And they are all wrong as well...

Freedom of speech is for both the stuff you like, and the stuff you don't...

While the people there do have honest concerns about police being racist, the reality is that many of them are just "black vs. white" rather than addressing the issue itself.

And violent protests aren't helping. MLK made great progress for blacks without using violence, cudos to him.

I have to waste some mod points to give the reasons. The legislation bans consideration of research where all data is not publicly available without regard for which data is available - like public health studies with anonymized data [ucsusa.org].

This bill would make it impossible for the EPA to use many health studies, since they often contain private patient information that canâ(TM)t and shouldnâ(TM)t be revealed. Studies based on confidential business information would also be off-limits. Studies of human exposures to toxics over time and from a variety of locations likely cannot be reproduced. Neither can meta-analyses, looking at the results of hundreds of scientific studies to assess their conclusions. Such studies provide critical scientific evidence in many fields of research. This legislation wasnâ(TM)t designed to promote good scienceâ"it was crafted to prevent public health and environmental laws from being enforced.

So, you've got one guy on a political-agenda-driven website, who is not a lawyer, who says *in his opinion*, that's what the bill would do.

What specific parts/language of/in the bill forbids anonymized personal, individual data to be used in otherwise open and reproducible studies?

If the bill does contain such wording.language, if it were altered so that such pragmatic and practical concerns are handled, would you then support it?

Or is this just a vector of attack on a bill which you do not support the main intent (eliminating regulation-creation within Federal agencies/Depts with force of law based on secret studies/data) of?

Strat

Well, by that logic then this is relevant too:

http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com...

According to data published by the Social Security Administration, the name Hillary is the most severely poisoned baby name in history. Hillary had been steadily climbing the baby name charts since the 1960s, when it first graced the Top 1000, becoming the 136th most common name for baby girls in 1992. But the name sharply reversed course in 1993, smashing several longstanding records (Ebeneezer, Adolph) for name contamination in its plunge from the Top 1000 girl names last year.

I'd only add one point further: as much as Ike's prescient warning about the military-industrial complex is quoted ad nauseum, what is much less-often quoted is his comments immediately following that bit...

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

I'd beg to differ, as there was a long and fruitful conversation on quora about exactly this.
I read through at least the first 20 replies, and they're quite good.*

http://www.quora.com/Why-do-sc...

Not to mention that the idea that scientists are strongly liberal is supported by ample statistical evidence (one example at http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c... - Paul Krugman is hardly the mouthpiece of the GOP).

*let me be clear, I love science and hard science fiction, I think creationism is mythological poppycock, and yet I am a *staunch* conservative. So go figure.

That process works better for fungible young talent who might be plenty gifted but have no experience to set themselves apart from the pack. The best defense against seeing your job outsourced is becoming so good at it that you don't have much competition. The second best defense is becoming friends with the greybeards who are positioned to argue against the manager who wants to rightsize your job.

An even better way would be to not force people to hand over their money to private companies. Let the people decide what is best for them rather than being told what to do.

I know, personal responsibility. It's an evil concept.

Millions of Americans working for less than $10/hr and millions more Americans unemployed would tend to disagree with that.

The economy is fine for the upper 25%, it sucks for the bottom 50%.

I'm in the 3%, I'm doing great.. but I can see from my lofty perch that it sucks for a whole lot of people...

I took my kids for ice cream to ColdStone yesterday, we ate outside at the park that is next to the store, it is lovely... and I commented to my kids that if they don't learn useful skills, that job is what'll they'll end up doing... We make in about two weeks what the kid in there makes all year... and that kid's job will be replaced in our lifetimes by a robot, I have no doubt...

It is a problem that no one wants to talk about solutions that would actually work... (just taking my money and giving it to the kid isn't a solution, do it too much and I'll leave)

That may all be true, but it also isn't the reason she got elected to the Senate... She was the first Lady and Bill's wife, that is why...

Keep in mind that she has been in government for most of her life now, electing her is exactly the problem, career politicians.

The fact that Carly has no elected experience actually makes it an interesting idea, even if I wouldn't personally vote for her. She really has no chance, I hope she knows that.

---

Note: I don't want Jeb Bush either, that is more of the same as well. I'd rather have someone from outside of government.

I agree with you, which is why voting for Hilary is just voting for more of the same government we've had for years.

Is that what you want?

You may be right, but how is that any different from Hillary?

Frankly, we've had a Clinton in Washington for more than 20 years now, can Carly do any worse?

One of the problems is that we keep electing the same people over and over. Jeb Bush is just more of the same as George, Hillary is just more of the same, and so on...

Sorry, son, but society (and the Supreme Court) voted and you're wrong.

Nimoy was pretty dammed nice all around...

For Star Trek 6, he pushed the studio to give DeForest a big raise to $1 millon as thanks for all that he had done. DeForest had never been paid much and was actually rather poor, driving an old beat up car and living in a small home without much savings.

If you look into it, Nimoy has a history of looking out for other people. A real nice person. Hopefully he was beamed right up, where it is we all go...

Or maybe just ignored all warning signs and calls for help... denied doing so...

Which are of course patently false. Even the first Republican-led investigation stated as much and a former member of the CIA who was involved with the investigation categorically stated no such orders were ever given.

Even those in the military who were on stand by said no such order to stand down were ever given.

But hey, anything to keep the lie alive, right?

Scientists are in fact capable of liking and enjoying works of fiction and fantasy, such as Lord of the Rings, or the Bible.