This blog was inspired by Phyllis Schlafly's column of two days ago, with a title beginning, "The China Trade...."  It is a matter about which I have many concerns, as noted in a number of my previous blog entries.  This blog entry continues a litany of those comments and concerns. 

This blog entry was inspired by Lorie Byrd's 2/1/97 column "Why are so many Republicans freaking out about John McCain's primary success"?

The link to that column is as follows:  
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LorieByrd/2008/02/01/why_are_so_many_republicans_freaking_out_about_john_mccain%e2%80%99s_primary_success?page=full&comments=true

In my opinion the words in the title of this blog entry fairly well characterize John McCain's attitude to anyone who is not John McCain. 

And I like John McCain.  I would love to vote for him, except.........

I cannot vote (even holding my nose) for someone who, with respect to securing our borders, said something to the effect that "if they want the fence, then I'll build the goddamned fence."

McCain said that he has "gotten the message." 

McCain has no more gotten the message than the man in the moon.

McCain has absolutely no idea of the depth of anger, pure anger, that most Americans can barely contain when faced with non-action concerning the state of illegal immigration or the presence of illegal aliens in our midst -- including illegal aliens comprising more than one-quarter of our prison population, with many more likely simply running unfettered, free to rape and pillage and murder at will. 

McCain appears to be oblivious to and certainly impervious to the opinion of the majority of American people that we want a stop to the invasion of our country, and that we want a true solution, not amnesty, to the problem of aliens who have already invaded.  He may have an inkling; however, he appears not to give a tinker's dam. 

McCain is seemingly completely obtuse concerning the numbers of people who will hold their noses and vote for someone -- anyone -- who is not John McCain. 

McCain will be surprised that there are people who do not worship him enough to hold their noses and vote for him. 

He will lose the election -- if nominated. 

Why will McCain lose the election?  Because he is supercilious, arrogant, bumptious (one of my father's favorite words), condescending, pompous, snooty and sneering. 

Contrary to his apparent thoughts on the subject, the American people "get it." 

I pity us all. 

I have made numerous comments to the link below which represents the 1/11/08 column by Timothy Lee, "McCain to pharmaceutical innovators:  drop dead." 

My last comment was too lengthy and would not fit in the "comments" space; however, I felt it important enough to turn the comment into a blog.  It follows the link. 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/TimothyLee/2008/01/11/
mccain_to_pharmaceutical_innovators_drop_dead?page=
full&comments=true

The beginning paragraph responds directly to "hob"; however, the entire comment/blog is addressed to both the author and to "hob" -- and, of course, to anyone else interested in the drug industry. 

Not only do I want to see a pedigree: I want to see the country of origin of everything that goes into medication I take, and I don't care if the box or bottle has to be cannister size in order to bear all the printing. 

I want to know if a drug manufactured in England has an ingredient whose origin is China. I want to know if a drug manufactured in Germany has an ingredient whose origin is China. I want to know if a drug -- any drug -- has any ingredient whose origin differs from the country of "manufacture."

I want to see on a bottle or box not only the U.S. distributor (which is nice to know, of course), but I want to see all the countries of origin of every ingredient made anywhere in the world going into that drug.

Then, and only then, can American consumers be informed as to the real origins of the drugs they consume by the billions daily. And they can take it on their own advisement as to whether to consume the stuff.

Lord knows we're paying enough for them.

And I want to know just why it is that the FDA has to have a "Partnership with China." Granted, China is a buzzword of some import these days -- and well earned.

However, my contention is that American people (through HHS or FDA or any other American Commission or Department) should not, repeat, should not, bear the costs for these checks and re-checks and re-re-checks to make sure that these Chinese ingredients or, indeed, the entire Chinese makeup of a drug, are safe for consumption by Americans. However, guess what?  Guess who's going to pick up the tab for that "Partnership."  Need three guesses?

