I believe that this is largely an unintended side-effect of the democratization of the capital markets and specifically the stock markets. Before companies like Schwab opened the stock market to household investors, the ownership profile for publicly-traded companies typically included a handful of investors who as a group owned a large share of the company. Those investors could collaborate to chart a long-term course for the company. Compare that to Cisco, where no single investor owns more than 1% of the company (or thereabouts). In essence, "the market" owns Cisco. And the market has a very short-term perspective.

One of the parents was quoted as saying "[school district officials] are culpable and they have the gall to go on the record and say they haven't had any doctor's notes. Well what doctor has been schooled about the rate of microwave infections?"

A few weeks ago, a bunch of my neighbors got together to discuss a proposed T-Mobile base station on our street. The host invited someone to talk about the dangers of dirty electricity, whatever that is. Might as well have been ectoplasm.

The irony is that RF exposure may very well cause physiological effects at the exposure levels we're talking about here. Most of the studies I've read about seemed pretty lousy (small sample size, self-reporting bias, etc) but there do seem to be a handful that at least suggest possible harm. Unfortunately, most of the people who are most vocal about this issue don't bother to inform themselves and end up sounding like complete idiots. Which makes the skeptics dig their heels in even more... witness the majority of the comments posted here.

Unfortunately, fear always trumps fact. And many skeptics would do well to be more skeptical about their own assumptions.

so the gap is on the top of the phone?

"Infringed". If taken literally, that would mean that the people could keep and bear RPGs, tanks, mustard gas, sarin, cruise missiles, radiological weapons, nukes, EMPs, weaponized anthrax, etc. The framers could not have imagined the immense destruction that a single individual could wreak with modern weaponry. Most people seem to agree that the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed just a little. The question of where to draw that line is a perfectly valid one.

I'd argue that the keeping and bearing of arms can sometimes contribute to erosion of freedoms, due to the level of surveillance and control needed to prevent the crazies from misusing said arms. When people feel unsafe, they tend to grant their government wide latitude to abridge their freedoms in order to protect them. Those of you over, say, 35 or so will remember a time when you didn't have to undergo a pat-down on your way to your locker. Administrators didn't spy on kids, kids didn't get expelled for taking Tylenol, kids didn't get charged with child pornography for taking nudie pictures of themselves. I think those things are indirect results of the heightened atmosphere of fear and increased surveillance that were the popular response to school shootings.