4688

George W. Bush is right about a lot of things

Not that right is popular. Not that right doesn't bring unintended consequences. Not that right will unite the people. He's definitely right about these--either morally, spiritually, politically or economically--but not all for each. In no particular order.

1. George W. Bush is right to keep his very talented, beautiful, smart, librarian wife at his side, in the sidelines, and in the bleachers cheering him on, supporting him, but not making policy. I like Laura Bush a lot; I didn't vote for her. I didn't even realize how important this was to me until I've watched Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama in the current campaign. Way too much focus on them and what they say and think. And Hillary Clinton, too, when she was First Lady is probably the best reason for the spouse to stay by the president's side and not under foot. Part of the hostility toward her from conservatives and libertarians is the way she tried to take over important segments of the economy when she had no elected office, nor ever had one. Her "35 years" experience mantra includes her years as a President's wife and a Governor's wife. That makes her as big a cheat as her husband in my mind.

2. George Bush was the right man to lead us calmly out of the chaos that followed 9/11. In my life time, I'll probably not see two stronger leaders in a crisis than George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani.

3. George Bush was right to cut taxes to release money for investing in the U.S. economy, thereby helping American workers and the global economy both, strengthening us all around. The cut in taxes put many Americans to work, and also brought increased revenue into the coffers of the federal government--which may or may not be positive considering our Congress will spend all it gets. But it is a far superior plan than punishing success and driving our investment money overseas so foreign workers benefit.

4. George Bush was right to veto the huge SCHIP increases last fall, leaving the dismantling of private health insurance to be on the conscience of the Democrats. The 1997 SCHIP was Hillary's plan to begin with and she will see to it, either as a senator or president, that we all come under the government's thumb, that all but the richest in society, or our highest level government officials, will have low level, dumbed down universal care.

5. He was right to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power and to free millions of Afghans from the control of the Al-Qaeda. We won the war, but huge mistakes were made on the clean up. The biggest mistake was not securing the borders, something Americans aren't very good at. Also, although it was not his fault, he listened to the intelligence gathered in the previous administration about WMD accepting the wholehearted but duplicitous support of the likes of Kennedy and Edwards, Kerry and Clinton. He was mistaken that they would keep their word the way he does. He cannot be moved once he sets a course; they waffle, blow in the wind, and melt in the heat of unhappy supporters. Huge mistake to trust them.

6. Bush was never better than in his choices of John Roberts and Samuel Alito for Supreme Court. I'm still wondering if that misstep of nominating Harriet Miers was just a tease--to show he could nominate a woman knowing she couldn't be confirmed. It's not in the same category of turning over policy to your wife, but it lost him a lot of friends among Republicans who questioned his sanity! These two men, along with Clarence Thomas, are our best chance of keeping a tricameral federal government, instead of a court that makes laws, a president who keeps his wife happy dabbling in policy while he fondles female staff, and a Congress that just passes out the bacon slabs to each other, crossing the aisle with a wink and a handshake. If you think Bush has too much power, ask yourself why Hillary with "35 years experience" or Obama with the power of his charming personality, will fix it if not by usurping more power from the other branches?

7. George Bush was right about stem cell research. By forcing researchers to go back to the lab and look beyond using human embryonic stem cells of 4-5 day old embryos (pre-born human beings), he rescued our nation from a worse ethical dilemma and battle than abortion and slavery, earlier versions of devaluing life in our history. Embryonic stem cell research was never illegal, but he forced the researchers to look beyond the American people for the money--and private sources wanted to see results--but there were none. Many millions of lives will be saved because GWB stood fast.

8. Morally, he was right to be concerned about our schools failing so many of our children, leaving millions of kids behind and unable to function in our technological society. The results from NCLB haven't been great, in my opinion because the federal government's hold on education was way too big to begin with. It should not be allowed to reach into the classroom and tell a student how to behave or a teacher to teach. But that certainly didn't start with Bush. He took on the teachers' unions, even though they didn't have the answers either. Standards weren't being met. Crummy teachers and awful school administrators had protection. Well, being morally right, but wrong in outcome gets a president no friends, plus he's spent more on education than any president before him and still the kids are failing. Indirectly, he's proven once again that more money isn't the answer.

9. Morally, he was right to care that millions are in our country illegally taking jobs from Americans, weakening our neighbors to the south, and experience personal suffering. Trying to fix the horrible 1986 law that allowed this with bits and patches just isn't practical--it was a social experiment of the 1960s gone bad--the belief that too many Europeans and white people were immigrating and we needed more brown, black and Asian to be "fair." Plus it cost him the support at the grass roots--those Americans who do not think La Raza should come here and take back 4 or 5 states because they don't like the outcome of the 19th century Mexican War. That's history. The backing of big unions and big business really make this amnesty issue look messy for Bush, and it didn't win any friends among the Democrats. Playing fast and loose with core beliefs in a mish-mash of bipartisanship never helps either side.

10. Morally and spiritually, he was right to want to reach out to Democrats to unite the people and heal all the hostility of the Clinton years in the 1990s. We hear Obama preaching the same sermon. But that's another thing that won't happen in my life time. George W. Bush is not a true conservative, but he is a Republican, and so on both sides of the aisle, he's got problems. He's bitterly hated and opposed because of the 2000 election and no amount of good ole boy glad handing will change that. Cowboy, that's a tough dogie to rope.

