Freedom and Justice In Islam

FREEDOM AND JUSTICE IN ISLAM

There is a publication called IMPRIMIS that contains summaries of lectures made by experts in their respective fields. One such lecture was by Bernard Lewis, Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies, Princeton University. Bernard Lewis was granted access to the archives of the former Ottoman Empire in Istanbul, has translated Arabic, Turkish, Persian, and Hebrew documents and history. Lewis has written several books, including The Arabs In History, What Went Wrong and The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror.

The following is an exact copy of the IMPRIMIS article, published September, 2006. “Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College, www.hillsdale.edu. The article shows that what the United States and the Western World mean by freedom, democracy and imperialism is not the same in the Islamic World.

“ By common consent among historians, the modern history of the Middle East begins in the year 1798, when he French Revolution arrived in Egypt in the form of a small expeditionary force led by a young general balled Napoleon Bonaparte--who conquered and then ruled it for a while with appalling ease. General Bonaparte--he wasn’t yet Emperor--proclaimed to the Egyptians that he had come to them on behalf of a French Republic built on the principles of liberty and equality. We know something about the reactions to this proclamation from the extensive literature of the Middle Eastern Arab world. The idea of equality posed no great problem. Equality is very basic in Islamic belief: All true believers are equal.. Of course, that still leaves three “inferior “ categories of people---slaves, unbelievers and women. But in general, the concept off equality was understood. Islam never developed anything like the caste system of India to the east or the privileged aristocracies of Christian Europe to the west. Equality was something they knew, respected, and in large measure practiced. But liberty was something else.
As used in Arabic at that time, liberty was not a political but a legal term: You were free if you were not a slave. The word liberty was not used as we use it in the Western world, as a metaphor for good government. So the idea of a republic founded on principles of freedom caused some puzzlement. Some years later and Egyptian sheikh--Sheikh Rifa’a Rafi’ al-Tahtawi, who went to Paris as chaplain to the first group of Egyptian students sent to Europe--wrote a book about his adventures and explained his discovery of the meaning of freedom. He wrote that when the French talk about freedom they mean what Muslims mean when they talk about justice. Be equating freedom with justice, he opened a whole new phase in the political and public discourse of the Arab world, and then, more broadly, the Islamic world.

Is Western-Style Freedom Transferable?

What is the possibility of freedom in the Islamic world, in the Western sense of the word? If you look at the current literature, you will find two view common in the United States and Europe. One of them holds that Islamic peoples are incapable of decent, civilized government. What ever the West does, Muslims will be ruled by corrupt tyrants. Therefore the aim of our foreign policy should be to insure that they are our tyrants rather than someone else’s--friendly rather than hostile tyrants. This point of view is
very much favored in departments of state and foreign offices and is generally known, rather surprisingly, as the “pro-Arab” view. It is, of course, in no sense pro-Arab. It shows ignorance of the Arab past, contempt for the Arab present, and unconcern for the Arab future. The second common view is that Arab ways are different from our ways. They must be allowed to develop in accordance with their cultural principles, but it is possible for them--as for anyone else, anywhere in the world, with discreet help form outside and most specifically from the United States,--- to develop democratic institutions of a kind. This view is known as the “imperialist” view and has been vigorously denounced and condemned as such. [ The word imperialist is often used in the west to mean conquering or “taking over” a country. The west is not interested in “taking over” any Arab country. The interest is in peace through democratic freedoms. (added) emphasis]
In thinking about these two views, it is helpful to step back and consider what Arab and Islamic society was like once and how it has been transformed in the modern age. The idea that how that society is now is how it has always been is totally false. The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or the Assad family in Syria or the more friendly dictatorship of Mubarak in Egypt--all of these have no roofs whatsoever in the Arab or in the Islamic past. Let me quote to you form a letter written in 1786--three years before the French Revolution--by Mssr. Count de Choiseul--Gouffier, the French ambassador in Istanbul, in which he is trying to explain why he is making rather slow progress with the tasks entrusted to him by his government in dealing with the Ottoman government. “Here,” he says, “things are not as in France where the king is sole master and does as he pleases.” “Here,” he says, “the sultan has to consult.” He has to consult with the former holders of high offices, with the leaders of various groups and so on. And this is a slow process. This scenario is something radically different than the common image of Middle Eastern government today. And it is a description that ceased to be true because of a number of changes that occurred.

Modernization and Nazi and Soviet Influence

The first of these changes ins what one might call modernization. This was undertaken not by imperialists (western version), for the most part, but by Middle Eastern rulers who has become painfully aware that their societies were undeveloped compared with the advanced Western world. These rulers decided that what they had to do was to modernize or Westernize. Their intentions were good, But the consequences were often disastrous. What they did was to increase the power of the state and the ruler enormously by placing at his disposal the whole modern apparatus of control, repression and indoctrination. At the same time, which was even worse, they limited or destroyed those forces in the traditional society that had previously limited the autocracy of the ruler. In the traditional society there were established orders---the bazaar merchants, the scribes, the guilds, the country gentry, the military establishment, the religious establishment, and so on. These were powerful groups in society whose heads were not appointed by the ruler but
arose from within the groups. [ Today Islamic mullahs and other religious leaders are not appointed but arise from within as part of their reputation]
And no sultan, however powerful, could do much without maintaining some relationship with these different orders in society. This in not democracy as we currently use that word, but it is certainly is limited, responsible government. And the system worked. Modernization ended all that. A new ruling class emerged, ruling from the center and using the apparatus of the stated for its purposes.
That was the first stage in the destruction of the old order. The second stage we can dated with precision. IN the year 1940, the government of France surrendered to the Axis ands formed a collaborationist government in a place called Vichy. The French colonial empire was, for the most part, beyond the reach of the Nazis, which meant that the governors of the French colonies had a free choice: To stay with Vichy or to join Charles de Gaulle, who had set up a Free French Committee in London. The overwhelming majority chose Vichy, which meant that Syria-Lebanon--a French mandated territory in the heart of the Arab East--was now wide open to the Nazis. The governor and his high officials in the administration in Syria-Lebanon took their orders from Vichy, which in turn took orders from Berlin. The Nazis moved in, made a tremendous propaganda effort, and were even able to move from Syria eastwards into Iraq and for a while set u p a pro-Nazi fascist regime. It was in this period that political parties were formed that were the nucleus of what later became the Baath Party. The Western Allies eventually drove the Nazis out of the middle East and suppressed these organizations. But the war ended in 1945 and the Allies left. A few years later the Soviets moved in, established an immensely powerful presence in Egypt Syria Iraq and various other countries and introduced Soviet style political practice. The adaptation from the Nazi model to the communist model was very simple and easy requiring only a few minor adjustments, and it proceeded pretty well. That is the origin of the Baath Party and of the kind of governments that we have been confronting in the Middle East in recent years. That, as I would again repeat and emphasize has nothing whatever to do the traditional Arab or Islamic past, before modernization.

Wahhabism and Oil

That there has been a break with the past is a fact of which Arabs and Muslims themselves are keenly and painfully aware, and they have tried to do something about it. It is in this context that we observe a series of movements that could be described as an Islamic revival or reawakening . The first of these---founded by a theologian called Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who lived in a remote area of Najd in desert Arabia--is known as Wahhabi. Its argument is that the root of Arab-Islamic troubles lies in following the ways of the infidel. The Islamic world, it holds, has abandoned the true faith that God gave it through Hid prophet and His holy book, ant the remedy is a return to pure, original Islam. This pure, original Islam is , of course--as is usual in such situations--a new invention with little connection to Islam as it existed in its earlier stages. [ The assumption that Islam is the same as the historical Islam appears to be the source of the disagreement over the nature of Islam today. If the nature of Islam has changed, then the assumption that its basic nature is benign is dangerously wrong ]
Wahhabism was dealt with fairly easily in is early years, but it acquired a new importance in the mid-1920’s when two things happened. The local tribal chiefs of the House of Saud--who had been converted since the 18th century to the Wahhabi version of Islam---conquered the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. This was of immense importance, giving them huge prestige and influence in the whole Islamic world it also gave them control of the pilgrimage, which brings millions of Muslims from the Islamic world together to the same place at the same time every year.
The other important thing that happened-- also in the mid-20’s ---was the discovery of oil.. With that, this extremist sect found itself not only in possession of Mecca and Medina, abut also of wealth beyond the dreams of avarice. As a result, that would otherwise have been a lunatic fringe in a marginal country became a major force in the world of Islam. And it has continued as a major force to the present day however operating through the Saudi government and through a whole series of non-governmental organizations What is worse, its influence spreads far beyond the region. When Muslims living in Chicago or Los Angeles or Birmingham or Hamburg want to give their children some grounding in their faith and culture---a very natural, very normal thing----they turn to the traditional recourses for such purposes: evening classes, weekend schools, holiday camps and the like. The problem is that these are now overwhelmingly funded and therefore controlled by the Wahhabis, and the version of Islam that they teach is the Wahhabi version, which has thus become a major force in Muslim immigrant communities.
Let me illustrate the significance of this with one example: Germany has constitutional separation of church and state, but in the German school system they provide time for religious instruction. The state, however, does not provide teachers or textbooks. They allow time in the school curriculum for the various churches and other religious communities-if they wish--to provide religious instruction to their children, which is entirely optional. The Muslims in Germany are mostly Turks. When they reached sufficient numbers, they applies to the German government for permission to teach Islam in German schools. The German authorities agreed, but said they--the Muslims--had to provide the teachers and the textbooks. The Turks said that they had excellent textbooks, which are used in Turkey and Turkish schools, but the German authorities said no, those are government--produced textbooks, under the principle of separation of church and state, these Muslims shad to produce their own. As a result, whereas in Turkish schools in Turkey, students get a more moderate version of Islam, in German schools, in general, they get the full Wahhabai blast. The last time I looked, twelve Turks have been arrested as members of Al-Qaeda-- all twelve of them born and educated in Germany. [What is the version of Islam being taught in the United States and are we refusing to adhere to the separation of Islamic church and U.S. state that the ACLU and other organizations trumpet?]