Some time in the past I ordered a particularly expensive drug from Canada, manufactured in Canada, and when I began purchasing it here, at even greater cost, there was absolutely no difference in outcome. In Canada, incidentally, it was a generic.  I am completely aware that generics from Canada usually are more expensive than generics here; however, the good old U.S.A. did not allow it to be made as a generic. Patents last forever and a day here. Result:  a less expensive drug from Canada.

I trust Canada; I do not trust China. Can you tell?  I do believe I have reason.

And I am still of the opinion that Mr. Timothy Lee has a great deal to learn about this industry. It has many tentacles, reaching way, way into our government and, coincidentally, into our almost-empty pockets.   

As mentioned in an earlier comment, this is not a plug for McCain; rather it is a slug at the pharmaceutical industry doing business in the U.S.A. And by the way, how many of those companies doing business here actually are American companies?  Anybody know?  Is it one of those unknowables?

A couple of lines of the 12/25/07 Paul Edwards column "Social Conservatives are Mad as Hell" stood out.  Link is as follows:  

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PaulEdwards/2007/12/25/social_conservatives_are_%e2%80%9cmad_as_hell%e2%80%9d

Edwards points out to us that Huckabee, while believing in securing the border, reminds us of the lady standing in New York harbor with a torch raised high beckoning "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

It would be wise to remind all with similar opinions that there is a last line to that beautiful poem by Emma Lazarus. That line is as follows:

    "I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

This line should remind everyone that there is a door through which the tired, poor, huddled masses must enter. Entering without permission is just that: a break-in. And break-ins are illegal.

People who sneak through the "golden door" uninvited are illegal aliens.

Any person who wants to be President of the United States should keep that last line of Lazarus' poem firmly in mind.

There appears to be no doubt that the majority of American citizens know the difference between those who sneak in and those who knock, waiting for an invitation to enter.

Not only does the majority know the difference, it advised Congress of that fact in no uncertain terms this past summer when we let them know what we thought about their "amnesty" by any word they chose to call it, and when we let them know what we thought about their "DREAM" Act. 

A "sticky wicket" was always believed by me to be a dilemma to which one searched for an answer.  Roe v. Wade is still a sticky wicket for me, and I know that writing this will bring down the whole of Townhall on my head. 

Nevertheless, I have been reminded of late of the 1985 novel "The Cider House Rules," by John Irving. 

I do not believe the "Cider House" was typical of such establishments in those days and times; however, such places did exist.  It was believed to be well known that the reason one went there was to terminate a pregnancy.  There were times, however, when different decisions were made.

The days and times were different then, and when I was growing up, no matter how much anyone wants to disagree.  I have lived, I believe, many a year more than most of the readers here at Townhall. 

A young girl was disowned by her family and thrown to the wolves if she became "in the family way" while not in the married state. 

There were (and still are) gang-rapes of young girls (perhaps 12 years of age) who as a consequence become pregnant.  I can only imagine the terror following her all the rest of her days, and the dilemma in which she and her family find themselves. 

There were (and still are) rapes of young daughters (again, perhaps 12-year-olds) by their fathers, resulting in a pregnancy.  Again, I can only imagine the guilt to be carried all the rest of her days, no matter what decisions are made by her family.  (I feel no ambivalence concerning a father who rapes his daughter:  he should be put under the prison for all the remaining days of his life, to be fed bread and water every other day, shared by a hungry gorilla -- or two.)

The dilemmas described above were never ones I needed to face, thank God above. 

The word "abortion" was not a word ever heard when I was growing up.  And, like Oprah, I remember learning of coat-hanger abortions and potions given by midwives to terminate pregnancies.  The word "pregnant" was a word spoken in whispers.  I was raised in the dark ages. 

Please pardon me if my opinion is different from the majority here.  I am, and have been for many years, ambivalent.  Unlike many of you, I cannot stand and shout "Down with Roe!" with conviction. 

Please do not scream obscenities at me.  I simply wanted to say that there are other opinions out there.  Most of those opinion-holders are too afraid to spell out those opinions here because of the opprobrium that would be felt if the opinions were made known.