11. Economically and morally, he was right to try to fix Social Security, even as his own party gave him little support and caused his good intentions to fail. All the successful retirees I know have a combination of the plans he wanted--403-b, 401-K, IRA, and private investments. Government employees have such a plan. Unfortunately, leaders of both parties fought him on this and I'm left to believe that they have a vested interest in keeping a large part of the elderly population poor and dependent on government handouts. It buys votes, is the only explanation I can come up with.

I tried to make this a tidy list of 10, but George has just done too many things right in his 7 years as president.

Grain into gas tanks

for the global warming hoax, the unintended consequences. WaPo reports: "Soaring Food Prices Putting U.S. Emergency Aid in Peril: The U.S. government's humanitarian relief agency will significantly scale back emergency food aid to some of the world's poorest countries this year because of soaring global food prices."

Does AD/HD really exist as a disorder?

It's been a busy day. I walked about 45 minutes inside the church for exercise, then walked through an exhibit in the narthex of an organization for people interested in AD/HD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) and learning problems, then went to women's Bible Study (Jennifer Rothschild), then helped a friend with her MS Walkathon mailing, adhering labels, stuffing envelopes, sorting zip codes and stuff. In my walk through the narthex I looked at some of the vendors materials and picked up some reading material. I also noticed that about 99% of the people attending and the vendors were women, although supposedly most of the people with this disorder are males.

I'm concerned that what is probably fairly normal little boy or male adolescent behavior, at least at the milder end, is labeled, pathologized, medicated, and sometime criminalized. I picked up a free issue of Attention, December 2007, published by an organization called CHADD, Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder. Leafing through it, I see that AD/HD has become a big business in the last 20 years. Here's the advertising I saw: many colleges and special schools; the drug Concerta; the drug Vyvanse; a study funded by the government to see if there are specific genes that contribute to AD/HD; special summer camps for AD/HD kids; transitional curricula for getting into college; boarding schools; nutritional supplements; numerous appeals to send money to or join CHADD, which has special VISA cards, vehicle donation, workplace donations through United Way, a discount medical insurance card, estate planning and a corporate contribution program; special toys for LD kids; and special watches for behavior modification and self-monitoring for medication.

There was an article on having a proactive strategy to deal with difficult behavior, such as each parent having a role, establishing a daily routine, teaching organizational skills, and clearly communicating your expectations and being consistent. Fine. I have no problems with those. But the #1 strategy? Well, the author called it "Maintaining a disability perspective,"--in other words, seeing that your child has a legitimate medical condition that undermines self control. The worst article was "The price we all pay," with the most outlandish statistics I've ever seen in my life, none with citations. Would you believe that incarceration costs due to AD/HD (40% of the prison population) cost over $16 TRILLION just for the AD/HD prisoners. That's so bizarre, I can't even imagine it got past the editors.

"Signs of [ADHD] may be minimal or absent when the person is under very strict control, is in a novel setting, is engaged in especially interesting activities, is in a one-to-one situation, or while the person experiences frequent rewards for appropriate behavior" (DSM-IV, p. 79). How many diseases or conditions--like depression or diabetes, OCD or cystic fibrosis--go away or are controled with attention from someone else? Is drugging children worth it, if keeping them busy with interesting things or other rewards work too?

We are pathologizing our children--especially little boys. Send them outside to play; get them a rowing machine for raining days. Turn off the TV. Hire someone to teach them tennis or horseback riding. Give them interesting and exciting things to do--like work. If medication is necessary, have something prescribed for you.

Update: I e-mailed the editor with a list of questions and received a reply: "That $16 trillion figure was the author’s mistake, and we regret that the error was not caught prior to publication. Please see the correction of that figure, which was published in the February 2008 issue of the magazine." She also said that references for the article are in the on-line version. That's really poor form, in my opinion. If they are printed with the article, it is much easier for the reader to spot the mistake. If I hadn't just read the Pew article, I probably would have skipped over it. But at least she responded. When I published in library journals in the 90s, the editors selected and checked, and the peer reviewers checked, and then I had to check the galleys.

An economist looks at illegal drug costs

Boston University Economist Jeffrey Miron argues on University of California TV that legalizing drugs would lower the crime rate, cut the demand for guns, reduce the spread of AIDS and improve race relations in this address to the UCSD Economics Roundtable. Series: Economics Roundtable [Public Affairs] Take a look and see if you think this makes sense. The speech was given in April 2000. So some of the figures may be out of date. The incarceration rate is probably higher.

He is not a boring speaker, however, if you prefer to read high lights from his book, check here.

Record high ratio of adults in prison in today's USAToday.

Not an urban legend, unfortunately

Guest blogger today is my high school classmate Jon (without an h as he always reminds me). He sent along this sad, sad story via e-mail about "dusting" written by a Cleveland area father/police officer whose son died as a result of inhaling a product, Dust Off, the father purchased to clean his computers. It's been going around the internet since 2005 according to Snopes.com, a web site that checks out these stories, and it gives additional information.

