war was a fraud, he continued to work within the system to end it. I don't know that I could keep my own ability to back the government in pursuing another war after an experience like that, but Kerry did - which is why I prefer him to be President, at least over *me* :).

But this election, like every other in the US, is about choices. The "perfect" is the enemy of the merely good. I am not a registered Democrat (nor Republican, I'm registered as "none of your business"). But I am a registered American Slashdotter, and their opposition on the Iraq Jr War is a touchstone for more reasons to vote for Kerry.

The parties' primary process has produced 2 men who will represent you and I in prosecuting wars to protect America's security, in a time when it is a total reality. At the beginning their careers', they took separate paths among the total range of options available to them as sons of powerful families. One risked his life, sustaining injuries and earning medals for valor, which didn't hold him back from working to end that war when he returned, at risk to his career. Antiwar, despite retrospective documentaries to the contrary, was not only very unpopular in the beginning, it was a good way to get fired, beat up, run out of town, etc. But he took the risk for what he knew was right, and helped the rest of us learn what was right, and how to do it. The other man avoided combat, screwed up even the safe, supercool flying assignment he scored, in order to moonlight in politics for a failed candidate and party. Even now, he avoids investigations into his dereliction of service, using political power to destroy documents, ad hominem discredit critics, and destroy public discourse with media manipulation.

These wildly divergent experiences as youths set the tone for the contrast between the two men here at the ends of their careers. One took a stand at odds with his past experience with wars manufactured by the White House, at odds with his own career and record as a warender, and across party lines in the most partisan environment in our lifetimes. Because the government he swore to uphold gave him the reasons to back a war. When it became clear that those reasons were lies or merely proven false in the face of experience, he worked to end it. The other man has denied any responsibility for the mistakes, even those he himself made, and lies to keep Americans and Iraqis dying daily, even as he neglects the war we all were forced to agree is necessary: on al Qaeda.

There has never been a clearer choice in our lifetimes between candidates for President. As constituents in a democratic republic, we bear responsibilty for our choices at the polls. And with so much at stake, not just in Iraq, but everywhere else as the nation with a near-monopoly on world power and so much transition domestically, we will immediately bear the consequences of our choices. Work with our many natural allies in a stable global marketplace, or more war on personal enemies of a dynasty? Focused counterterrorism to destroy al Qaeda, and the threat of terrorists to our security, or neglect that spawns legions of

Re:BZZZZT!

[Casualposter]

Yes I can give you one reason for voting for Kerry and against Bush: Kerry actually served in Vietnam and got wounded, Bush kinda sorta served in the TX national gaurd when he wasn't on leave to campaign, and I suspect that if he had not been a BUSH, he'd have been in trouble for missing so much drill.

All of the other reasons I have are just against BUSH and his war, corruption, and liberal spending habits.

I guess that I'd also add that a guy who married rich is a bit better than one who got there because his daddy's friends owed his daddy favors. But only a tiny bit. I mean, Kerry had to woo the rich girl to get her to marry him so there was some effort involved. Bush just sorta showed up and cashed the checks.

As to clinton's job as Pres. Not bad considering that all he had to do was not screw up the stuff the previous adminstrations had built. Better a BJ in the white house and a semen stained dress than 11,000 "medical evacuations from the theater of action" and blood stained uniorms.