“I can only say that what this country does not need is another Gestapo bureaucracy like the EPA and OSHA. And we do not want that to happen to the FDA.”

1989. Source: [Soviet Intellectuals and Political Power: The Post-Stalin Era, Vladimir Shlapentokh, 2014, 22, 9781400861132, Princeton University Press]

2016, 2016 Democratic National Convention speech

Source: A Long Way Down

"The Fundamental Idea of Wave Mechanics", Nobel lecture, (12 December 1933)
Context: Conditions are admittedly such that we can always manage to make do in each concrete individual case without the two different aspects leading to different expectations as to the result of certain experiments. We cannot, however, manage to make do with such old, familiar, and seemingly indispensable terms as "real" or "only possible"; we are never in a position to say what really is or what really happens, but we can only say what will be observed in any concrete individual case. Will we have to be permanently satisfied with this...? On principle, yes. On principle, there is nothing new in the postulate that in the end exact science should aim at nothing more than the description of what can really be observed. The question is only whether from now on we shall have to refrain from tying description to a clear hypothesis about the real nature of the world. There are many who wish to pronounce such abdication even today. But I believe that this means making things a little too easy for oneself.

As quoted in Letters of H. L. Mencken (1961) edited by Guy J. Forgue, p. xiii
1940s–present

Lemony Snicket
The Carnivorous Carnival (2002)

[Rivera, Adrian, An Interview with Democratic Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, http://thepolitic.org/an-interview-with-democratic-wisconsin-senator-russ-feingold/, 20 August 2018, The Politic, January 10, 2018]
2018

Rolling Stone magazine (December 1984)

Source: Suicide Notes