"First, I'm going to tell you a little about me and my family. My
name is Jeff. I am a Police Officer for a city which is known nationwide for its crime rate. We have a lot of gangs and drugs. At one point we were #2 in the nation in homicides per capita. I also have a police K-9 named Thor. He was certified in drugs and general duty. He retired at 3 years old because he was shot in the line of duty. He lives with us now and I still train with him because he likes it. I always liked the fact that there was no way to bring drugs into my house. Thor wouldn't allow it. He would tell on you. The reason I say this is so you understand that I know about drugs.

I have taught in schools about drugs. My wife asks all our kids at least once a week if they used any drugs. Makes them promise they won't.

I like building computers occasionally and started building a new one in February 2005. I also was working on some of my older computers. They were full of dust so on one of my trips to the computer store I bought a 3 pack of DUST OFF. Dust Off is a can of compressed air to blow dust off a computer. A few weeks later when I went to use one of them they were all used. I talked to my kids and my two sons both said they had used them on their computer and messing around with them. I yelled at them for wasting the 10 dollars I paid for them.

On February 28 I went back to the computer store. They didn't have the 3 pack which I had bought on sale so I bought a single jumbo can of Dust Off. I went home and set it down beside my computer. On March 1st, I left for work at 10 PM. Just before midnight my wife went down and kissed Kyle goodnight. At 5:30 am the next morning Kathy went downstairs to wake Kyle up for school, before she left for work. He was propped up in bed with his legs crossed and his head leaning over. She called to him a few times to get up. He didn't move. He would sometimes tease her like this and pretend he fell back asleep. He was never easy to get up. She went in and shook his arm. He fell over. He was pale white and had the straw from the Dust Off can coming out of his mouth. He had the new can of Dust Off in his hands. Kyle was dead.

I am a police officer and I had never heard of this. My wife is a nurse and she had never heard of this. We later found out from the coroner, after the autopsy, that only the propellant from the can of Dust off was in his system. No other drugs. Kyle had died between midnight and 1 AM. I found out that using Dust Off is being done mostly by kids ages 9 through 15. They even have a name for it. It's called dusting. A take off from the Dust Off name. It gives them a slight high for about 10 seconds. It makes them dizzy. A boy who lives down the street from us showed Kyle how to do this about a month before. Kyle showed his best friend. Told him it was cool and it couldn't hurt you. It's just compressed air. It can't hurt you. His best friend said no.

Kyle was wrong. It's not just compressed air. It also contains a propellant called R2. It's a refrigerant like what is used in your refrigerator. It is a heavy gas, heavier than air. When you inhale it, it fills your lungs and keeps the good air, with oxygen, out that's why you feel dizzy, buzzed. It decreases the oxygen to your brain, to your heart. Kyle was right. It can't hurt you. IT KILLS YOU!

The horrible part about this is there is no warning. There is no level that kills you. It's not cumulative or an overdose; it can just go randomly, terribly wrong. Roll the dice and if your number comes up you die. IT'S NOT AN OVERDOSE. It's Russian Roulette. You don't die later. Or not feel good and say I've had too much. You usually die as you're breathing it in, if not you die within 2 seconds of finishing 'the hit.' That's why the straw was still in Kyle's mouth when he died. Why his eyes were still open.

The experts want to call this huffing. The kids don't believe its huffing. As adults we tend to lump many things together. But it doesn't fit here. And that's why it's more accepted. There is no chemical reaction, no strong odor. It doesn't follow the huffing signals. Kyle complained a few days before he died of his tongue hurting. It probably did. The propellant causes frostbite. If I had only known. It's easy to say hey, it's my life and I'll do what I want. But it isn't. Others are always affected. This has forever changed our family's life. I have a hole in my heart and soul that can never be fixed. The pain is so immense I can't describe it. There's nowhere to run from it. I cry all the time and I don't ever cry. I do what I'm supposed to do but I don't really care. My kids are messed up. One won't talk about it. The other will only sleep in our room at night. And my wife, I can't even describe how bad she is taking this. I thought we were safe because of Thor. I thought we were safe because we knew about drugs and talked to our kids about them.

After Kyle died another story came out. A probation Officer went to the school system next to ours to speak with a student. While there he found a student using Dust Off in the bathroom. This student told him about another student who also had some in his locker. This is a rather affluent school system. They will tell you they don't have a drug problem there. They don't even have a Dare or plus program there. So rather than tell everyone about this 'new' way of getting high they found, they hid it.

The probation officer told the media after Kyle's death and they, the school, then admitted to it. I know that if they would have told the media and I had heard, it wouldn't have been in my house.

We need to get this out of our homes and school computer labs. Using Dust Off isn't new and some 'professionals' do know about. It just isn't talked about much, except by the kids. They all seem to know about it.

April 2nd was 1 month since Kyle died. April 5th would have been his 15th birthday. And every weekday I catch myself sitting on the living room couch at 2:30 in the afternoon and waiting to see him get off the bus. I know Kyle is in heaven but I can't help but wonder if I died and went to Hell.

Jeff Williams
Cleveland, Ohio"

Scary stuff! I remember about 25 years ago our neighbor's son who was regularly picked up by his father and step-mother at our neighbor's house, died on one of these visits from inhaling refrigerant and never came home to his mother. I think his father was a distributor and never realized his son and friends were experimenting until it was too late. Before talking about drugs, I think parents need to first tell their kids that everything they hear from their friends about sex or drugs or alcohol or cigarettes or driving a car is probably a lie. Tell them around age three. Then go from there.