Just for the record, I feel no ambivalence about late-term abortions.  They are simply beyond the realm of humanity.

If the FDA can't grab its back end with both hands tied behind its back, I believe the same can be said for McCain as the subject relates to drug reimportation and drug safety and drug costs.  This is based upon comments attributed to him in a news column in today's Townhall.com regarding the subject.  The link to that column follows: 

http://www.townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2007/11/17/mccain_calls_for_drug_reimportation

Perhaps not enough credit is not being given to Mr. McCain.  Certainly, based upon the column to which this blog entry relates, it would appear that Mr. McCain is almost completely uninformed. 

It is unknown to me whether McCain voted for the MMA (the Medicare Modernization Act) which had tagging along with it the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan (PDP).  My memory is that he did not vote for it, which is to his credit.  The MMA and the PDPs are giant steps toward the type of health care systems typified in Canada. 

The drug companies and the drug insurance companies nearly wet themselves with joy at that signing.  They were in my opinion happier than hogs in mud. 

It is not supposed that anyone remembers that day in December when Bush signed the MMA into law.  I remember it, and it nearly sickens me every time I think of it.  Gathered around Bush were nice old gray-haired ladies and gentlemen who were seemingly pleased as punch itself to see that bill get signed.  My understanding is that those gray-haired, simpering bunch were, if not in cahoots, then joined at the hip or mind or some appendage or other with none other than AARP, which itself it connected at the hip or some kind of an appendage with companies providing insurance for -- guess what! -- prescription drugs.  Who would have thunk it? 

As stated in a fast comment to the column mentioned above, made with steam coming out my ears, drugs are manufactured all over the world, end up here in the U.S.A., and people like me are taking them every day.  The drugs that are actually manufactured here in the U.S. are few and far between. 

Recently the FDA had a public meeting dedicated to the discussion of the safety of imported drugs.  My surprise first was that they are only now getting around to it.  Perhaps it never occurred to them until people began getting riled up when their pets were dying as a result of ingesting pet food manufactured in China. 

The last time I did a little rummaging around on a few Internet Web sites, there were about 75 Chinese companies that were just dying (my description, of course) to get into the business of manufacturing our drugs.  In my own estimation, if China cannot manage to produce pet food without killing off somebody's pets, why in the name of common sense would anyone want to trust their prescription drugs manufactured there?

The FDA "invited" comments from the public either through the Internet or by mail, and I took them up on it.  I'm sure they read every word.  As set out in an earlier blog entry, I would like a law whereby every container of any prescription drug sold by American pharmacies or mail order companies would be required to list the country of manufacture of the drug, along with the country or countries of origin of every ingredient in that drug.  I would like to be informed if I am about to ingest some drug made in China, or whether any portion thereof has an origin in China. 

Knowledge is power.  If I were offered a drug from my local drugstore, and the container for that drug listed China as place of origin, I could make a decision to say, No, thank you.  Or not. 
It is a travesty for American citizens to be kept in the dark regarding the origins of their prescription drugs. 

Mr. McCain needs to plunge head-first into the subject of "reimportation of drugs" before he talks very much about it. 

The cost of drugs borne by United States citizens benefits more entities and countries than imaginable (remembering that politicians are "entities").  Americans' taxes fund the National Institutes of Health.  Drug companies benefit from the research performed at the NIH.  Drug companies sell their products to other countries at rock-bottom prices.  In other words, we are subsidizing the drugs for other countries. 

Drug companies are entitled to profits, of course, but they are not entitled, in my opinion, and as expressed by someone else in the past, to profiteering. 

Drug companies spend a lot of money on advertising.  Someone has to pay for it.  Want to guess who?  American taxpayers; American purchasers. 

Drug companies spend a lot of money on research and development.  Someone has to pay for it.  Want to guess who?  American taxpayers; American purchasers. 