The Iranian Revolution and Al-Qaeda

in addition to the rising spread of Wahhabism, I would draw your attention to the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The word “revolution” is much misused in the Middle Least, it is used for virtually every change of government. But the Iranian Revolution was a real revolution, in the sense that the French and Russian revolutions were real revolutions. It was a massive change in the country, a massive shift of power---socially, economically, and ideologically, And like the French and Russian revolutions in their prime, it also had a tremendous impact on the world with which the Iranians shared a common universe of discourse-the world of Islam. I remember not long after the Iranian Revolution I was visiting Indonesia and for some mysterious reason I had been invited to lecture in religious universities. I noticed in the student dorms they had pictures of Khomeini all over the place, although Khomeini--like the Iranians in general -- is a Shiite, and the Indonesians are Sunnis. I Indonesians generally showed little interest in what was happening in the Middle Est. But this was something important. And the Iranian Revolution has gone through various familiar phases---familiar from the French and Russian revolutions--such as the conflicts between the moderates and the extremists. I would say that the Iranian Revolution is now entering the Stalinist phase, and its impact all over the Islamic world has been enormous.
The third and most recent phase of the Islamic revival is that associated with the name Al-Qaeda--the organization headed by Osama bin Laden. Here I would remind you of the events toward the end of the 20th century, the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan, the withdrawal of the defeated armies into Russia, the collapse and breakdown of ht Soviet Union. We are accustomed to regard that as a Western, or more specifically, an American, victory in the Cold War. In the Islamic world, it was nothing of the kind. It was Muslim victory in a jihad. And, if we are fair about it, we must admit that this interpretation of what happened does not lack some plausibility. In the mountains of Afghanistan, which the Soviets had conquered and had
been trying to rule, the Taliban were able to inflict one defeat after another on the Soviet forces, eventually driving the Red Army out of the country to defeat and collapse.
Thanks to modern communications and the modern media, we are quite well informed about how AlQaeda perceives things. Osama bin Laden is very articulate, very lucid, and I think on the whole very honest in the way he explains things. As he sees it, and as his followers see it, there has been on ongoing struggle between the two world religions, Christianity and Islam--which began with the advent if Islam in the 7th century and has been going on ever since. The Crusades were one aspect, but there were many others. It is an ongoing struggle of attack and counter-attack, conquest and reconquest, jihad and Crusade, ending so it seems in a final victory of the West with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire---the last of the great Muslim states,--and the partition of most of the Muslim world between the Western powers. As Osama bin Laden puts it: “In this final phase of the ongoing struggle, the world of the infidels was divided between the two superpowers--the United States and the Soviet Union. Now we have defeated and destroyed the more difficult and the more dangerous of the two. Dealing with the pampered and effeminate Americans will be easy.” And then followed what has become the familiar description of the Americans ands the usual litany and recitation of Americans defeats and retreats. Vietnam, Beirut, Somalia, one after another. The general theme was: They can’t take it. Hit them and they‘ll run. All you have to do is hit harder. This seemed to receive final confirmation during 1990’s when one attack after another on embassies, warships and barracks brought no response beyond angry words and expensive missiles misdirected to remote and uninhabited places, and in some places--as in Beirut and Somalia--prompt retreats.
What happened in 9/11 was seen by its perpetrators and sponsors as the culmination of the previous phase and the inauguration of the next phase--taking the war into the enemy camp to achieve final victory. The response to 9/11 came as a nasty surprise. They were expecting more of the same--bleating and apologies-- instead of which they got, a vigorous reaction, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. And as they used to say in Moscow: It is not accident comrades, that there has been no successful attack in the United States since then. But if one follows the discourse, one can see that the debate in this country since then has caused many of the perpetrators and sponsors to return to their previous diagnosis. Because remember, they have no experience, and therefore no understanding of the free debate of an open society. What we see as free debate, they see as weakness, defeat and division. Thus they prepare for the final victory, the final triumph and the final jihad.

Conclusion

Let’s spend a moment or two defining what we men by freedom and democracy. There is a view sometimes expressed that “democracy” means the system of government evolved by the English-speaking peoples Any departure from that is either a crime to be punished or a disease to be cured. I beg to differ from that point of view. Different societies develop different ways of conducting their affairs, and do not need to resemble ours. And let us remember, after all, that American democracy after the War for Independence was sympathetic with slavery for three-quarters or a century and with the disenfranchisement of women for longer that that. Democracy is not born like the Phoenix. It comes in stages, and the stages and processes of development will differ from country to country from society to society. The French cherish the curious illusion that they invented democracy, but since the great revolution of 1789, they have had two monarchies, two empires, two dictatorships, and at the last count, five republics. And I’m not sure that they’ve got it right yet.
There are, as I’ve tried to point out elements in Islamic society which could well be conducive to democracy. And there are encouraging signs at the present moment---what happened in Iraq, for example, with millions of Iraqis willing to stand in line to vote, knowing that they were risking their lives, is a quite extraordinary achievement. It show great courage, great resolution. Don’t be misled by what you read in the media about Iraq. The situation is certainly not good, but there are redeeming features in it. The battle isn’t over. It is still very difficult. There are still many major problems to over come. There is a bitter anti-Western feeling which derives partly and increasingly from our support for what they see as tyrannies ruling over them. It’s interesting that pro-American feeling is strongest in countries with anti-American governments I’ve been told repeatedly by Iranians that there is no country in the world where pro-American feeling is stronger, deeper and more widespread than Iran. “I’ve heard this from so many different Iranians-including some still living in Iran-- and I believe it. When the American planes were flying over Afghanistan, the story was that many Iranians put signs on their roofs in English “This way, please.”
So there is a good deal of pro-Western and even specifically pro-American feeling. But the anti-American feeling is strongest in those countries that are ruled by what we are pleased to call friendly governments.” And it is those of course, that are the most tyrannical and the most resented by their own people. The outlook at the moment is, I would say, very mixed. I think that the cause of developing free institutions--along their lines, not ours--is possible. One can see signs of its beginning in some countries. At the same time, the forces working against are very powerful and well entrenched. And one of the greatest dangers is that on their side they are firm and convinced and resolute. Whereas on our side, we are weak and undecided and irresolute. And in such a combat, it is not difficult to see which side will prevail.
I think hat the effort is difficult and the outcome uncertain, but I think the effort must be made. Either we bring them freedom, or they will destroy us.”
Removing the United States dependence on Arab oil will not solve the problem because the rest of the world, China, will still pay whatever is needed to get the oil. Thus, the Islamic radicals will probably be assured of the money to finance the jihad necessary to spread Islam world wide. It is noteworthy that those who refuse to resist the Wahhabi brand of Islam, the liberals, those who want to negotiate, and those who think being nice to the Islamic fascists will change them, will be the first to be killed because they will not fight to maintain their own freedom. Albert Einstein was a well known pacifist and antinationalist. He was violently against WWI. When Hitler came to power he clung to those ideals but recognized the danger of blind adherence to ideology, even the idealistic ideology of pacifism. However, in a 1931 speech at the California Institute of Technology, he explained how he had reinvented the word. “I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace……is it not better for a man to die for a cause in which he believes, such as peace, than to suffer for a cause in which he does not believe, such as war?? When the threat of a Nazi atomic bomb seemed real, he signed the letter drafted by Leo Szilard urging President Roosevelt to begin an American atomic bomb project. Our present pacifists do not have the guts to protect their own liberty.
For sixty years, the naysayers, second guessers and holier-than-thou crowd have been criticizing the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended WWII. I know, there are readers who will say it was not necessary to drop the bombs. Have you asked yourselves what would have happened if the bombs had not been dropped? That question has an answer. The plans for the invasion of the Japanese home islands still exist. The plans, the expected deaths of both American and Japanese men, women and children are all presented in the book “Downfall” by Richard B. Frank. Before you throw rocks at the decision to drop the bombs, it would be wise to read what was expected if the bombs were not dropped. Many of the critics for the last sixty years would not even exist because their fathers, grandfathers would have been killed in the invasion and terrible battles that were expected. If you consider yourself educated, you might look at both sides of the question, unless your agenda would not allow you to admit to a mistake. Academe is not what it used to be.
Older Wiser

The Late Great United States Of America

SUBJECT: The Late Great United States of America
Mar 23, 2006

March 24, 2006, WASHINGTON -- Today, President Bush called for a constitutional amendment to hand over the reins of American governance to members of the mainstream press. "It has been my privilege to work for the American people," Bush stated, "but I now realize that I can never satisfy the requirements of this office. In my opinion, only one person can meet the challenges we face today: respected journalist Helen Thomas. Furthermore, Congress cannot serve the American populace unless it is represented by opinion writers and reporters from the mainstream media." Congressional Republicans and Democrats stand poised to vote on President Bush's proposal; state legislatures stand at the ready to confirm the amendment. Ms. Thomas would take over the presidency on April 1, 2006.
April 1, 2006, WASHINGTON -- Helen Thomas took her oath of office today, In her inaugural address, President Thomas announced the guiding policy for her administration:
1. We will seek to ensure the security of our citizens without bloodshed and without compromising the values that make America great. We will pull our troops out of Iraq. We will pull our troops out of Afghanistan. We will immediately shut down Guantanamo Bay and release the prisoners of war being held without charge there; we will compensate them for their unjustified detention.
2. We will end warrantless wiretapping, and we will end the torture of terrorists for information.
3 We will shut down the racist vigilante group now patrolling our border with Mexico.
4. I pledge not to threaten or cajole any country into adopting values in concert with those of the United States -- we must earn respect by deference to the values of others. Let us end the War on Terror; let us begin the War for Peace."
Thomas' cabinet is an impressive slate of columnists and commentators: Vice President Ted Turner, Secretary of State Thomas Friedman, Secretary of Defense Michael Moore and National Security Advisor Maureen Dowd, among others. The Senate leader is Arianna Huffington; the new House leader is Oscar-winner George Clooney.
April 2, 2006, WASHINGTON -- Several members of President Thomas' cabinet released statements today thanking the American public for their support. "I hope to put a stop to all war. Forever. Yes, forever. I'm rich, so I can do that," read a statement released by VP Turner. Secretary of State Friedman said, "I look forward to traveling to different countries on the taxpayer dime. I can't wait to sip a Coke with President Ahmadinejad of Iran. After all, if we can all drink Coke together, can't we create world peace?" Secretary of Defense Moore was optimistic about the new administration: "We're going to let the freedom fighters have their freedom. We're going to bring the baby-killers home. We're going to force business owners to hire more workers at bayonet point. And we're going to put George W. Bush on trial for war crimes." NSA Maureen Dowd issued the following statement: "Bush and Rummy are gone; the big, burly rough-guys with their impetuously masculine attitude are outta here. Meanwhile, legislation nationalizing talk radio and diverting the War on Terror budget to NPR is making its way through Congress. The legislation is sponsored by Rep. Clooney, who explained, " I want to make sure Rush Limbaugh is the first to sacrifice for his country."
May 1, 2006, The City Formerly Known as WASHINGTON -- Today, President Thomas completed the handover of the Great Satan to the United Nations. After the six nuclear attacks of last month, and with the country in total chaos, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan offered to broker a peace treaty between the Great Satan and the glorious servants of Mohammed, peace be upon him. The terms of the treaty dictated that the Great Satan rename Washington, D.C., utilize all of its taxpayer funding for purposes consistent with Islamic sharia law, and create a plan for the invasion of Britain, Australia and the Little Satan, Israel. President Thomas heralded the agreement as "a giant leap for most Americans." Thomas responded to the protests of millions of Americans, stating, "Look, we never lied to you. We are the most honest administration in the history of the former United States." (This story edited for accuracy and blasphemy by the Islamic Press Association.)
May 2, 2006 The American Bar Association stated today that "finallly, the fact that American voters cannot be trusted to control their own Liberty and Freedom has been recognized by the highest levels in United States government. Finally, voters have come to realize that lawyers built this country.

Older, Wiser REALLY????