Luther on marriage

When I stare at the shelves of our bursting church library, the words "stuff and fluff" come to mind. So I check out a volume of Martin Luther, a man who wrote and opined on every imaginable topic. This week I'm looking at Luther's Works, v. 45, "A Christian in Society, v. 2," Fortress Press, 1962 (in 55 volumes). The editor writes: "The edition is intended primarily for the reader whose knowledge of late medieval Latin and 16th century German is too small to permit him to work with Luther in the original languages." Well, that would certainly be me!

Even translated into 1960s English, Luther's works are a challenge. This volume starts out discussing marriage. And it is clear that it applies to today's battles in the ELCA on gay marriage, although that topic would have never come up in Luther's day. In fact, it wouldn't have been imagined even 30 years ago as a serious topic in churches. Yet, we had a guest Lutheran pastor at our church this month (not in the pulpit, but in a Bible study) who believes one can set aside the clear passage in Romans about homosexuality. But I digress. I think Luther's introduction to the topic of marriage is worth the whole book. You can disagree if you wish, but you can't say the man didn't have a way with words.

"How I dread preaching on the estate of marriage! I am reluctant to do it because I am afraid if I once get really involved in the subject it will make a lot of work for me and for others. The shameful confusion wrought by the accursed papal law has occasioned so much distress, and the lax authority of both the spiritual and the temporal swords has given rise to so many dreadful abuses and false situations, that I would much prefer neither to look into the matter nor to hear of it. But timidity is no help in an emergency [there is a foot note here, but to something in German]; I must proceed. I must try to instruct poor bewildered consciences, and take up the matter boldly."

That must be how Lutheran pastors feel today, torn and tossed from pillar to post, wanting to follow God's word, but pressured by colleagues, psychologists, social workers, the media, synod meetings and parishioners to find a different path.

Impediments for marriage

Luther, after touching lightly on male and female and what "fruitful and multiply" means, goes on to say that the Pope and canon law has thought up 18 reasons for preventing or dissolving marriage, whereas Scripture only has three (Matthew 19), all concerning eunuchs. In Luther's mind, money is the only reason these rules have been put in place; even if God hasn't forbid it, you will not be permitted to marry who you wish unless you have the money. He has some colorful descriptions of these impediments and their enforcers: "enmeshed in a spiderweb of human commands and vows," "locked up behind a mass of iron bolts and bars," "the devil's monkey tricks," "any can be rescinded with gold and silver," "offering for sale women who have never been their own," "ecclesiastical tyrants," "hucksters," "foolishness," "fanciful deception," "it rains fools upon fools," and "big fools."

I don't know how impediments to marriage have changed over the last four centuries. These days Christians are just happy if the first kid can walk down the aisle at the wedding! But I know that if a divorced Protestant (or person of any or no faith) wants to convert to Roman Catholicism, she needs to have her prior marriages annulled and those of her current husband--they are impediments even for becoming a Catholic. These are the 18 (beyond Scripture) Luther mentioned in the 16th century, nearly all of which he condemned: 1) blood relationship up to the third and fourth degrees of consanguinity; 2) affinity through marriage up to four degrees; 3) a spiritual relationship where the man may have baptised or confirmed a woman--complex list of relations here; 4) legal kinship of an adopted person; 5) unbelief, and Luther says, "There are plenty of Christians--and indeed the greater part of them--who are worse in their secret unbelief than any Jew, heathen, Turk, or heretic;" 6) a crime, "sins and crimes should be punished, but with other penalties, not by forbidding marriage;" 7) public decorum or respectability--if the fiancee should die, the man can't marry any relative of hers up to the fourth degree because it's not decent; 8) vow of chastity--he suggests taking a vow to bite off your own nose, because that would be easier to keep; 9) error--married the wrong wife, like Leah and Rachel mix-up; 10) condition of servitude--the woman is a serf; 11) holy orders--St. Paul commanded that church leaders be married exposes this folly, he says; 12) coercion--you should not allow yourself to be coerced into injuring your neighbor; 13) betrothal--engaged but takes another wife--here Luther suggests the man belongs to the first, and not the second woman, (unless there are children) therefore he was incapable of promising something that belonged to someone else; 14) unfit for marriage, lots of laws about this he says, but gives no details; 15) episcopal prohibition; 16) restricted times; 17) custom; 18) defective eyesight and hearing.

And he concludes (part one) with, "It is a dirty rotten business that a bishop should forbid me a wife or specify the times when I may marry, or that a blind and dumb person should not be allowed to enter into wedlock."

And adults can?

I've been seeing some pretty far fetched political ads based on nothing but hope and change. But a lot of people are falling for them.