Drug companies spend a lot of money on drug samples and pens and writing tablets and doctors' examining table covers and facial tissue and who even knows what all.  Who pays for those samples?  Just guess. 

Drug companies are provided tax write-offs that would, in the words of Glenn Beck, make blood start shooting out of your eyes.  Who benefits from those write-offs?  Americans?  When pigs fly. 

As said above, drug companies are entitled to profits, just as any other American company is.  We do have a free enterprise system; we have a (sort of) competitive system.  When it comes to the purchase of prescription drugs, however, Americans are left swaying in the wind. 

As far as the Prescription Drug Plans are concerned, they are designed to obfuscate and confuse.  Their success at this is blinding.

This is a subject not capable of being covered in a blog entry.  However, before all the steam escaped from my ears, and before all the blood shot out of my eyes, some of it needed to be covered.

Anyone interested in an informative book on some of these subjects can read Dr. Marcia Angell's book "The Truth About The Drug Companies - How They Deceive You and What To Do About It."  Talk about steam coming out your ears. 

Back to McCain:  I like him; I would like to vote for him.  However, his views on illegal aliens and now, apparently, drug prices and drug reimportation, completely turn me off. 

This blog was inspired by a string of comments to one of my previous blogs relating to politicians and immigration, not politicians and drug firms. 

Please, please do not get all weepy about the poor drug corporations.  Or try to get me all weepy about them, either. 

Ask any CEOs of drug firms what they're raking in.  Where'd the money come from?  The air?  I don't think so. 

Go to a web site with information about amounts donated by drug firms to U.S. lawmakers -- in any given year or years.  It is truly astonishing. 

And, although this particular situation has improved in the last year or so, it used to be business as usual for the people at the FDA approving drugs to have nice little incentive plans in place for when they left the FDA.  Not only that, they were given certain monetary incentives.  If these incentives were not above a certain amount, they were not required to be claimed on income tax returns of the FDA personnel.  That is pure fact. 

Lush promises were made to FDA or HHS personnel for lucrative positions at drug companies.  I'll bet none of them came right out and said, now if you approve my drug, or if you propose its approval, here's a little incentive for you.  I believe it was probably a little more subtle than that. 

It hardly seems ethical for those approving drugs to be hand in glove with the drug makers.  And the matter used to be worse; they've improved it somewhat. 

And just to be a little repetitive, 20-year patents for drugs can be expected.

I was somewhat angry last year when, for about three months, I was able to purchase a drug at a generic price; however, because of legal patent wrangling, after those nice three months the drug went back to its original brand pricing.  I was somewhat miffed at this jerking around.  I really don't like being jerked around.  I believe the drug came into being in 1987. 

Let us not forget that drug companies with original patents will pay generic makers to stay out of the business.  That has come to be frowned upon by the legal community via some shamed lawmakers.  That doesn't stop it from happening. 

And as for the business of all these billions or millions or whatever are spent in research and development for new drugs, let us not forget that much of this research is MARKET research.  That is pure fact. 

I do not resent an American company doing well.  That's what makes America spin.  However, I resent being "gouged" (your word, Doc Steech) after taxpayers have contributed so very much to the product being used. 

And just look up the name Billy Tauzin.  Now there's a character for you.  The fact that he's from my home state embarrasses me -- even in view of my home state's colorful political past (and present).

The politics of drug-making will continue to make strange bedfellows.

Meanwhile, John Q. Public is being pushed off onto the floor.   

This blog post is inspired today by a column written by Michael Barone, "A Watershed Moment on Immigration."  The link to that column is as follows:  

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelBarone/2007/11/05/a_watershed_moment_on_immigration

Most of our politicians still don't get it.

Americans for the most part have nothing against legal immigration.

They are fed up with aliens in our midst who, being here, are illegals; are very likely taking jobs away from American citizens; in many cases are felons whose native countries are grateful to be rid of them; and, also in many cases, are drains upon our very weakened social services.

