Really? This was in the Stimulus Bill?

More and more power accumulating to the Federal government. And we sit here, watching. I don't think there is any turning back from tyranny at this point. It's sad. This used to be such a good country.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...-rss&FEEDNAME=

1984, Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm, The Forever War, etc., in some form have all become reality.

There is always a return from the edge of the precipice. It will just get more bloody as time goes by. Hopefully it will be a bloodless revolution which will probably be hijacked by the worst kind of people. Then we get more of the same but worse. That is the thing about violence and revolution. You only pay attention to people who have skin in the game. Someone who sat by the sidelines with nothing on the line has no place at the table. The founders, many of who didn't fight, put their necks in the noose when they signed the declaration against England. They had skin in the game. After the Civil War, World War I, and World War II we elected soldiers, sailors, and airmen to office. Between wars we elect pretty boys, smooth talkers, and assholes. People whose idea of putting something on the line is to take a controversial stance on puppies.

We have gone too far, I think. The people don't care as long as they can get cable, and pizza delivered in 30 minutes or less. It will take a disaster to wake them up. There is one coming, and no one wants to prevent it. Those in power are positioning themselves to have more power after the collapse. We will have to get used to living in a dictatorship, I'm afraid.

Where are the Obamazombies to tell us how wonderful the stimulus bill was?

More and more power accumulating to the Federal government. And we sit here, watching. I don't think there is any turning back from tyranny at this point. It's sad. This used to be such a good country.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...-rss&FEEDNAME=

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

What is sad is that you base your doom and gloom on an op/ed piece. An op/ed piece that supplies no links to any of the claims it makes. A common trait when no supporting info is available. Instead of sitting there and watching, you could have googled. You did no research whatsoever. The stimulus money was to buy software (that is at Rev. 3 now) and hardware.

The project was started in 2005 (Obama didn’t do it.)
http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pdf/comp_exec_summ.pdf

From the link you posted.

Would it bother you to know that the federal Centers for Disease Control had been shown your daughter’s health records(the NEDM (Nat. Edu. Data Model) does not have anything to do with health records other than possibly vaccinations. Your doctor has your health records) to see how she responded to an STD/teen-pregnancy-prevention program? How about if the federal Department of Education and Department of Labor scrutinized your son’s academic performance to see if he should be “encouraged” (this one doesn’t make sense. Look at how many drop-outs attend vocational school. Most require a GED) to leave high school early to learn a trade?



“The administration wants this data to include much more than name, address and test scores. According to the National Data Collection Model, the government should collect information on health-care history (if there are any learning disabilities), family income (if they are economically disadvantaged) and family voting status (location of home or migrant status.)”

he department’s eagerness to get control of all this information is almost palpable. But current federal law prohibits a nationwide student database (all they have to do is get all 50 states to cooperateand not let thousands of potential whistle blowers to squeal)) and strictly limits disclosure of a student’s personal information (still does). So the department has determined that it can overcome the legal obstacles by simply bypassing Congress and essentially rewriting the federal privacy statute (Bullshit. It is using the legal process for changing a statute).


Last April, the department proposed regulations that would allow it and other agencies to share a student’s personal information with practically any government agency (wrong. Control is maintained at the state or local level. They decide whether to release the information. See below) or even private company, as long as the disclosure could be said to support an evaluation of an “education program,” broadly defined. That’s how the CDC might end up with your daughter’s health records(no) or the Department of Labor with your son’s test scores (maybe, who cares. The people who want to see Obama’s test scores should have no problem with this.).