"An American Psychological Assn. task force has recommended limits, citing research that shows that kids under the age of 8 can’t critically comprehend TV ad messages and that they’re prone to accept advertiser messages as truthful, accurate, and unbiased. (Reported in Business Week)"

Don't question Obama's faith

There are lots of reasons not to support Barack Obama, but I'm sure sick of the back biting and sniping that he's a Muslim, or that you don't like his pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ. If you can't call Obama a Christian just because his father grew up in a Muslim community in Africa, then I guess you can't call Bobby Jindal a Christian because his family members were Hindu. Conversion, changed lives, and obedience are what Christianity is all about. Read his testimony. Yes, it's for a main-line Protestant audience, and that always sounds different than "Jesus died on the cross for my sins, alleluia," but we don't judge someone's relationship with God--that's for God to decide. There are no goats in heaven, only sheep, and Jesus knows each one. So if you are conservative and you call yourself a Christian, time to get your own house in order, prepare your own witness in case you're asked, and look at the issues.

Obama on student debt

Have you ever analyzed one of those loosey-goosey MSM articles on student loans and debt or tried to figure out a campaign outrage portrayed in an ad? They never figure what it would cost student XYZ to live if she wasn't going to school but was borrowing money to live. Have you noticed that too?

In February 2006 I blogged about student loans way back when Obama's mama was going to school:

The headline for the USA Today article is: "Students suffocate under tens of thousands in loans." So I went into one of those "Money was worth" such-and-so many years ago sites, and discovered that the $10,600 debt for a public college today (the average according to Block) would have been about $2,500 in 1975, or $1,725 in 1961 when I graduated.

So, ask your mother or grandmother if she felt "suffocated" by debt when she finished college. Yes, 1961 attitudes toward money were different. We didn't have cell phones, broad band, or cable TV to pay for. Eating out was for special occasions a few times a year. (Cut those 4 things out of your budget and see if you don't have enough to pay off a loan.) And most importantly, people got married before they decided to "save money" by living together. Marriage broadened their base of family support from two families instead of one.

I'm sure there's more to it, but debt is debt. You borrow it; you pay it back.

The Prescription Drug Plan

Guest blogger today is Murray (aka Jack). I do not use this plan. This is his experience and actual correspondence trying to get answers from the FDA about foreign supplied prescription drugs. NB

----------

When the Prescription Drug Plan bill was being passed our government emphasized that it was against the law for people to purchase their drugs from outside the United States. In fact, just to prove their point, they started confiscating foreign drugs coming through the U.S. postal system. The Food and Drug Administration backed our legislators by declaring that the FDA could not assure anyone that drugs from other countries were safe. This was declared despite the fact that Canada had a better track record for drug safety than the U.S.

When I got my first shipment of drugs this year from my Prescription Plan Provider, lo and behold, they came from India. Now, how can that be? I thought. What's going on here? Does the law regarding foreign drug purchases only apply to individuals and not retailers and insurance companies? Are the drugs I would purchase be suspect, but somehow the drugs the retailers purchase would be safe? Anyway, I thought I would just ask the FDA what was going on. I would ask my congressman but he won't answer. Below are copies of my correspondence with the FDA :

Name: Jack Warner
E-Mail: Vivid@aol.com

The law states that it is illegal for me to purchase drugs from other countries because they may be unsafe. I just received my first shipment of drugs from my current Prescription D plan. The drugs came from India. Isn't this illegal? Isn't my Prescription D plan providers subject to the same law as I am?
Jack

FDA Response:

Jack,
Thank you for writing the Division of Drug Information, in the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

The prescription drugs provided by your insurance plan should be approved for use in the U.S. FDA approved drug products do not have to be manufactured here in the U.S. but as part of the approval process we inspect the manufacturing facility to ensure product quality. If you were to purchase drug products outside the U.S. from unknown sources you would not know under what conditions the drug is manufactured.

Best Regards,

BD
Division of Drug Information
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
Food and Drug Administration

So they are implying that the drugs from India I received from my Plan are safe even though they don't know what the drugs are or what manufacturing facility they came from! Silly ole me thought they would want to know this before making such a statement. And as far as I'm concerned they did come from an unknown source. Anyway I fired this back at them:

From: Vivid@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 6:27 AM
To: CDER DRUG INFO
Subject: Re: DrugInfo Comment Form FDA/CDER Site

So are you telling me that it's OK for me to purchase my drugs from another country as long as it's from a "known" source? A source that has been approved by the FDA? If so, how do I find these known approved sources?

How do I know for sure if the drugs that my insurance company is providing came from an FDA approved source? The drugs came from Zydus in India.

Jack

FDA Response:

Jack,
We don't approve manufacturing facilities. We inspect them to ensure compliance with good manufacturing practices. We inspect facilities of companies that have an approved application for their drug. You can look up your drug on our Drugs@FDA website, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/index.cfm

Best Regards,

BD
Division of Drug Information
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
Food and Drug Administration

Now tell me, did the FDA dance around my questions? Ole BD could run for senator. I mean, he says inspect and I said approved ... big deal. He still didn't tell me whether or not drugs coming from Zydus in India were safe. Maybe after I die from them he will fess up! The web site he recommends only tells you what drugs have been approved and not what manufacturers have been inspected and cleared. So I sent the FDA this:

From:Vivid@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 6:27 AM
To: CDER DRUG INFO
Subject: Re: DrugInfo Comment Form FDA/CDER Site

Has the FDA ever inspected the Zydus plant in India regarding the safe production of drugs that they ship to the United States? My Prescription D insurance company uses that source to supply me with my drugs. How else will I know if my drugs are safe unless you tell me?