53 Senators Vote To Raid Social Securitiy

53 SENATORS VOTE TO RAID THE SOCIAL SECURITY “TRUST FUND”
Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Mike Crapo ( R-ID) introduced an amendment to prevent the Social Security Surplus from continuing to be raided and spent in the General Fund. Fifty-three senators voted the amendment down and thus voted to continue spending the Social Security surplus. The current Social Security system allows Congress to spend the Social Security surplus on other government programs. The total, including interest, that Congress has raided the fund is $1.7 trillion of Social Security dollars since 1985. The surplus now only consists of IOU’s stacked in a vault in West Virginia that can only be paid back by raising taxes or cutting spending and benefits. The current, temporary Social Security Surplus exists because the number of Baby Boomers contributing to Social Security is greater than the funds needed to pay the current recipients of Social Security. The current recipients are those born during and before the depression when birth rates were much lower. The surplus is supposed to be kept in reserve so that when the boomers retire and start collecting Social Security benefits, there will be enough money to pay the bills. If not enough money is in the reserves, the working generation born after the Baby Boomers must be taxed at a much higher rate or have their benefits cut. It is already too late for the working generation! That is why President Bush, tried to get Congress to solve the impending destruction of Social Security. Congress, especially the Democrats, would have none of it. The generation that comes after the Baby Boomers and those born before 1950, will be the ones hurt by spending the surplus that was supposed to remain in the trust fund. The Social Security Trust Fund existed before Congress, during the middle 1960’s, passed laws allowing the transfer of the trust funds into the general fund and then spent on anything the politicians wish.
After the vote to defeat the amendment, DeMint had this to say about his fellow senators who voted to continue spending Social Security funds:
“Sadly, fifty-three senators turned their backs on America’s seniors“, Senator DeMint said. “There is simply no way to save Social Security if we don’t have the courage to stop using the surplus as a secret slush find. I’m thankful there were forty-six senators who stood with America’s seniors to end the raid. We will not be deterred by cynics who offer no solutions”. “Those who voted against this amendment voted to raid Social Security“ , said DeMint. “Now, every senator will be on record whether they oppose or support the raid. This amendment said absolutely nothing about (alternative, taxpayer), personal (investment) accounts, it was oly about whether you believe Social Security should be saved or allowed to wither on the vine“.
The following is a list of the senators who voted against the amendment. Eight of them are Republicans and 45 are Democrats ( including J.Jeffords(I-VT) who votes with the Democrats). Eighty-five percent (45)of those voting against the amendment are Democrats and fifteen percent (8) are Republicans (RINOS). Thirty-one (58%) of the 53 are lawyers. Of the eight republicans, three are lawyers. Sixty percent of the United States Senate are lawyers. We need to stop electing lawyers to public office. The list of those who voted against the amendment follows:

Republicans;
Burns, Montana; Chafee, Rhode Island; Collins, Maine; Domenici*, New Mexico; Lugar, Indiana; Smith*, Oregon; Snowe, Maine; Talent*, Missouri.

Democrats; (plus jumping jim jeffords)
Akaka, Hawaii; Baucus*, Montana; Bayh*, Indiana; Biden*, Indiana; Bingaman*, New Mexico; Boxer, California; Byrd*, West Virginia; Cantwell, Washington; Carper, Delaware; Clinton*, New York; Conrad, North Dakota; Dayton, Minnesota; Dodd*, Connecticut; Dorgan, North Dakota; Durbin*, Illinois; Feingold*, Wisconsin; Feinstein, California; Harkin*, Iowa; Inouye*, Hawaii; Jeffords*, Vermont; Johnson*, South Dakota; Kennedy*, Massachusetts; Kerry*, Massachusetts; Kohl, Wisconsin; Landrieu, Louisiana; Lautenberg, New Jersey; Leahy*, Vermont; Levin*, Michigan; Lieberman*, Connecticut; Lincoln, Arkansas; Menendez, New Jersey; Mikulski, Maryland; Murray, Washington; Nelson*, Florida; Nelson*, Nebraska; Obama*, Illinois; Pryor*, Arkansas; Reed*, Rhode Island; Reid*, Nevada; Rockefeller, West Virginia; Salazar*, Colorado; Sarbanes*, Maryland; Schumer*, New York; Stabenow*, Michigan; Wyden*, Oregon.
The asterisks denote lawyers.
The DeMint-Crapo Amendment to Stop the Raid on Social Security included the following requirements:
1. Social Security surpluses must be used to help pay for future benefits.

2. Make no changes to the benefits of those Americans born before January 1, 1950

3. Provide for a voluntary option for younger Americans to obtain legally binding
ownership of a portion of their benefits.
What is in the future?
1. Social Security will fail due to the greed, lust for power, and belief that the voters can not be trusted to make decisions about their own liberty and freedom.
2. Those born before 1950 will have their benefits cut so that present Politicians can continue to stay in power.
3. The article “ The Threat From Lawyers Is No Joke” by Walter Olson in Hillsdale Colleges publication IMPRIMIS (Volume 33, Number 3 March 2004) , will come true. Olson is a senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute, contributor to the New York Time, Crossfire, Wall Street Journal. He has written the books The Excuse Factory, The Litigation Explosion, The Rule Of Lawyers: How the New Litigation Elite Threatens America’s Rule of Law.

Older Wiser

Sacrifice Yourself To Do The Job Required

SUBJECT: Sacrificing Yourself To Do The Job Required

The Heritage Foundation sent this on March 20th, 2006.
In the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., stands the James W. Robinson Secondary School. The school is named for a man from Hinsdale, Illinois. Like other men in their early 20’s , he had yet to find his calling in life. But his country needed him to fight in Vietnam, and so he went.
James Robinson rose to the rank of sergeant, and on April 11, 1966 he found himself leading Company C, 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry, 1st. Infantry Division.
The unit was pinned down by a battalion of Viet Cong soldiers. Snipers picked them off from trees. Grenades exploded all around. A 50-mm gun emplacement dealt death from one end of the jungle battlefield. Robinson knew he had to stop the snipers and do something to stop the 50mm gun. He used a grenade launcher to eliminate the sniper inflicting the most damage. He saw that one of his medics had been wounded attempting to rescue a comrade. He ran through a hail of withering fire to pull them back. He was wounded in the shoulder and leg. Even so, he moved among and directed his men, collecting weapons from the wounded and distributing them to the able-bodied. But casualties mounted. He knew that to save even those few men, he had to eliminate that 50mm gun. Out of ammunition, he seized two hand grenades. As he charged at the gun emplacement, he was hit in the leg by a tracer bullet, which set his pants on fire. He ripped off the burning clothes and continued to stagger toward the gun emplacement--at this point, its fire trained solely on him. He took two more bullets to the chest, but he kept coming until he got in range to throw his grenades and end the threat from the big gun. Then, with his men rallying, he fell. To this day, the fewer than 20 men who survived out of the 130, can barely believe his bravery or their good fortune. But this was his job. This is what he did. And this is how he will be remembered.
You, Levin, Stabenow and Upton, how will you be remembered? You are elected to uphold the Constitution and act in the best interests of the United States. You are not in Congress to advance the agenda of your political parties or your career. You, your position and your contribution to the United States are less important than the life of Sgt. Robinson. All of you are in position, especially Levin and Stabenow, to do the right thing, even at the sacrifice of your re-election and your jobs. I am disgusted with the lawyer culture that exists in both the Senate and House. The adversarial culture of lawyers in Congress and the bureaucracy is damaging the very existence of the United States. In D.C., there is a lawyer for every 14 people!!

Rose Park

November 12, 2003

ROSE PARK


The day was cloudy, damp and somber as if all nature knew that it should not intrude on the memories of the people searching the bricks. Many of the bricks had stars each side of the soldiers’ name, telling that he had been killed in action The sounds at Rose Park were of people slowly walking the bricks, looking for a particular name. The crowd stirred as the uniformed color guard brought the stars and stripes into Rose Park for the memorial ceremony to begin. A cannon roared twice and then the names of eleven hundred Kalamazoo men who gave their lives in defense of the nation were being read aloud so that we, the living, would know the price of liberty and freedom. The names were of veterans who should not be forgotten and who knew that there are American ideals worth dying for. Elderly men read the names of the veterans of all the wars from the Civil to the most recent conflict. A uniformed veteran in front of me braced to attention as the names were being read and saluted as a particular name was pronounced. I believe the veteran knew the man and the sacrifice that was made so long ago. Some of the men quietly wiped their eyes, perhaps hoping that not too many people would notice. The street traffic sounds intruded on the solemnity of the occasion so I closed my eyes to concentrate on the names being read. After a time, I noticed that there was a rhythm to the traffic sounds that began to take on the cadence of the reading of the names. I kept my eyes closed and the cadence became the marching sounds of the Ghost Battalion of Kalamazoo; men in Union Blue, WWI Brown, WWII Khaki, shivering from Korean cold, wet from Vietnam sweat, marching past Rose Park. As each line passed, their eyes snapped to the right and their gaze pierced our souls to see if we really understood why they had died and if we are willing to protect their gift of Liberty and Freedom.

Older Wiser

The Kalamazoo Promise

THE KALAMAZOO PROMISE

A BLUE PRINT FOR DELETING
GOVERNMENT AND UNION CONTROL


Kalamazoo, Michigan is a city of about 70,0000 population in Southwest Michigan. It has a history of a variety of manufacturing industries that included numerous paper mills, pharmaceutical research and prescription drug manufacturing, high technology surgical devices, auto industry manufacturing , and many other smaller companies. Like many other cities in the United States, the manufacturing jobs are disappearing and the future of Kalamazoo and the surrounding area is in doubt. All the paper mills are gone, the pharmaceutical research industry is in regression and the automobile manufacturing has long since disappeared. Other industries are growing but the future is uncertain and highly educated research talent is leaving the area.
Efforts are being made to retain the research talent by encouraging the formation of start-up companies that need the talent and thus the families that value education. There is a large university in the city, several colleges and a good public education system that many believe is changing due to population changes due to decreases in the job market. There are two faith based education systems that do a very good job in preparing students for life. These are in flux also due to the changing population and job market. The population of the central city is slowly shrinking . The lost population is a combination of movement to the suburbs or out of the area as job opportunities shrink. The central city is no longer the main retail business center but is now a combination of education, government and evening entertainment venues. Many of the retail business centers have moved to an adjoining city but at the same time have expanded into a much larger share of the area economy. The minority population has increased over time and is concentrated in part of the central city. The city and surrounding area has a large number of churches, both minority and non-minority based. All of the churches are interested in keeping the area a desirable place to live and rear a family.
Recently, the Kalamazoo Public School system ( KPS ) announced that unidentified benefactors have formed, funded and set the rules for the Kalamazoo Promise. The Kalamazoo Promise guarantees that any student and family who lives within the boundaries of the KPS district and whose students attends KPS schools kindergarten through high school graduation will have 100% of college tuition, fees and books paid at any Michigan public university, college, or community college. The college must be a Michigan school . No non-public schools, elementary, high school or college, are part of the program. The students’ room and board, whether in college dorms or off campus, are not part of the Kalamazoo Promise. These remain the students’ obligation. If the student and family live in the KPS district and is enrolled in KPS high schools from the 9th though 12th grades and graduates, the Kalamazoo Promise will pay 65 % of the tuition, fees and books at any Michigan university or college. There are two main high schools and one alternative high school in the KPS district. The Kalamazoo Promise rules are very strict. Living across the street from the KPS boundary disqualifies the student from the Kalamazoo Promise, even if the student may have attended grade school and high school in a KPS school. The KPS boundaries cover much more than just the city of Kalamazoo. Thus it is the KPS boundary that is critical, not just the political boundary.
When the Kalamazoo Promise was announced, there was an immediate reaction from students, parents, local political groups, business interests, and faith based organizations, especially the minority faith based organizations. Comments from students such as; “ I wasn’t going to college so why bother with high school classes. To tell you the truth, I thought I was going to end up as one of those black boys standing on a corner, getting arrested for stuff I didn’t do”. That same student now sees a future, has applied himself, now has achieved a 3.0 grade point average. He says he is aiming for a 3.5 GPA by June. Another student said “ all A’s and B’s from here on out. I’m going to take that scholarship and run”! A senior talked about how she emigrated from Mexico to Kalamazoo at the age of 12, not knowing any English. Her father works on a farm, her mother is a stay-at-home mother. The student wanted to go to college , but even the Community College costs so much money”. That same emigrant is now making plans to study graphic design at the Community College and then go for a four-year college degree. Another student said; the scholarship program changes my whole life plan. He wanted to go to college to be a teacher, but college seemed a financial reach. This gives me my dream” “I can’t believe it, I still can’t believe it. I never had anything handed to me and now this. It’s surreal.” Even the high school security guard says he sees a change in the school. A senior said that “lots of kids were messing up in school because they figured they weren’t going to college,” she said. “Now, there’s no excuse to mess up. Just no excuse.” Community Colleges have training in the trades as well as classes for college degree credit. Training as electricians, plumbers, you name it, becomes possible.
The reaction of the teachers was immediate. “If you’re all going to college, then we’re raising our expectations and we’re going to teach at a college level.”
We all know that there is absolutely nothing in this life that is really, totally free. In order to take advantage of the Kalamazoo Promise, the students now must prepare themselves to be educated enough to be accepted by the college of their choice. That means applying themselves, studying, taking courses that mean something and not just basket weaving or “fun” courses. Not all students will be willing to make the effort to take advantage of the Kalamazoo Promise opportunity. Those that do, will be an asset to the community, their family and to themselves. Another “cost” is the need for added parental involvement in their children’s school performance. The parents do not want to be the cause for their children’s inability to take advantage of the Kalamazoo Promise. There is now no excuse for parents not taking an interest in schools. The minority churches, service organizations and minority leaders have already discussed what is needed to make sure that the minorities take advantage of the opportunity. They understand that if the opportunity is wasted, there is no one else to blame. It is bringing out the best in people.
Why was the Kalamazoo Promise founded? A group of absolutely brilliant benefactors, anxious to keep Kalamazoo and Southwest Michigan a desirable place to live, realized that government funding and taxes were not the answer. As Ronald Reagan said, “government is not the solution, it is the problem!. Those who finance the Kalamazoo Promise also get to make the rules. So far, the local political groups, both liberal and conservative have been nothing but supportive. Indeed, there is nothing else they realistically can do except be supportive. Also, the teachers unions, the Michigan Education Association and the National Education Association have been nothing but supportive or have been silent. Again there is nothing else they can do. However, the benefactors, I believe, are not so stupid as to not realize that the political and education power structure may not look with favor being cut out of any control of the Kalamazoo Promise. We will see what the future brings.
The local mass media are another potential danger to the Kalamazoo Promise. The benefactors are unknown and must remain unknown in order for the Promise to remain viable. Already, there are voices asking “why should students in Kalamazoo be the only ones to be given free college scholarships”. Envy and the desire to know who made the gift are dangers that must be guarded against. The temptation for investigative reporting by the local mass media to make the identity of the donors known will destroy the Promise as well. The media in WWII had a phrase, “loose lips sink ships”. Egotistical reporters in the Kalamazoo area could sink the Kalamazoo Promise.
The lust for power is a danger to the Kalamazoo Promise that must be guarded against. The founders of the Kalamazoo Promise have found a blueprint to practically eliminate political and union control of our children’s education and hence improve the chance for a better future. I believe the Founding Fathers would be proud of what the Kalamazoo Promise may achieve.

