Right... but there were also reports that he took out two life insurance policies that would not pay out if his death was ruled a suicide, so I'm sure he had extra incentive to make it look like a homicide.

That's basically how it works now. They get released on the market and then if there's a problem the FDA pulls it, if they haven't gotten their bribe money from GSK yet.

Yeah, due to the federal governments regulation of our money, yes I have seen them.

Yes. But she makes the assumption that those are the only libraries available (when she sarcastically says "because everyone has professional journal and historic works at home"). If the only other option to public libraries, was professional journal and historical works at home, that would concede that there were no private libraries. Private libraries can provide the same service at a cheaper price with greater availability.

I'm not sure this puts you in a better place.
Yeah. But the FDA doesn't catch these. So what is it's use again?
So, the FDA couldn't stop them. What, again, is the FDA's point?

You're not quite understanding the issue. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a process for drugs to be validated as good drugs. I'm saying the government doesn't need to have any part of it. Undoubtedly, the drug companies or an independent agency will likely be formed (possibly by consumers) in order to test the product, which will then be certified through that measure. Society naturally forms these organizations, a government doesn't need to create it. Perhaps there will be several of these organizations each with different levels of credibility and safety. A doctor might say "Oh, this drug is XYZ certified but it's not ABC certified, so I won't recommend it." That would be the likely nature of things without an FDA.

edit: In my utopia, this sort of system I would prefer for many types of certification, including lawyers, surveyors, and other occupations where some sort of certification of learning is necessary for practice.

I don't think Michigan doesn't like the census because they greatly oppose the FDA.

I think that loosing a congressional seat thing might be more pertinent.

That's basically how it works now. They get released on the market and then if there's a problem the FDA pulls it, if they haven't gotten their bribe money from GSK yet.

May I point out that the only reason this article is Michigan focused is because it was done by The Detroit News. It, in no way, says that Michigan people feel differently than other people in the country. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find groups of people in every state who feel the census is invasive.

My feelings on the FDA will be expressed AFTER they audit one of our clinical trials for gene therapy this week. I'll let you know what I think of them afterward..lol. Seriously though, I totally see them as a needed government function. Some things are better done by the government.

This thread has turned into this:

http://homepage.mac.com/lpetrich/Cha...nger_large.gif

Just mailed mine out-

There are people from all over the country who feel that the census needs only to know the number of occupants in the residence and that's all. I didn't find the census intrusive but I did feel that the questions of how I am related to whom I live with And if I own or rent unnecessary. Also think it's stupid that they didn't ask if the person was a citizen, permanent resident or temp visitor. Any person on a temp visa renting a house or apt is going to be counted as a citizen.

People also aren't thinking this through. There has to be a way to check the numbers reported against another database, ie SSN to make sure that no one claims fake citizens to keep congressional seats or federal money. Also, the census is an expensive process that gets done only once a decade so it gives us a rare opportunity to collect demographic information like race, home owner ship that gives us a "snapshot" of the nation in 2010. We've done it forever, and I hate to say it, but opposing the census IS unAmerican!

I have a problem with all the mail that they send out that is unnecessary--
I got a letter telling me they were sending a packet... um ok, but wouldn't I know that when I got the packet?
I got the packet and found it rather annoying, especially all the race questions. But I filled it out and sent it in.
Then I got a letter telling me that they had sent me a packet and hopefully I sent it back in. Ok... was that necessary?

Why not send the packets and then only send follow ups to people who don't respond in a month?

Uh, yeah. 'Cause if the big banks have demonstrated anything, it's that if just left to their own devices, they'll do everything the right way and the market will keep it all under control. Sure.
As a lawyer, I'm afraid that doesn't sound much like a utopia to me.

My favorite Far Side of all time. I have a co-worker we call "Ginger" for this very reason.

The methods they use are for a very good reason. This is like an Intro to Survey Methods class. :)

There is a lot invested in the Census so they'd rather annoy you than have some others try to excuse their lack of participation; or try to say that "certain groups of people" had more access to the Census than others. That's why they alert you of the Census mailing (so people will check their mail and not discard it for any reason); and send 2-3 bilingual follow-up postcards. It takes more time and money to narrow it down to those who didn't mail it back than it takes to just alert everyone who received it in the first place.

I mailed back my Census the same day. It took about 5-10 minutes to complete. There was nothing invasive about it (since when are race questions invasive?). I didn't like "Negro," but I made a note of it for the Census people and moved on. :) GOOOOOOO CENSUS!

I was watching a news story on the Census follow up letters and how it cost $64 million to send them out.

Are you surprised? ;)

Now how much time and money would it take to wait for everyone to send it back...whenever they sent it back, allow a grace period, figure out who didn't return it and THEN send follow-up postcards?

Small-time survey researchers sometimes wait to check addresses off of a list before following-up with a postcard. I wouldn't expect the Census massive survey researchers and employees to do that.

Not at all, but $64 mil just for one set of follow up letters...damn. I'm familiar with how the typical U.S. Government agency works and efficiency isn't exactly a high priority.