Jack

FDA response:

Dear Jack:

Thank you for your message to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), one of the five centers within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

We do not have that information publicly available. If you are interested, the findings for each company's inspection can be found on their Establishment Inspection Report (EIR). You can request the company's EIR through the FDA's Freedom of information Office (FOI). These reports are not prepared specifically for public distribution, but are available upon a U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. You can find out more about this option and how to make an FOI request at http://www.fda.gov/foi/foia2.htm.

Sincerely,

Division of Drug Information

D202D

This communication is consistent with 21 CFR 10.85 (k) and constitutes an informal communication that represents our best judgment at this time but does not constitute an advisory opinion, does not necessarily represent the formal position of FDA, and does not bind or otherwise obligate or commit the agency to the views expressed.

So there you have it. The FDA, the consumer's friend, is not interested in where my drugs come from, is not concerned if they are safe and will not tell me if they have inspected the plant where they are produced. They tell me to research that myself and tell me to fill out a form and send it to the manufacturer to find out if the FDA has ever inspected them. Yeah right!

These are the same people that we are depending on to insure the drugs we take are safe! They can be trusted like you and I trust Congress to stop earmarks. Who are we supposed to turn to if we think our drugs are suspect? They never even asked me what the drugs were that I was concerned about and you can bet that they never checked out Zydus. I guess my Prescription D plan can send me drugs from anywhere when drug importation is supposed to be against the law.

---------------
Here's an article in the Washington Post on this topic.

Companies based in India were bit players in the American drug market 10 years ago, selling just eight generic drugs here. Today, almost 350 varieties and strengths of antidepressants, heart medicines, antibiotics and other drugs purchased by American consumers are made by Indian manufacturers.

Five years ago, Chinese drugmakers exported about $300 million worth of products to the United States. Eager to meet Americans' demand for lower-cost medicines, they, too, have expanded rapidly. Last year, they sold more than $675 million in pharmaceutical ingredients and products in the U.S. market.

Now take a look at the inspections numbers and read this recent letter from the FDA to the Mayor of Duluth.

Remember Fido and Fluffy and the lead in the dental materials. Follow Murray's example and write your representative and the FDA.

The white guilt that will elect Obama

It's not about 18-19th century slavery and reparations; we've killed more Africans just by taking DDT off the market than were lost in the transatlantic slave trade. It's not about the Civil Rights movement--the Gen-X and Gen-Y kids (who don't turn out in huge numbers to vote) just blow off those required February Black History Month units. It's not even about failed programs floated by liberal boomers in the inner cities since the 1960s.

No, mainstream Americans don't even perceive Obama as black, except maybe as a poster child or a symbol. Obama is light skinned, grew up with white relatives and friends in white neighborhoods, talks and walks white, has an Ivy League education, and doesn't grab his crotch when performing. He's the anti-hip hopper. He's the anti-Jesse and Al. He's 100% acceptable and sanitized for the white, middle class voter.

But we in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quintiles do have a lot of guilt--about having so much. Even our poor have a lot. I worked at the food pantry this week--I can't tell you the number of cell phone ring tones, i-pods, and Bluetooth contraptions strapped to ears I saw among the people waiting for 3 days of food. The artificial nails and hair extensions. Of the 70+ clients we served (end of the month), only 2 or 3 people were on foot--one guy was on a bike. And 3 days of food in 2008 has to be five times more food than we gave in the early 80s when I first started to work there. We were passing out as many bananas as they could eat, bags and bags of fresh lettuce mixes (costs about $3 a bag where I shop), low fat yogurt packs, as much bread as they could carry, and 10 lb. sacks of potatoes. Almost no one would accept rice, beans, peanut butter or applesauce--said they had plenty of that. The first 10-12 families even got large Harry and David gift boxes loaded with fruit, cheese and chocolates.

No, it's the theme of hope and change that appeals to our over-consuming voters--whites and blacks, Republicans and Democrats, young and old (but probably mostly the young who have grown up with the abundance we older Americans thought would solve problems). It doesn't hurt that Obama is young and handsome, because we overweight, pre-diabetic Americans are hooked on slender good looks. Hillary is chunky, McCain is overweight.

We have a serious spiritual problem in the USA--even the purpose driven Rick Warren who came to power, wealth and renown preaching the cross of Jesus Christ has abandoned us for greener pastures in Africa and Asia. American religious leaders don't know what to do with an overfed, over-leisured, over-educated parish. So they focus on gaps in wealth, health care and schools, but not the one between God and man. And pardon my language, but God forbid they should preach from the Bible what is really meant in those passages about wealth! But the people know. Yes. Deep down. They know there must be something more. And if a Messiah comes along who says all the right biblical phrases, hey, they'll follow. I just hope he knows that Good Friday follows the adoration and singing of Palm Sunday. Because if he can't deliver. . . things will get nasty.

What's eating you now?

Our local Channel 10 provided a very interesting investigative report last night about dental implants, caps and crowns. Did you know that is one more "American product" that goes in your body that has been outsourced to China? These things are cemented to your teeth. There is NO safe level of lead for the human body, but after testing the work of 8 different labs that used Chinese suppliers, Channel 10 found one lab whose products contained lead--off the charts for safety and exposure for humans. There are 300 commercial dental labs in Ohio. Even if your dentist is making the crowns and caps himself--he's getting the material from one of these labs. They do not have to register with the FDA unless they have overseas operations. And 46 other states don't either. Dentists who use the foreign made material do so because it is 1/10th the cost of U.S. made.