Older Wiser

McCain/FeinGold Got It Wrong!!

McCain---Feingold Got It Wrong--On Purpose!!!!

McCain-Feingold incorrectly assumed that the true basic reason for Congressional power abuse is money. It is not the money that is the basic problem, it is the lust for power by Congress' who believe only they are wise enough to make correct decisions about this country. Money is only a means to an end and it is that "end" that must be addressed, not just the money. The only real way to control the lust for power is for Congressional Term Limits to be enacted. Yeah, I know, the Supreme Court said that Congressional Term Limits are unconstitutional, but that is inconsistent with history. Congress, in 1947, passed a Constitutional Amendment limiting the Executive Branch to two terms. The 1947 Supreme Court never even had a discouraging word to say about limiting the President's term in office. Since the three branches of government are, by the Constitution, coequal, how is it that the President can be term limited but Congress cannot?? This country will not improve Congress' integrity until we remove the chance to make politics a career. Term Limits are being tried at the State's level and they work just fine! Those who are term limited out challenge the State's Federal delegation at election time or go out and get a real job that produces something real and increases the economy. That is healthy. Time in power corrupts and unlimited time in power corrupts absolutely.

Older Wiser

Liberal Rage And Self Hate

LIBERAL RAGE AND SELF-HATE

All of us, at one time or another in our lives, secretly fear that a person that we have met is trying to do us some harm. Often, people try to hide that suspicion because if the fear is known, they realize that others will take that fear as evidence that there really is something to hide. That is, we fear we are not quite “normal” because others do not see the situation the same as we see it. If two people see the same situation differently, one of them must be making an error in the interpretation. Similarly, most people assume that their reaction is “normal” and that other people would react to a given situation in the same manner. This of course , is not true, but some of us cannot admit to the possibility that the one who is making an error in judgment is ourselves. The famous saying by Walt Kelly “We have met the enemy and they are us” is a succinct way of saying the same thing. Anyone who really does have something to hide, is particularly prone to the problem. Such a person does not like themselves because they have something to hide and must live forever with the fear that they will be discovered. There are two ways that we deal with this fear. One it to retreat into ourselves and meld into the background, keeping ourselves out of sight. The other is to attack, attack, attack and
hope to frighten others so they will not dare to look to see that we are hiding something. The very fact that the attacks are unreasonable is evidence that the attacker really does have something to hide. The really sad part of all this is that the attacker cannot forgive themselves for whatever it is that they are hiding. The famous book “I’m OK ,You’re OK” gives another way of dealing with the fear.

Liberals who attack, attack, attack are advertising the fact that they believe they are not quite normal. Most are miserable people who try to make sure that all others are going to be as miserable as they feel. They may have a superior education but suspect that they may not be as intelligent as they want others to believe. In their own mind, they have not succeeded as well as they think they should be capable of doing. “Those other people must be too stupid to see my superior qualities“. Many highly educated people have this problem. Sad to say, they don’t realize that the problem is really no problem at all They are unable to accept themselves as they really are. That is a sad, sad way to have to live a life. .
The Liberals accuse conservatives of having "an anger management problem." This is a classic example of Liberals projecting their own feelings onto someone else.

Quoting Michelle Malkin in Townhall:
“Like CNN executive Jonathan Klein, who derided Fox's audience as full of ‘angry white men, and those men tend to be rabid,’ and liberal comedian Bill Maher, who also railed that ‘Republicans need anger management‘ and are possessed with a ‘vein-popping, gut-churning rage that consumes the entire right wing,’ Ms. Garofalo crossly blames the Right while denying the pathological wrath and fury that characterize the unhinged Left.”
“Who are you calling angry, Ms. Garofalo? You want political road rage? Let's start with Al. Take your pick: Sharpton. Gore. Franken.” Now, open your eyes: It isn't out-of-control conservatives …. smearing pig's blood and feces on the walls and windows of military recruitment centers across the country to protest on behalf of peace.
It isn't rage-blinded conservative professors who embrace fragging (the murder of American soldiers by their fellow soldiers on the battlefield) as a legitimate anti-war tactic.
It isn't vengeful conservatives torching SUVs, condo developments, and research facilities, and targeting biotech and pharmaceutical company employees and their families to protest on behalf of the environment.
It wasn't mad conservatives sporting "F--- Bush" license plates, punching cardboard cutouts of the president, and vowing to secede after losing the 2004 presidential election.
It wasn't rabid conservatives who gloated over Ronald Reagan's death or John Ashcroft's pancreatitis.
It wasn't a gut-busting conservative journalist who vowed to kill herself if Dick Cheney ran for president. (That would be the perpetually aggrieved Helen Thomas.)
It wasn't hate-filled Republican officials who reportedly screamed "faggot" and "fruitcake" and "I'll break your nose" at their political opponents. (Those were all Democrats: Pennsylvania state legislator Vincent Fumo, California Rep. Pete Stark, and Virginia Rep. Jim Moran, respectively.)
It isn't fanatical conservatives joking about the assassination of President Bush and the execution of his Republican aides. (That, Ms. Garofalo, would include your Air America colleagues. But I'll forgive you if you weren't tuned in to them. Few are.)
And it wasn't ruthless conservatives who cheered last week when a liberal Bush-hater wrote on the popular DemocraticUnderground.com website last week:
I am an American, Born and Raised, but I am NOT a citizen of BUSH'S America. I want nothing to do with the country these people have created.
And for those who support them, Let's get Something Nice And Sparkling CLEAR:
Stay The [F---] Away From Me. Stay OUT of my personal space. I want NOTHING from you. I want NOTHING to do with you. I want NOTHING to do with your "vision" of what the world should be.
What DO I want from you?
Honestly?
I will freely admit there are days, and they are becoming more than not, that the Alien at Area 51 in Independence Day and I share quite a common ground on the answer to that question.
And I am NOT apologizing for it.
In the words of the Late, Great Bill Hicks, about the most conciliatory thing I can say for those people at this point is simply this:
Kill Yourself’ “
The Liberals are unable to live up to their own expectations and are trying to make sure the rest of us are just as miserable as they are.

Older!! Wiser??

Law School Graduates In Congress

THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS
LAW SCHOOL GRADUATES
THE 109TH CONGRESS

. The Washington Times Newspaper gives the college training of all the Senators and Representatives in short biographical sketches. Sixty of the 100 Senators are Law School graduates. Sixty percent of the Senate. One hundred sixty two members of the House are law school graduates. That is, 37% of the House are law school graduates. The Federal House of Representatives voting record is much less liberal than the Senate. The difference is startling, and trying to understand why, may be a good exercise in deciding who to vote for in national and state elections.
These data were taken from the Washington Times publication Capital Contacts, 209th Congress Edition.

TOTAL LAW TOTAL LAW
STATE REP. GRADS STATE REP. GRADS
AL 7 5 MT 1 0
AK 1 0 NE 3 1
AZ 8 3 NV 3 2
AR 4 1 NH 2 0
CA 53 13 NJ 13 5
CO 7 1 NM 3 1
CT 5 0 NY 29 8
DE 1 1 NC 13 6
FL 25 8 ND 1 1
GA 13 3 OH 18 10
HI 2 1 OK 5 1
ID 2 0 OR 5 2
IL 19 7 PA 19 5
IN 9 4 RI 2 0
IA 5 1 SC 6 3
KS 4 2 SD 1 1
KY 6 3 TN 9 6
LA 7 2 TX 32 13
ME 2 1 UT 3 1
MD 8 6 VT 1 0
MA 10 7 VA 11 7
MI 15 6 WA 9 3
MN 8 1 WV 3 1
MS 4 1 WI 8 5
MO 9 3 WY 1 0
==== ====
Total 435 162

162 / 435 = 37.2% of House are Law School Graduates
In contrast, 60% of the Senate are Law School Graduates. The majority 60% means that Liberal, law school Senators can control any legislation that comes before the Senate. Lyric W. Winik writing in the March 8, Parade, points out there is one lawyer for every 274 people in the United States. Washington D.C. has one lawyer for every 14 residents. You can be sure that the D.C. lawyers are there because of Congress, lobbying for special interest legislation. Lawyers in general have a Democrat, Liberal reputation and if control of the United States Government is the Liberal, Marxist goal, controlling the faculty of the relatively few law schools in the United States is the way to go. There are 100 Senators, control by only 60 men out of the 274 millions of people in the United States is all that is needed to control any legislation that comes to the Senate. Many surveys have already shown the Liberal, Socialist, even Marxist leaning of college and university faculty. The voters of the United States need to stop electing lawyers to national public office. Gary Trudeau, in his March 5 strip put it very well when he spoke of “Situational Science”. Situational Science is a pseudo science that ignores the facts of a situation and argues the opposite case / situation in order to create a controversy. The aim is not to solve a problem but to create controversy. Controversy is a dividing agent and a divided society can be controlled and then conquered. The careers of lawyers depends on the presence of controversy. No controversy means no need for a lawyer. Trudeau lists Tobacco Controversy, Mercury Controversy, Pesticide Controversy, Coal Slurry Controversy, Dioxin Controversy, Everglades Controversy, Acid Rain Controversy, Fat Food Controversy, all of which are gold mines for lawyers and politicians. Of course the big one is the Evolution Controversy which already went to the lawyers in the 1920’s. However, a real scientific controversy such as global warming, has not yet attracted the lawyers because all the scientific data is not yet known. .

