Net Neutrality Strengthens Monopolies, Invites Corruption

https://mises.org/blog/net-neutrality-strengthens-monopolies-invites-corruption

How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate

How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/16/how-to-discuss-global-warming-with-a-climate-alarmist-scientific-talking-points-to-win-the-debate/

Do we need more gun laws when we do not enforce the ones that exist?

"What if there were serious gun controls?" David Kopel and Joseph Greenlee, 08 Nov 2017, The Hill

One in Four Physicians Rethinking Clinical Practice

"One in Four Physicians Rethinking Clinical Practice" Diana Phillips, Medscape, November 02, 2017

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

This is written by Donna Brazile, former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee.
"After Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned her position as chairperson of the Democratic National Committee on July 24, 2016, at the start of the 2016 Democratic National Convention, Brazile became interim chairperson of the DNC." (Wikipedia). She was also the manager of Al Gore’s campaign in 2000.

Donna Brazile called Bernie Sanders

“Hello, senator. I’ve completed my review of the DNC and I did find the cancer,” I said. “But I will not kill the patient.”
...
I told Bernie I had found Hillary’s Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee. Had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position, but here we were with only weeks before the election.

What is this "Joint Fund-Raising Agreement"?

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings. 

I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer. 

When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

... 

The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity. 

-

The short summary,

From Donna Brazile,

The signed agreement Hillary had with the DNC, "was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity."

It "had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination."

The Myth of Scientific Objectivity

From "The Myth of Scientific Objectivity" William A. Wilson, First Things Nov 2017

If two theories barely inhabiting the same conceptual universe can both explain our observations with such accuracy, what if there’s another? What if there are ten more? What if they give identical predictions beyond the accuracy of any instruments we will build for ten thousand years? When forced to choose between two such radically different theories, parlor tricks like Occam’s razor win us nothing. The choice is philosophical and metaphysical: It can be informed by experience, but can never be settled by science. 

In practice, scientists are rarely paralyzed by indecision when faced with situations of this sort, which implies that they must have prescientific metaphysical beliefs to help them to make the choice, even if those beliefs go unstated. Scientific theories compete with one another to explain a given body of evidence while also exhibiting the greatest simplicity, elegance, scope, consonance with other theories, and internal harmony. But they do more than that; they also make claims, implicitly or explicitly, about what evidence needs explaining and what would constitute a satisfactory explanation.

Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election

More interesting graphs at "Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election" 16 Aug 2017, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.

I found this image reading this.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16588964/america-epistemic-crisis