Personally, I don't care what the CDC and FDA say about their complex guidelines, I know China doesn't have or doesn't respect contract law in its culture or background. It has penal law. Your commercial contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on--assuming these things are still on paper. If American companies chose to do business there, they'd better be ready to send over a small army of American trained inspectors and plant foremen to protect the American consumer, which would considerably add to the cost.

And how smart is this? The FDA doesn't enforce its own guidelines for foreign made dental work according the Channel 10's research; that is left to the Border Patrol--you know, those overworked, understaffed folks who also have to protect us from Mexican peasants infiltrating and Asian stowaways in ship containers.

The story was also in today's Columbus Dispatch.

Thank you, channel 10, for this research. But don't you wonder where the peer reviewed medical researchers are? Are they all working on poverty gap stories on government grants? And where are the legislators who pass our laws and supposedly require oversight for safety? Frankly, I think they need to get the lead out of some of their hearings on baseball players and talk show hosts, and start asking some tough questions about our food and medical products from China and drugs that come from India to be sold to our seniors on the government prescription drug plan.

Remember what happened to Fido and Fluffy!

Here's depressing news

A new study published in PLoS Medicine questions the efficacy of the new generation antidepressant drugs such as fluoxetine (Prozac), venlafaxine (Effexor), nefazodone (Serzone), and paroxetine (Seroxat / Paxil). The study was done in the UK. In a meta-analysis, once the unpublished studies were included, the improvement in depression among those receiving the trial drug, as compared to those receiving placebos, was not clinically significant in mildly depressed patients or even in most patients who suffer from very severe depression. "The benefit only seemed to be clinically meaningful for a small group of patients who were the most extremely depressed to start out with. This improvement seemed to come about because these patients did not respond as well as less depressed patients to placebo, rather than responding better to the drug." (News release)

The authors used the data sets from the FDA used in the clinical trials.

Note: If you go to the original article (see link above) and scroll down on the first page, there is an editor's summary in a blue box--much easier to read than the whole article.

This is not the way to win friends at Ohio State!

I noticed this little blurb in my OSU Today

"The [Obama] event is expected to attract thousands of visitors to campus on Wednesday. Many spaces that are usually available for staff parking around St. John Arena will be reserved for event parking. Those individuals should consider planning to arrive early or seek alternate campus parking options."

A parking hang tag at Ohio State is called a hunting license even on good days when no messianic figure is visiting. And the weather is miserable.

On the sixth day, God created animals

and said to the dog

'Sit all day by the door of your house and bark at anyone who comes in or walks past. For this, I will give you a life span of twenty years.'

The dog said: 'That's a long time to be barking. How about only ten years and I'll give you back the other ten?'

So God agreed.

Then God created the monkey and said:

'Entertain people, do tricks, and make them laugh. For this, I'll give you a twenty-year life span.'

The monkey said: 'Monkey tricks for twenty years? That's a pretty long time to perform. How about I give you back ten like the Dog did?'

And God agreed.

Then God created the cow and said:

'You must go into the field with the farmer all day long and suffer under the sun, have calves and give milk to support the farmer's family. For this, I will give you a life span of sixty years.'

The cow said: 'That's kind of a tough life you want me to live for sixty years. How about twenty and I'll give back the other forty?'

And God agreed again.

Then finally, God created man and said:

'Eat, sleep, play, marry and enjoy your life. For this, I'll give you twenty years.'

But man said: 'Only twenty years? Could you possibly give me my twenty, the forty the cow gave back, the ten the monkey gave back, and the ten
the dog gave back; that makes eighty, okay?'

'Okay,' said God, 'You asked for it.'

So that is why for our first twenty years we eat, sleep, play and enjoy ourselves. For the next forty years we slave in the sun to support our family. For the next ten years we do monkey tricks to entertain the grandchildren. And for the last ten years we sit on the front porch and bark at everyone.

Life has now been explained to you.

There is no need to thank me for this valuable information. I'm doing it as a public service.

[My husband's high school friend, Mickey, sent this--I assume it's going around the Internet. I modified the days to fit the Genesis story.]

How deep is shallow?

Sometimes I'm embarrassed for my sex. A "journalist" for the WSJ, Laura Meckler, and her "source" for her completely anecdotal analysis of the McCain campaign in Ohio, Marilyn Cameron, causes me to think it was a mistake to encourage women to leave the home for the workforce in the 1970s. I've come to expect the WSJ news articles (not the editorial page) to be more liberal than the NYT, but this was so shallow you could actually see the bottom. "In Ohio the economy rules," Feb. 27, 2008

Here's how the story goes--completely hung on the recent (since 2001) experiences of Marilyn Cameron, Ohioan, 65 years old, retired nurse.

1. She's thinking of voting Democratic for the first time since JFK. The article identifies her as 65. Maybe they talked about it in her high school civics class (she would have been 17 when JFK was elected in 1960), but the law wasn't changed until 1971, in response to the VietNam war protests. Neither Meckler or Cameron seemed to realize this--and Meckler was rushing for a deadline and apparently WSJ didn't give her a password and had no way to log on and check the details.