Older Wiser

The Threat From Lawyers In Congress

The Threat From Lawyers In Congress
Mike Bouchard, a candidate for U.S. Senator from Michigan recently said “It’s (the U.S. Senate) become more career politicians and lawyers. “ Bouchard is correct but the extent and consequences of the problem have not yet been described adequately. Sixty of the one-hundred U.S. Senators in the 109th Congress are lawyers. This is a super majority and they control the law making process as they wish. Just sixty men, from a few, liberal law schools are able to control the government of the United States. If control of government is the aim, it is hard to imagine an easier way to achieve that control. Of course, the lawyers on the Supreme Court have ruled that Federal Term Limits are unconstitutional. The Senate has talked of Tort Reform for many years but with lawyers sixty percent of the Senate, it is no wonder that nothing has changed. My concern is not only the money wasted on lawsuits but more importantly, the effect that the abuse of the judicial process is having on the United States. It is changing voter’s perception of the role of government in a very destructive manner and results in Congress being overloaded with lawyers. Frederick Bastiat said “ When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.” Parade magazine reported on the number of lawyers in the United States. There is a lawyer for every 14 people in Washington D.C.!! .
There is an essay titled “The Threat From Lawyers Is No Joke”. The reference is The Threat From Lawyers Is No Joke, Imprimis, Hillsdale College Publishers, Volume 33, March, 2004.
July 24, 2002, it was reported that Mr. Caesar Barber of the Bronx, New York, filed a lawsuit against McDonald’s, joined by other lawsuits against Wendy’s, Burger King, and such fast-food chains. Mr. Barber said that he was under the impression that McDonald’s hamburgers and French fries were healthy foods. Sure enough, he became obese, developed heart problems and was not a well man. Then there is the woman who spilled hot McDonald’s coffee on her lap and sued for multi-millions. Both Mr. Barber and the coffee-on-the-lap woman won their lawsuits and were awarded millions of dollars. Many of us were amazed that such suits could succeed, but the tobacco litigation lawyers saw it as just the next step in using the courts to line their pockets. If the charade had stopped here, there would have been no permanent damage to society. It did not stop.
A George Washington University Law School professor was quoted in Time: “A fast food company like McDonald’s may not be responsible for the entire obesity epidemic, but let’s say they are five percent responsible. Five percent of 117 billion dollars is still an enormous amount of money.” Then, Northwestern University Law School organized a conference on how to sue fast food makers that was attended by scores of lawyers. One of the lawyers, a Rutgers Law School graduate-told Time: “It’s a very important and pressing issue and its outcome will be with us for years to come. I’m hoping to build a career out of this issue.” All this was taken seriously and defended by the New York Times who wrote; “We’re not saying these lawsuits should win, but what can they hurt?”. We now know they can hurt a lot!
The Texas woman who ran over her cheating husband in a hotel parking lot had a lawyer who sued the hotel for negligent training of parking lot attendants. The hotel was responsible for making it too easy for the woman to run over her husband.
A thief in Framingham, Massachusetts, who stole a car from a parking lot, drove off and then crashed and died. The family of the thief sued the proprietor of the parking lot for negligently making it too easy to steal a car from the lot.
A California drunk, passed out on the tracks, sued the Union Pacific Railroad for being negligent in hiring an engineer and conductor who did not sound the train horn soon enough. They were busy applying the brakes trying to avoid hitting the drunk.
In New York City, a jury awarded $14.1 million to a woman who tried to commit suicide by laying down on the subway tracks. She survived so the city and its taxpayers paid the bill.
The impression that lawyers are more interested in money than integrity is obvious.
We used to understand that the suits described above were wrong and would not have been imaginable. Most of us still think they are wrong, but they are not unimaginable anymore. Litigation is one of the most unpleasant things that ever happens to a person. It is incredibly expensive in cost, time and energy and an assault on the reputation of at least one of the parties and often both parties. Sixty years ago a lawsuit was rare because of the cost, but most of all because the contending parties recognized that it was to their financial benefit to not hire a lawyer and go to court. Before the late 1950’s, the American Bar Association forbid its members to advertise to the public. The no-advertising rule was in place to stop lawyers from stirring up litigation for their own benefit. That was changed, and now we are told that we deserve to get our rewards, even when the rewards were lost due to our own negligence. Charges are leveled making an assault on the parties privacy, reputation, and forcing them to answer questions under oath. The aim is to win, not necessarily find the truth of the matter. It has become a breach of the social peace. A suit used to be seen as a necessary, but last resort. A law suit should be embarked on only in strong cases- You will want to arrange the rules of your legal system in a way to discourage weaker cases from going to court. We do not do this today. In fact, we have intentionally dismantled such rules.
Nearly every other country, except the United States, recognizes the danger in litigation for profit. They have rules that require the loser in a law suit to pay the victim of the lawsuit to make him whole for what he has lost defending himself. In the middle 1960’s the ACLU managed to change that rule so that if the ACLU wins, the loser who was sued, pays both the ACLU costs and the cost of trying to defend himself. The kicker is that if the ACLU loses the suit, the defendant is still forced to pay the cost of defending himself and pay the cost of the losing ACLU who brought the suit to court. This little known rule change was inserted in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.. Apparently, the ACLU believes if everyone, ever, did nothing wrong, then the ACLU would not have to bring any law suit. The ACLU thus has arrogated to themselves the power to decide the merit of the case even before the defendant has been sued. The ACLU wins both ways!! The United States once had rules discouraging ill-conceived litigation, and advertising by lawyers. That has been changed and we are the worse for the change. The change started in the Law schools in the 1960’s and 70’s. Litigation was taught not as a necessary evil, but as a positive virtue. The law school liberal professors came to dominate the elite law schools and we have not been the same since.
The super majority of lawyers in the United States Senate, 109th Congress means that just sixty men, from a few, liberal law schools are able to control the government of the United States. If control of government is the aim, it is hard to imagine an easier way to achieve that control. Of course, the lawyers on the Supreme Court have ruled that Federal Term Limits are unconstitutional. They take care of their own.
LITIGATION AS A VIRTUE
This new view of litigation as a virtue says that litigation deters wrongful conduct. The more lawsuits that are filed, the more people will behave carefully according to the lawyer’s view of society. Litigation is also touted as a way to redistribute wealth from those who have it to those who don’t. In this view, the more litigation, the more justice. And the more money lines the pockets of the lawyers. Who can be against justice?
Litigation has gone from being a last resort to a socially beneficial action, and lawyers who advertise “Sue someone and let’s see how much money I can get for you” are not seen as sleazy but as public spirited citizens spreading justice.
In nearly all Democratic, citizen elected governments, the court systems are designed to find first, the truth of the matter under litigation. Once the judiciary feels the truth is known, the trial can proceed to a decision.. Not so in the United States. The rules of evidence require the prosecution, if they find evidence that might exonerate the defendant, to tell the defense the nature of the evidence. However, if the defense finds evidence that suggests the defendant might actually be guilty as charged, the defense is not required to tell the prosecution the nature of the incriminating evidence. The defendant might actually be guilty as charged, but is set free. The real truth of the matter is not important, only winning the case becomes the goal. . The subsequent wrongful death suits, for money, are the result of such cases. It is not hard to call to mind a recent famous murder case where this happened.
If litigation is a social positive, then the old rules discouraging lawsuits don’t make any sense. In the 1960’s and 70’s lawyers began changing the rules to make it easier to sue. The present rules of discovery now allow a person to demand information from his opponent. This opened the door to the “ fishing expedition”. “I don’t know for sure whether you have done me any real wrong, but please hand over the contents of your filing cabinets so that I can find out”. It became easier to organize class action suits, even when the plaintiffs don’t even know they are suing someone! The plaintiffs never see much, if any, of the money, but the lawyers sure do! The rule of assumption of risk was weakened so that, for example, if you go to a baseball game and get hit by a foul ball, some lawyer wants to help you sue. The former rules would have said you have no grounds to sue because everyone knows that foul balls happen at baseball games. If the point of lawsuits is to encourage ball clubs to be more careful about where they allow their players to send foul balls, and if redistributing wealth is important, then the new rules make sense. Many courts agreed and the lawyers were happy.
The new rules make it easier to sue and sure enough, more litigation resulted in more money extracted from the public. The litigation share of the GNP has tripled over the last 50 years and we spend two to three times more on lawsuits than other industrial societies. The cost is $721 per citizen which, for a family of four is $2,884 a year. Are the citizens getting their money’s worth?
Medical malpractice suits are driving doctors out of high risk fields such as obstetrics, neurosurgery and others. The high insurance costs cause some Americans to not afford medical insurance and so the hospital emergency wards are full of people who know they will be treated without having to pay for insurance or the hospital’s full cost of the treatment. The hospitals are not able to make ends meet any more and the five dollar bandaid aid ten dollar aspirin tablet is the result. The people with no insurance are able to get treatment, even with no insurance. The politicians love to say that government provided insurance is needed, but they don’t say that the sick are still treated. No politician ever turned down a government program. Even when the government is the cause of the problem!
The Harvard University study of New York hospitals that was cited by both sides in this controversy, was very revealing. The part of the study that has been best advertised is that in the majority of cases where people are injured by negligent care in a hospital, they never sue. However, the part that is not told is that the same study showed that in the majority of cases where people do sue, experienced reviewers could not identify any negligence. Thus, we have a lot of lawsuits with no negligence and a lot of negligence with no lawsuits. However, the same Harvard study found that a great many of the lawsuits filed when there was no negligence, were still able to successfully obtain money, thus driving up the cost of medical treatment. The real cost is the money plus demoralization that spreads in a profession like medicine that says that being the best possible doctor will not protect you from being sued. The warnings on products tie the manufacturers in knots and are only an attempt to protect themselves from lawsuits. The bag of nuts that says “Warning, Contains Nuts”, is only one example of hundreds. The fear of lawsuits also prompts employers to avoid telling the truth about former employees who can be a threat to society. The killer nurses can go from hospital to hospital because their former employers are afraid of being sued for a negative recommendation.
GOVERNMENT BY LITIGATION
The litigation revolution has begun to transform American politics. The “litigation lobby” has become one of the three or four most important financial bases of the political parties. This financial involvement in politics has caused litigation to become a substitute for the political process. It used to be that citizens organized to influence the state or federal government to achieve legislation to solve a perceived problem. Not any more! If you want tighter control over tobacco, the environment, fat foods, guns, automobiles, etc. all you have to do is call 1-800-LAWSUIT. Operators will be standing by around the clock and if the lawyers can get a share of the monetary reward, you just lean back and watch them go to work. Why did this elimination of the political process gain so much? It is because the politicians, who see re-election as most important, do not have the guts to do the job they were elected to do. Politicians created the bureaucracy and gave it the power to make regulations that have the force of law. The politicians avoid the risk of irritating the voters and thus help to insure their re-election. If government will not make necessary changes, the lawyers will!! Thus taxes and changes in the law originate not from the political process but from the litigation process. American Lawyer magazine published an article on the origins of gun litigation, in which it interviewed the lawyer who had dreamed it up. The article explained that the lawyers promoted government by litigation; thus the statement “that the plaintiff’s bar should act as a “de facto fourth branch of government” one that achieved regulation through litigation when legislation failed“. Richard Scruggs, the private lawyer who organized the tobacco litigation (and whose firm got an estimated one billion dollars for it) was profiled in Time who reported: “Ask Scruggs if trial lawyers are trying to run America, and he doesn’t even bother to deny it: “Somebody’s got to do it”.
“What are the differences between this newly contrived fourth branch of government and the three branches that the founders established in the Constitution”? The differences start with the manner of selection. Those in the fourth branch don’t have to worry about the safeguards of re-election, getting confirmed by the Senate or the transparency that is built into our political system. Their activity takes place behind the scenes, unreported, by un-elected bureaucrats. The voting public is not admitted to the negotiation and if the public does not like the result, there is not much they can do about it. The proclaimed goal of trial lawyers is to hold every profession and industry accountable for their actions, yet they have created a litigation-based policy-making process in which they themselves are almost entirely unaccountable. William Greider, a leading left-wing journalist, has proposed in Rolling Stone that trial lawyers have emerged as the natural leadership of the left in America today. Our Senate refuses to do the job they were elected to do. Their partisan politics and re-election become more important than a healthy United States. Government talks of tort reform, but the problem does not originate there. It is in the law schools where the ideas that underlie the new way of governing were born. This is where our judges, lawyers, many politicians and many bureaucrats learned them. The new litigation system is telling the public that some distant institution, with a lot of money, is responsible for each individual’s problems. We need to understand exactly what we did wrong, in changing the rules of our legal system, and handing the trial lawyers so much power.
Phil Valentine, a Tennessee radio host helped lead a citizen revolt against an attempt to impose a state income tax —- Tennessee is one of the few states that has no such tax. The politician’s lawyers resorted to many ludicrous expedients. A state income tax is actually unconstitutional in Tennessee, but the constitution also says that the legislature "shall have power to tax merchants, peddlers, and privileges." Including -- you guessed it -- the claim that working for a living is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT. Thus, the pro-tax lawyer-politicians decided that earning a living must be a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT . . . so, therefore, an income tax must be constitutional after all!
Mike Bouchard has identified an extremely serious problem and we need to give him a chance to solve it by helping to elect him to the United States Senate. Unless we change the lawyer culture, it will remain true that if you want to injure someone in America, you can do it with impunity with a lawsuit and no one will lay a glove on you. Bill Clinton once said that the “politics of personal destruction” is wrong, but then went ahead and did it anyway. The United States has fought wars against totalitarianism but the new government by law suit is totalitarianism disguised.