Americans are fed up with a bunch of airheads in Washington who apparently believe that the Americans who put them in office are airheads.

The only thing they will loudly, gladly admit is that we want our borders protected.  Many of the Presidential hopefuls promise that our borders will be protected.

The thing they apparently cannot do is to create a way to deal with the illegals here already and committing mayhem in one way or another.

My suggestion to anyone who wants to be President is that he put on a very tight thinking cap and do the thing mentioned in the preceding paragraph.  In addition, of course, to protecting our borders.

This blog post is inspired by the column today (10/25/07) by Rich Lowry entitled, "The Un-Katrina."

The link to that column is as follows:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RichLowry/2007/10/25/the_un-katrina

The effects of Katrina cannot be compared to the horrific wildfires that have swept across parts of Southern California like the very winds of hades.

Louisiana, even with its inadequate leadership (and it had inadequate leadership from Washington as well), never in its wildest dreams could imagine its city deluged and blown away as it was.  Sort of like death -- it's not going to happen to me.

It reminds me of that old sign people used to put on their desks at work:  PLAN AHEad (with the last couple of letters drifting downward toward the edge).

California's people are probably also more accustomed to dealing with disasters.  There are died-in-the-wool residents who have been through earthquakes, fires, and what-not, and probably take on these disasters with cooler heads than those who, while familiar with hurricanes, never truly expected Katrina.  And like other nature-torn individuals throughout this nation, most of them want to rebuild at the site of the disaster.  The place is a part of them.  Home.

We think of those who lost more than property:  their very lives.  The rest of the country mourns for them and their families.

California's rescue teams and its residents are to be commended.  Bravery under overwhelming fire. 

Our "chosen ones," those Great Washed there in Washington, who were chosen by We, the People, herein known as the Great Unwashed, have done very, very little in the way of urging that immigration laws are obeyed. 

Certainly our highest executive officer, one of the Greatest Washed, has done precious little along those lines.  In fact, it seems as though he has done everything in his power to completely ignore the matter unless he is in the process of making sure our Border Guards are properly guarded in prison for performing the work they were hired to do.

I have become completely jaded because even though it took much too long to come to my senses, I have learned that the "Great Washed" have no interest whatsoever in the Great Unwashed. 

The only things they care about are getting elected and re-elected, and, along the way, stuffing their drawers and any other piece of apparel with as much of the green stuff as they possibly can from any source they can. 

That is what the Great Washed care about.  They've got theirs.  Why should they care about the Great Unwashed?  The Great Unwashed comprise just another source.

Today we barely squeaked by in squashing one great, big amnesty bill called the "DREAM Act."  If the other side had gotten eight more votes, we would be staring at millions of amnesty seekers happily showing us one of their fingers, without our having recourse to do anything about it.  We would be helpless to stem the tide.  But the Great Washed will make a comeback if possible, and we must be ready for them.

Soon the Senate will be voting on a farm bill that I believe awards millions upon millions of dollars in farm subsidies to "gentlemen farmers" and big corporations.  Included among those farmers are a couple of Senate members, potato farmers, on the Agriculture Committee.  You don't suppose for a minute that either of these "Great Washed" would vote not to award themselves farm subsidies, do you?  And how about the big corporations receiving subsidies?  You don't suppose they would vote against subsidies there, do you? 

It is believed that one year one of these potato farmers received a subsidy of a little over two hundred thousand dollars.  The other is believed to have received "only" a little over a hundred thousand. 

Makes you want to be a potato farmer, doesn't it?  The only thing is, you'd need to be one of the Great Washed. 

Who would want to mix with the majority of that bunch?  There are a few exceptions, and I have mentioned them in some blogs and comments, but they are few indeed. 

For instance, if Jeff Sessions or Tom Coburn were in the running for the Republican nod, I would be torn, indeed.  Why hasn't somebody noticed them and dragged them into the fray?  Please. 

I'll let you all in on a secret:  I am not only one of the Great Unwashed, I am one very angry Great Unwashed.