2. Cameron's husband worked for 34 years for the same company and took a buy out in 2001 at age 56. She worked as a nurse and had the benefits. What a sweet deal! Job security for 34 years. And a buy out!! How tough can life get? Did he invest his buy out in stocks or mutual funds and try out something he'd always wanted to do? Or did he buy a new model car or boat? Don't know; doesn't say. Did he sit around and complain with his buddies at the bar, or did he go out and get another job? Don't know; doesn't say. My husband took a buy out (by choice) in 1994 and started his own company, and was never happier, and also never made as much money as he did when he was a partner in a larger firm. We cut all expenses to the bone, didn't go out to eat for a year, and drove his old Nissan until it fell apart. We used my employee benefits.

3. Cameron's daughter is "one pay check away from mortgage foreclosure." So? For the 18 years before our children left home and I went back to work full time, we used every paycheck down to the last penny. We did have a small savings account--not the three months salary that all experts recommend, but we could have covered one mortgage payment. It's called, "planning for emergencies," Ms. Meckler--look it up.

4. Ms. Cameron wanted to retire when she was 64, and "had to withdraw $15,000 from her 401K to pay off bills including $580 a month for health insurance until she qualified for Medicare." This whine hurts my ears! She retires early, and instead of being thankful she could COBRA until eligible for government health insurance, she's a cry baby that she had to use her own money to pay her own bills! I'm guessing she also got Social Security, since she apparently wasn't a state employee in Ohio like me (I'm just waiting for some illegal to try to get SS on my number!)

5. Eleven of her twelve grandchildren have health insurance, but ONE doesn't!! Hello! Young people can accept or reject their employer's health plan. When our kids first left home we were either badgering them to get on a plan or we were taking out short term policies on them. Even 40 year olds turn down health insurance--some people think nothing can happen to them and life style is more important than health plans. Ms. Cameron may have one of those in her family--and I'd say she's darn lucky only ONE isn't insured.

6. Buried at the bottom of the article, where the common sense always appears in the WSJ, is a quote from Ms. Cameron's son, who has a different last name. He is a financial analyst living in Norwalk (so apparently her kids went to college--I'm surprised she didn't complain about paying for college in the 80s). He's the only one who makes sense. "When the government gets its fiscal house in order" things will improve, he says. "Spending is out of control." He also thinks good old mom will NOT vote Democratic.

Remember to cite your sources

or you might get an e-mail from me. Here's a note I sent to a Christian web site.

[the information on your website matches] the text of David Fuller's biography of John Huss in the book, "Valiant for the truth; a treasury of evangelical writings," compiled and edited by David Otis Fuller, McGraw-Hill, 1961, pp.79-81. I think you have incorrectly cited your sources. You have used, word for word, approximately 9 paragraphs, from these pages, and thus, the material should be in quotes, and the book cited, not just the author. Or you need to rewrite the information using your own words, and still site him as a source. Because of U.S. copyright law, which means McGraw Hill owns the way this particular history was put together by Dr. Fuller, you are in violation of the law. That is not a good Christian witness. It's called stealing in the vernacular. I'm sure God forgives, because He probably knows you didn't learn how to properly cite your sources or use research appropriately when you were in school, but a sharp eyed lawyer for a large publishing firm with deep pockets might not be so forgiving. If I found it in 2 seconds using google, so will someone else. The magazine article is also not correctly cited, but I don't have that in front of me. The Book of Martyrs is available in many editions and is probably public domain, and I'm not up on how to cite that, but you'd be safe citing the edition you used.

Don't worry about the polar bears

Do worry about the Jolly Green Giants Marxists taking us hostage by this bogus registering them as endangered. The globe, at least this year, is not getting warmer, it's getting colder. Ask anyone in Wisconsin or northern Illinois where they've had record snowfalls. And that record may only last one year, and it may mean nothing, but it does mean that panels of UN flunkies and Al Gore don't control it.

"Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on." DailyTech Blog

4670

At the food pantry

The weather is nasty today, so I'm hitching a ride down town to work at the Lutheran Social Services food pantry. Catch you later.

4669

Automobile reviews for dog lovers

There's no end to helpful information on the internet. Here's DogCars.com which reviews cars and their dog-friendly features. My favorite, a Dodge Caravan. It got a 5 paw review (best). And I don't even have a dog!

"One of the problems I’ve seen with many of the vehicles I’ve driven is that the manufacturers have traded cargo space for passenger space. Third-row seats that are hard to get rid of and second rows that don’t fold flat seem more common than ever. Swell for the folks hauling little Susie and all her Brownie troop friends, but hell for those of use who are trying to ditch the seats (cup holders, DVD players, etc.) and make room for Rover.

Nothing I’ve yet seen handles this challenge as well as the Stow ‘N Go seats in the Dodge and Chrysler minivans. You can go from having a seven-passenger van to having a wide-open cargo van in less than five minutes. You can have some seats but not others. The seats disappear into the floorboards in so many different ways and so easily that even I, with my minivan ennui, was impressed beyond all measure. The seats you don’t stow? Pull up the floorboards in front of them and … more there’s cargo room underneath!"

My brother has one of these--really a neat car. Maybe my next van. . .