Older!! Wiser??

Generic Drugs And The Destruction of The American Pharmaceutical Industry

Generic Drugs and the Destruction of the
American Pharmaceutical Industry
A Case Study in Support of Federal Term Limits

This is the story of the Generic Drug Industry, how it came to be formed and its effect on the United States Pharmaceutical Industry. I worked in the pharmaceutical industry for over 30 years, most of which was in research at two different companies from 1954 to 1991. I have seen the industry from the very bottom all the way up to pharmaceutical research and quality control at the Ph.D. research scientist level. I remember how it was in the 1950's and what happened in the early 1960's and the results of the damage done by Congress.
Before 1906, there was little or no regulation of the purity or safety of food, drugs or cosmetics. Milk was often diluted with water to the point that the white was almost gone. “Whitening agents” were added to hide the poor milk quality. “Buyer Beware” was the watch word of commerce. After 1906, the government Food and Drug Association (FDA) was formed to control the quality of the products sold to the public. That was the beginning of the FDC specifications for Food, Drugs and Cosmetics . The situation was better, but in the 1930’s some sulfa antibiotics caused destruction of the kidneys and killed many who were given the antibiotics. The cause of the problem was that the sulfa drug was not soluble in the urine and when the drug precipitated in the kidney, the kidney was destroyed and the patients died. This was the reason why “Triple Sulfa Drugs” were marketed to avoid the destruction of the Kidneys. Then, the Food and Drug Administration passed laws that said that any drugs sold to the public must be safe. The drugs had to be safe but the law did not say that the drugs had to actually be effective!!. That is, the drug did not have to actually work!! This was the beginning of the Ethical Drug Companies who made sure that their products not only were safe but actually worked!! Other, so called patent medicine drug companies marketed their products in a different manner. The Ethical Drug Companies used Detail Men (the term used for drug information givers) who called on physicians and gave the information about the new drug directly to the physician to convince him that the new drug was suitable for his patients. The only advertising was directly to the physician. The detail men did not sell drugs to the physician, they only informed the physician what the new product could do. The actual point of sale was only at the pharmacy under the direction of a registered pharmacist. There was no advertising to the general public. This was done so that the physician could make the decision about which drug was best to use in a given situation without being badgered by parents who were ignorant of the problems. Sales were by prescription only, which were written by the physician. The system worked extremely well.
Other, non-ethical drug companies, known as patent medicine manufacturers, advertised directly to the public. These were the products that most often did not actually work but were marketed to the public solely by extensive advertising in magazines, catalogs and other mass media.