Current Regulations: The term
authorized representative, which is
used in current §§ 99.31(a)(3) and
99.35(a)(1), is not defined in the current
regulations. Current §§ 99.31(a)(3) and
99.35(a)(1), together, implement
sections (b)(1)(C), (b)(3) and (b)(5) of
FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(C), (b)(3)
and (b)(5)).
Proposed Regulations: We propose to
amend § 99.3 to add a definition of the
term authorized representative. Under
the proposed definition, an authorized
representative would mean any entity or
individual designated by a State or local
educational authority or agency headed
by an official listed in § 99.31(a)(3) to
conduct—with respect to Federal or
State supported education programs—
any audit, evaluation, or compliance or
enforcement activity in connection with
Federal legal requirements that relate to
those programs.
In order to help ensure proper
implementation of FERPA requirements
that protect student privacy, we also
propose to amend § 99.35 (What
conditions apply to disclosure of
information for Federal or State program
purposes?). Specifically, we would
provide, in proposed § 99.35(a)(2), that
responsibility remains with the State or
local educational authority or agency
headed by an official listed in
§ 99.31(a)(3) to use reasonable methods
to ensure that any entity designated as
its authorized representative remains
compliant with FERPA.

Here are the old regulations with all proposed changes.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-08/pdf/2011-8205.pdf


This is the website for the author of the op/ed. Yep, a fringe wingnut. One of the orgs big pushes right now is for gender-based abortion. They quote a study but not where it can be found.
http://americanprinciplesproject.org/2011/08/about-the-preserve-innocence-project/


This shows the collected data types
http://nces.ed.gov/forum/datamodel/files/NEDM_State_Core_021710.pdf

Plus if you read your mail, every year you get a bunch of privacy statements. You have the ability to opt out of many systems.

A bonus for all the nay-sayers. This site show where the stimulus money went (or is going) and details the jobs created by it.

http://www.recovery.gov/pages/TextViewProjSummary.aspx?data= recipientAwardsList&sort=Agenc yName&order=asc

Verizon certainly took advantage of a stimulus check. Verizon laid a FIOS fiber optic cable across the street from me two years ago, about six miles of fiber optic cable. Its not hooked up or attached to anything, its just in the ground.

Verizon certainly took advantage of a stimulus check. Verizon laid a FIOS fiber optic cable across the street from me two years ago, about six miles of fiber optic cable. Its not hooked up or attached to anything, its just in the ground. Originally Posted by pyramider

So we know where that money is.

You know if they are spending a trillion bucks that some will be less than well spent.

But at least the 2 guys who work and the other 4 that stand around kept their jobs.

I think you're reading the regulation wrong. It is one thing to cut and paste, quite another to understand. I think the regulation says pretty much what the author of the original piece said. But then, I used to write those things on a state level, and I know how to read them.

Munch, please don't post unless you know what you are talking about. Wait, then you would never post. Hmmm . . . a quandary.

I think you're reading the regulation wrong. It is one thing to cut and paste, quite another to understand. I think the regulation says pretty much what the author of the original piece said. But then, I used to write those things on a state level, and I know how to read them.

Munch, please don't post unless you know what you are talking about. Wait, then you would never post. Hmmm . . . a quandary. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So you can sum up my entire post and every point I made with a "I think the regulation...".
You don't have any examples.
You didn't read the data fields in the NEDM.
Did you look at the org the author represents and the likely issues he would have with the changes?
Do you even know what changes were made?

Most of the points I made had nothing to do with the new statute. They came from the documentation for the software and explain what is in it. The language of the statute is straightforward. It is clearly written and the format is easy to follow.

You have demonstrated nothing that would indicate the expertise you claim.
Although you do admit that the statutes are changed as needed you missed the part where the author claimed changes were illegally made. He lied about something you are supposed to be an expert on and you didn't catch it.

I am calling you a piece of horseshit. Post something that proves me wrong. Back up any part of what you posted with some fact

If you wrote then like you do now, you were way over paid.

PS There is another thread you need to read. You can use duct tape to hold the tongue depressors you use to pretend you aren't a limp dick.
Do you care yet?

Nope.

Nope. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

K

Alrighty then. Can't say that I care.

Alrighty then. Can't say that I care. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

In your long and productive career, have you ever sucked a dick bigger than mine?
Or don't you care about size, either?

I really don't care how big your dick is. Maybe you can get WTF to suck it for you, I prefer women as sex partners, but that's just me.