The Senator Estes Kefauver Commission that held hearings in the late 1950's and into 1960 on medicinal drugs wrote and had passed into law, legislation that said that all prescription and non-prescription drugs must actually be effective for the claims that were advertised by the manufacturer. Up until this time, the FDA required the pharmaceutical industry manufacturer only to prove that their products were safe and not toxic. That is, they did not have to actually work! However, the ethical drug manufacturers such as Upjohn, Merck, Lilly, Parke Davis, etc. did the research to prove that their products were effective and spent tens of millions of research dollars to prove it . The safety of medicines was mandated by Congress in the 1930's due to the toxicity of some sulfa drug products sold at that time. The drug safety laws were very good laws as were the drug efficacy laws passed by the Kefauver Commission.
There were some unintended consequences of the drug efficacy laws. Some of us may remember Carter's Little Liver Pill's, Lydia Pinkham's Tonic, Dr. Rose's Obesity Powders, Dr. Worden's Female Pills, the long list of unproven claims that Listerine Antiseptic carried on the container and other such non-prescription products sold by Watkins and some other companies. Besides requiring ethical drug manufacturer's ( Upjohn Co, Parke-Davis, Merck, Lilly, Squibb, etc.) prescription drugs to be effective, the Kefauver laws also required that over-the-counter drugs be effective. Under the leadership of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Pharmacopoeia (USP), the next 10 years were devoted to analyzing all the over-the-counter drugs for content and efficacy to meet the requirements of the Kefauver laws. The analyses were done in chemical and biological laboratories under the guidance of the USP, an independent organization, separate from the manufacturers and from the FDA. Those products whose claims were not valid were told to eliminate the false claims or take the product off the market. It was during this time that Carter's Little Liver Pills, etc. disappeared from the drugstore shelf and the claims on the Listerine Antiseptic bottle were severely reduced.
Those companies whose products did not meet the efficacy requirements, and who were not willing to spend the millions of dollars to research and develop new products, decided to go out of business. If this was the end of the story, the American consumer, the drug manufacturers and the medical community would be in good shape today and the cost of drug prescriptions wouldn't be the political football it has become. The drug companies who were put out of business hired lawyers to lobby Congress and began asking for a way to sell medicines without having to spend any money for research to prove safety or efficacy studies. They even appealed to Congress with the story that ethical drug manufacturers were making “obscene” profits and should be forced to give, free of charge, the results of years of expensive pharmaceutical, medical research to anyone who asked for it. The costs of medical research were borne 100% by the ethical manufacturers themselves. The government spent nothing for the discovery and development of new drugs, with one exception. In the case of cancer, the National Cancer Institute screened molecules for anticancer activity and, if a promising candidate was found, it was offered to the ethical drug manufacturers for further research on anticancer activity, toxicity, dosage form development and clinical testing. The ethical drug manufacturers who chose to try to bring the anticancer drug to market bore the total cost of development of the potential cancer drug. The ethical drug companies bid against each other for the right to develop the potential cancer drug. The United States government recouped part, if not all, of the cost of finding the potential cancer drug. The General Accounting Office in July, 2003 was the latest federal agency to refute the claim that the cost of drug development is borne by the government. In year 2001, the government had licensing rights to only six of the top 100 brand-name drug products purchased by the Department of Veterans Affairs and to only four of the top 100 brand-name drugs that the Department of Defense dispensed. That is, only six of the top 100 drug products had ANY federal funds in their product development cost. These were mostly anticancer drugs. The politicians could not resist the votes and re-election possibilities, and passed laws handing out , FREE, the extremely expensive research results and complete recipes to make the drug product to the "generic" companies as they came to be called.
The "obscene profits" that the lawyers and lobbyists loved to talk about were nothing but smoke and mirrors. The patent life of a drug was 17 years in those days. However, what the politicians and lawyers never said, was that the patent clock starts ticking when the MOLECULE is discovered, NOT when the product goes to market. This requires at least 10 years before scientific proof of safety and efficacy and dose development is completed and the drug product is allowed on the market by the FDA. The development time for a marketed drug in those days was MORE THAN 10 YEARS. Today, it is even longer because the government makes it even more difficult! Alan F. Holmer, in the August 19, 2003 issue of Insight Magazine, points to a development time period of 10 to 15 years. Holmer, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, also gives data on the fraction of drug molecules that successfully make it to market. ONLY ONE OF 5,000 screened molecules is approved by the FDA as a new medicine. Of these 5,000 compounds, 250 enter preclinical testing and development and only five of the 250 make it to human clinical testing and of the five in clinical testing only ONE is approved by the FDA and makes it to market. Only three of every ten marketed drugs generate enough sales revenue to match or exceed the cost of research and development of that drug!. The 250 preclinical, five clinical failures ALL represent money down the drain that must be balanced by the sales of the products that make it to market. The cost of preclinical and especially clinical testing of a new drug is enormous. The average cost of developing a new drug, according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development was $802 million in year 2000, up from $318 million in 1987. The cost in 1965 was less that one-third of the 1987 cost. These costs include the expense of research failures and the impact that long product development times have on investment costs. The time left in the patent life of a newly marketed product was less than five years! Those few years profits had to pay for the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the drug company in discovery, toxicity testing, dose development, clinical testing and marketing costs of the new product. Also, it was never said by the lawyers that the fraction of molecules that were patented and made it to market was MUCH LESS THAN 5 PERCENT. That is, over ninety-nine percent of the cost of research by drug companies was on failed medicines and profits from those drugs that made it to market had to pay the cost of ALL the research on both successful and unsuccessful drug candidates.
In spite of all this, the United States Ethical Drug Industry was so good at developing new drugs that they could still stay in business. The United States had the best medicines anywhere in the world! There was a reason why the system worked, but the reason was never mentioned to the voting public by the lawyers or politicians. While bringing a drug to market was extremely expensive, only those drugs that were better than what was already on the market for a particular disease could be expected to successfully compete in the market place and thus give a return on investment. For this reason, when a patent life ran out, other ethical drug companies chose NOT to make and try to market a copy of the innovator's product because the copy still had to have data gathered by the copier, proving the copy product had safety and efficacy and still had to sell it at a price competitive with the same medical product that was already on the market for the same disease. For this reason, the huge cost of developing new drugs and paying the cost of failed research could be recouped since it was usual for the innovator to enjoy selling the product for years, UNTIL A COMPETITOR MARKETED A DRUG THAT WAS BETTER THAN THE ONE ALREADY ON THE MARKET. The system guaranteed that only better medicines would make it to market and the public would then enjoy the very best pharmaceutical products possible. All this was destroyed in the 1960's by the generic drug laws. The ethical drug manufacturers warned congress what would happen to the industry, but politicians chose to ignore the warning and looked only at votes for re-election. Laws were passed in the 1960's forcing the ethical, innovator drug companies to give, free of charge, all the information necessary to make any product that the generic company decided to ask for when the patent life ran out. The ONLY requirement asked of the generic drug company was that they make several batches of the medicine product and submit data to the FDA demonstrating that the generic product batches FUNCTIONED the same as the original innovator's product. The word “functioned” means that the generic copy of the drug was absorbed, distributed, metabolized and eliminated in the body the same as the innovator's product and that the drug content of the dosage form was the same as the original marketed drug. Many of the generic drug companies contracted out the laboratory work needed to prove compliance. Even so, some of the generic companies were unable to reproduce the product even when they had all the recipes needed to make it. Some of those failed generic companies went to the drug store, bought the innovator's product and submitted it as if it were their own work. Generic companies who resorted to this deception and were discovered were usually put out of business. Some generic drugs, to this day, do not reproduce the original marketed product but are still allowed to be sold. Dilantin is one such drug that has unacceptable generic competition. I have personal experience of the dangers of using invalid generic forms of Dilantin products. It is common knowledge by most physicians and pharmacists that the generic copy of Dilantin does not work correctly. The physician is forced to exactly specify in the prescription which product is to be dispensed in order to avoid the generic product. My own personal experience shows that insurance companies ignore the problem and still try to require that the generic form of Dilantin be dispensed instead of the innovator’s original product to increase the insurance companies profits. The American public is not getting the quality of drugs it used to get. Buying drug products from foreign companies gives no guarantee that the product is what it is purported to be. Some foreign purchased drugs have turned out to be nothing but water! It is also common for the foreign manufactured drugs to contain less active drug than is needed for therapeutic efficacy. The foreign manufacturers do not care and the United States cannot check efficacy of all imported medicines.
The result of the advent of generic drug products is that the ethical drug companies no longer can be assured of recouping the cost of research and development of new drug products. I was a research scientist at the Upjohn Co. when all this was developing. There were only a few choices available. The financial choices that ethical drug companies had to make were (a) go out of business, (b) look for a buyer or a merger partner to try to stay in business, (c) stop expensive research on new drugs and sell only the ones existing in their catalog, which eventually were obsolete, (d) decide that the company's' research capabilities were good enough to still discover, develop, manufacture, and market medical products and compete with the generic and other ethical drug companies. The Upjohn Company thought they were capable of competing. Upjohn attempted to use the prostaglandin family of drug molecules along with other drugs designed for the treatment of stroke as the next big sources of new products. They were wrong, but they did try and cannot be blamed for trying. The Upjohn name does not exist anymore in medical products. Upjohn, Syntex, Squibb, Dow Pharmaceutical, Parke-Davis, Warner-Lambert, Pharmacia and many other famous drug companies do not exist anymore or are just part of larger organizations. Foreign drug companies who do not have to give their products to generic companies do not have the problem and are buying American companies and in some cases exporting jobs. Research expertise is cheaper in other countries.
Greed and political expediency is destroying the American Pharmaceutical Industry, reducing the quality of medical care, exporting jobs to other countries and putting the United States on a slippery slope to national medical mediocrity.
Those ethical drug companies who are still in business (Merck, Lilly, Pfizer, etc.) are forced to raise the price of their products in order to pay for the research and development of new drug products that is the heart of their existence. When the price goes up, the generic companies, who do no research, seize the opportunity and raise their prices also.
Generic companies currently lead the pack in the percentage rate of increase in drug prices! The promise of cheaper, better drugs made in the 1960's was nothing but a pack of lies! This history of generic drugs is not new. It was known as far back as the 1970's and the current state of affairs was predicted in the 1960's when congress was considering the generic market. The ignorant, uninformed, government-does-it-all, socialist attitude of the media, is part of the problem. Can the mistakes that were made be corrected and the price of prescriptions brought back to more reasonable levels? I don't think so. The generic drug manufacturers have a huge financial stake in the industry and besides, the ethical drug manufacturers, in order to meet the generic competition must maintain prices. The biggest losers are the American public and the patients who die because the medicine that could have healed them could not be brought to market. If you believe that government laboratories could do the research and development and bring new drugs to market, you have not understood what the problem really is.
The present research efforts of the non-generic pharmaceutical companies are focused on bio-engineered drug products. These products are extremely difficult to produce and may eventually cause the generic drug industry to decide that it would be too expensive to make the raw materials needed in such drug products. The generic companies can always send the jobs to other countries to try to meet the requirements. However, Congress might force the innovator's of the bio-engineered medical products to sell the critical ingredient to the generic company so that the generics too will continue to damage the American Ethical Pharmaceutical Industry. This is a sad state of affairs. What can we do to avoid such mistakes in the future? I believe the greed and thirst for power and re-election can only be controlled by removing the possibility of making a lifelong career out of politics. That means Federal Term Limits.
When the United States Congress passed laws forming the Generic Drug Industry in the 1960's, the existing pharmaceutical industry had warned Congress that the laws would destroy the American Pharmaceutical Industry. By the early 1970's the effect of the laws was apparent to the ethical drug manufacturers and a strategy was needed to counter the loss of the market if the American drug manufacturers were to stay in business.
The term "Ethical Drug Manufacturer" means that the products were advertised only to physicians. Physicians were visited by "Drug Detail Men" whose job was to meet with the physician and give the medical, scientific details why the product was better for a particular disease than what was already on the market. The real advantages of the new drug were emphasized and the physician could write prescriptions for the new product if he was convinced that it was better than what was already on the market. The physician decided which drugs to use and the insurance companies stayed out of the loop. There was no advertising in general distribution magazines allowed by mutual agreement of the American Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (PMA).
Those manufacturers that had opted to continue pharmaceutical research needed some way to recover the part of the market lost to the generic companies. Most of the companies were forced by the realities of the market place to form their own generic subsidiaries and essentially "join the enemy". This strategy allowed the ethical, research based, drug companies to take advantage of the generic drug laws passed in the 1960's. Cross licensing of marketed products among the research based manufacturers became the method of competing with the generics. Cross licensing allowed a company to increase its product list without the expense of research to develop new products. Each cross licensed product was marketed with a different trademarked name that the ethical drug manufacturer chose. This meant that many different trademarked medicines were really the same product. This required ENORMOUS increases in advertising costs if the cross licensed product had any chance to outsell the equally good product on the market from the innovator or other companies that had cross licensed the same product for their own catalog. The politicians and lobbyists loved to point at the increased advertising expenditures as a reason for federal control of the manufacturers. This, when Congress itself had caused the problem in the first place in the 1960's by passing laws forming the generic drug industry. This reminds me of the man who murdered his parents and then pleaded mercy from the court because he was an orphan. Congress caused the problem and then complained it existed.
At the same time, the patent life clock for a product was ticking and when the patent expired, the generic companies jumped in and began competing with the innovator as well as those companies who had previously licensed the medicine from the innovator manufacturer. The end result was that NO ONE gained anything, the research on new medical products was greatly reduced and the physicians and public had fewer choices and fewer new drug products were added to the market. People died who did not ever get the chance to be treated with drugs that might otherwise have been brought to market. The huge increases in advertising costs required to compete meant higher selling prices to the public, higher costs to the insurance companies and eventually federal and state laws to control the runaway market costs. The politicians love to pose as saviors of the consumer.
Those ethical drug companies who survived did so by buying up the competition to obtain their products. Buying the company who was the innovator of a highly prescripted product was more cost effective than trying to compete using the generic subsidiary licensing strategy. Thus, big companies became ever larger, the number of research based companies continues to decrease and foreign companies buy the American companies to obtain their products and then jobs are sent overseas to lower-cost labor markets. The August 2004 issue of Scientific American (pg. 24) reports the transfer of drug research and development and clinical testing out of the United States to India. The jobs are leaving the United States because the Ethical Drug Manufacturers must look for a way to compete with the generic marketed products. Pharmaceutical giants Novartis, Pfizer and Eli Lilly have commissioned Indian firms to perform R & D services, including clinical testing. As “foreign companies set up shop in India, expertise will grow. Each year business has grown 60 to 80 percent with almost 90 percent coming from International
(American ?) companies”. Before 1970, American Pharmaceutical Companies who wanted to market their products in foreign countries, were usually faced with a special set of research and clinical studies mandated by the targeted foreign countries’ governments. For the privilege and permission to market the product in the foreign country, the American pharmaceutical companies were required to repeat some research studies already completed in the United States. These studies were often part of the drug research and clinical phase of the approval process. Most of the countries, since they did not have the equivalent expertise of the United States’ FDA, depended on FDA approval for marketing in the United States as proof of the medicines’ safety and efficacy. These additional studies were required by the host country to give their economy a boost and to obtain a part share of the profits made by the pharmaceutical company. This was a reasonable request in most cases. The American pharmaceutical companies viewed these redundant studies as an additional but scientifically unnecessary cost to marketing in the foreign country. The data obtained from the additional studies played no critical part in the decision to allow the drug product to be marketed in the host country. The host country still relied on the American FDA approval of the drug product for safety and efficacy assurance.
This distinction is important because it shows that the American Pharmaceutical Industry did not need to reduce research costs by exporting the studies to prove safety and efficacy but did so only as an exercise to satisfy the host countries’ expectation of a share in the profits.
However, after the advent of Congress’ institution of the generic drug industry and the concomitant loss of funds to support research on new drugs, the American Pharmaceutical Industry began to export critically needed studies. The pharmaceutical industry looked for countries whose research expertise was sufficient to satisfy the American FDA requirements to prove safety and efficacy. Over the last 30 years these countries have developed their expertise and now jobs that used to be available to American scientists are now exported to other countries. Predictably, Congress and the media scream about the “greed and lack of concern for American jobs” when in truth, Congress’ greed and lust for power caused the problem.
High paying, tax producing American jobs are leaving the United States. Congress was warned in the 1960's that this could happen but they paid attention only to the next election and the number of votes they could get to stay in power. It is a lie that re-election and political experience produces better Congressional decisions.
Isn't it time the American Voter said "enough is enough" and demand federal term limits to keep politicians from making decisions based on power and re-election. The political party and philosophy that puts the welfare of the American citizen first will win the trust of the voters and will gain the opportunity to make the United States a better place to live. .

Sincerely, Older!! Wiser??

Addendum #1
: Sept. 23, 2004: Kalamazoo Gazette, September 14, 2004. Schering-Plough, Bayer Form Alliance. “Struggling New Jersey pharmaceuticals company Schering -Plough Corp. and German chemical and drug maker Bayer AG have formed an alliance under which Schering- Plough will take over US. marketing of Bayer’s primary-care medicines. The partnership, announced Monday, September 13, 2004 could give Bayer a bigger presence in the world’s biggest drug market, while offering Schering-Plough badly needed new products to sell and a potentially key marketing partner for some of its drugs in Europe and Japan.
Under the alliance, Kenilworth-based Schering-Plough’s 3,500 salespeople will take over U.S. marketing of Cipro and Avelox, both broad-spectrum antibiotics for respiratory and skin infections, plus the blood-pressure drug Adalat and some small established primary-care drugs. Schering-Plough’s sales force also will handle U.S. promotion of Bayer’s impotence treatment Levitra.”
“Schering-Plough needs products, and this is a way of getting them temporarily until they can develop their own. ”said drug-industry analyst Mike Krensavage of Raymond James & Associates. “Bayer certainly could use the marketing assistance of Schering -Plough.”
Schering -Plough said the partnership, expected to become effective on Oct. 1, would slightly reduce earnings for the rest of 2004, partly due to integration and transition costs, then would add slightly ( italics mine) to earnings starting in 2005.”
The primary-care products will remain the property of Bayer and continue to be sold under the Bayer brand name. (note-this means that Schering-Plough will not be classed as a generic drug producer, and that most of the profits will go to Bayer, a foreign drug manufacturer. The research jobs will remain in Germany, only the sales jobs will be filled by American citizens.) Schering-Plough will pay a “substantial royalty” to the German company on net sales of the products Schering-Plough spokesman Steve Galpin Jr. said.” “Bayer is best known in the United States for its aspirin.

Addendum #2
January 7, 2005: Kalamazoo Gazette, November 30, 2004. Merck’s Retention Plan Offers Severance. “Merck, seeking to keep Managers and other company leaders from jumping ship after the $38 billion loss in market value since September 30, 2004, have been forced to adopt a plan to give severance packages to 230 executives should control of the company change and become a take-over target”. “Merck faces thousands of lawsuits from lawyer’s clients who claim Vioxx hurt them or their relatives”. The lawyers who have advocated suing the company smell money and are willing to destroy a pharmaceutical company to get it. This is one more step in the destruction of the American Pharmaceutical Industry. Merck’s market value is about 61.4 billion, which is half that of Glaxo-SmiithKline, an English Corporation, and less than one-third of Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical company.
First it was the tobacco industry, then the target became the fast food industry and now the target is the pharmaceutical industry. Lawyers have no integrity!!.

Addendum #3
There are two possible solutions to the problem of the destruction of the American Pharmaceutical Industry. The high cost of drugs can be brought down if the law that destroyed the ability for Ethical Drug Companies to recoup their research costs can be changed. The critical point in the process is the length of time that the drug company that did the research is allowed to SELL a product that contains the new drug molecule. Presently, the patent clock starts when the molecule is discovered so that only about five years of exclusive patent life is left when ( and if ) the new drug product goes to market. The length of the exclusive marketing time must be returned to the pharmaceutical company that paid for the research to bring the new product to market. There are two possible ways to accomplish this.
The marketing patent life clock should start when the product is first put on the market. This allows at least 17 (19 ?) years, the present length of a drug patent, for the drug company to recoup its investment in research and development. As it stands now, the patent clock starts when the biologically active molecule is discovered, not when it is first marketed. However, the protection of the intellectual property of the company who first discovered the molecule must be maintained so that the same molecule could not be developed by drug companies who did not spend any funds to discover the molecule. This requirement would need a change in how the patent process functions and probably would not be a politically easy change. The change would return the profits to the company who did the research to bring the new drug molecule to market. The generic market would not be able to copy the drug until the marketing patent had run out.
The other possible solution to the drug cost problem is to return the system to what existed before Congress screwed it up in the 1960’s. As mentioned before, the previous system worked because it made no sense to copy a marketed drug because it would be no better than what was already on the market. Thus, the funds not spent on advertising to outsell the same drug sold under a different trade name could be saved and put to use in discovering new drugs. As long as there was no product on the market better than what was already there, the physician based , not magazine based, advertising worked well. A possible way to return to the system that worked is to prevent any generic copy of a drug to be sold as long as the drug in question was the best drug for that particular disease. The physicians know what is the best drug and prescribe accordingly. When a better drug product, for that disease, was brought to market then the generics would be allowed to copy and sell the second best drug for that disease condition. I know, the politicians and public would scream that the best drug is being withheld from the public for profit reasons, but the alternative is to destroy the American Pharmaceutical Industry, reduce the number of new drugs being brought to market, force sick people to forgo any cure and continue the transfer of high paying technical jobs to foreign countries. Ronald Reagan was correct: Government is not the solution to a problem, government is the problem!

Addendum #4
When Medicare was first passed into law in the middle 1960’s, the price of prescription drug products was so low that Congress did not find it necessary to include any prescription drug benefit in the Medicare laws. It was only after Congress screwed-up the process that the drug prices spiraled out of control and are still rising.
When President Bush signed the recent Medicare Prescription Drug benefit bill, it put even more pressure on the American Pharmaceutical Industry to survive and now, the new law itself has become a super-expensive boondoggle that threatens the United States Budget and is making the voters confused, angry and will raise their taxes to a level never before seen!! Government is stupid!!!!

Addendum #5
The razing of the Upjohn research buildings in downtown Kalamazoo and the concomitant loss of very high salary, tax revenue jobs is the result of government stupidity and is not caused by unfeeling corporate culture. The stock investors in a pharmaceutical company have a valid interest in the profitability of that company. The Eli Lilly company of Indianapolis, Indiana saw the problem early and decided to NOT go public for investment purposes. Eli Lilly is probably the only private owned major pharmaceutical company left in the United States.

Addendum #6
Kalamazoo Gazette, December 45, 2007
By Jennifer Sterling
Associated Press
Bristol=Meyers To Lay Off 4,300, Close Half Their Plants
First Pfizer, than Merck, now Bristol-Meyers -Squibb plans to cut jobs as the pharmaceutical industry wrestles w3ithpr0fits being siphoned off to generic drugs.
Bristol-Myers Squibb, whose best selling product is the anticoagulant Plavix, said Wednesday it would lay off about 4,300 employees ands close more than half of its manufacturing plants in a broad restructuring aimed at cost saving of $1.5 billion by 2010.
Bristol-Myers is the latest brand-drug maker to reduce its work force as the industry struggles to battle generic competition after expirations of key drug patents
Pfizer Inc. the world’s largest drug-maker earlier this year said it plans to cut 10,000 jobs to
counter expected revenue losses from generic versions of its anti-depressant Zoloft and Norvasc blood-pressure treatment. Merck & Co. also plans to slash about 7,000 positions by the end of 2008 as it faces generic competition against its top-selling Fosamax osteoporosis treatment and a potential threat against its cervical-cancer drug Gardasil from GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix, now available anisotropy and awaiting U.S approval.
The job cuts at Bristol-Myers represent 10 percent of its staff and will largely be made in 2008 and 2009. The company also said it will close more than 50 percent of its factories by 2010 and reduce by 60percent the number of brands in tits mature products portfolio by 2011. Looking ahe4ed, the company expects a sharp downturn in earnings and revenue after Plavix’s key patent expires ins November 2011. Chief Executive James Cornelius said Wednesday.
Bristol-Myers also lowered its 2007 net earnings forecast. It now expect 2007 net earnings of $1`.15 to $1.20 per share, compared with a prior forecast of $1.28 to $1.33.

Addendum #7
Feb. 29, 2008
This email is a forward of an email I received today from the Family Research Council. Their timing could not be better. It is ignorance and the ego centric power of government that is destroying America. Government now wants an increase in federal employees to better monitor drugs imported from other countries, all of which would not be necessary if Congress would stop trying to fix something that was not broken 47 years ago. I am glad I am 73 years old. I will be dead before my grand and great grand kids have to live in an America destroyed by our own government
(Note--This is a copy of an email received from the Family Research Council and is not my words.
Protect your family from dangerous foreign-made pharmaceuticals
February 29, 2008
Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.), head of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chairman of Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, need to hear from you today about an alarming issue that touches the health of all American individuals and families. It's the U.S. government's systemic failure to inspect foreign pharmaceutical manufacturers.
In the past year Americans have learned that "globalization" appears to mean allowing unsafe foreign-made products into the U.S. For example, there have been numerous recalls of unsafe toys. The country that is most guilty of exporting dangerous goods to the United States is China, but the Chinese are not alone. CNN's Lou Dobbs has done great work bringing a seemingly endless array of consumer safety problems to the attention of the American people on his nightly show.
As if that weren't bad enough, recent press accounts reveal that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a major crisis on its hands regarding the inspection of foreign drug-manufacturing plants. One catastrophe, in particular, has captured the public's attention. A Chinese plant that produced the main ingredient for the anti-coagulant heparin was never inspected. The imported drug has been linked to 21 U.S. deaths and hundreds of cases involving complications. Reports have also surfaced about a Chinese company that manufactures methotrexate, a drug that is used in the worldwide abortion trade.
These news stories have brought attention to a November 2007 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO-08-224T) that shows clearly how the inspection system for imported drugs is in a state of meltdown. Only 2% of Chinese plants are inspected annually, and, from 2002-2007, only 12% of Chinese plants had been inspected compared with 90% for both Ireland and Switzerland.
We have also learned that the FDA inspects American plants every two years, but no required inspection period exists for foreign plants. In the United States the FDA conducts unannounced inspections of manufacturing facilities, but it does not do this overseas. Furthermore, FDA does not supply translators to its inspection teams, so they typically rely on translators provided by the business being inspected.
Family Research Council believes that legislation should be enacted to protect the health of our people. Any new laws written to address this problem should include the following provisions:
FDA must specifically hire and train staff, including specially trained translators, to conduct foreign inspections;
FDA must rapidly work toward a goal of inspecting foreign plants at rates equal to those for American plants - approximately once every two years;
Americans should be informed when they buy drugs as to the country of origin of the drug product and ingredients they are purchasing;
"Country of origin" information should also be made available on the FDA website;
Products made in foreign plants that are not subject to unannounced inspections should not be importable into the United States; and,
Congress should authorize and appropriate sufficient funding to carry out these objectives.

Addendum #8 March 2,2008
I made a survey of over-the–counter products at local drug stores to see what was on the labels as far as “Active Ingredients” and what were the claims listed on the label. The question I asked was “Was the requirement, required by the Kefauver Commission, that all over-the-counter products be effective for the claims on the label”??
Listerine antiseptic was one of the few over-the-counter products to survive the purging of products that were not effective for the claims on the label. Listerine survived the 1960’s testing by removing all claims that could not be proven to be true. The present Listerine product is used only as a topical antiseptic (that is, it kills many germs on the skin). The Listerine package contains the following information that confirms the effectiveness of Listerine antiseptic. “ The ADA Council on Scientific Affairs acceptance of Listerine Antiseptic is based on the finding that the product is effective in helping to prevent and reduce gingivitis and plaque above the gumline when used as directed.”
Other over-the-counter products do not have the ADA council approval as
shown below. Drugs that do not have the ADA Council approval on the package instead have the following statement: [This statement (label claim) has not been evaluated by FDA and is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease or prevent any disease]
This disclaimer means that the law requiring all drugs to be effective is now a dead letter as far as many over-the-counter products are concerned. In many cases, we are back to the situation before the Kefauver laws were passed. Except now, we have the generic market and most prescription drug prices are drastically higher. Experience is no virtue in government, incompetents need to go and we need federal term limits.

PRODUCT NAME LABEL CLAIMS PRICE
Watkins Liniment Backache, Arthritis, Strains ???
Active Ingredient Sprains, Bruises, Temporary Aches, Pains,
3.5% Camphor (counterirritant) of Muscles and Joint

2. Heart Burn MD Teats heart burn $16.99
Proprietary Blend (This means that
the manufacturer will not say what
is in the product)
[ Statement—The statement (ie. Label claim) has not been evaluated by FDA and is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease or prevent any disease.]

3. Cholest-Off Lowers Cholesterol Naturally $34.99
Sodium 5 mg
Plant Sterols 900 mg
Pantethne 150 mg (antihyperlipoproteinmic)
[Statement—The statement (label claim) has not been evaluated by FDA and
is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease or prevent any
disease]

4. Triple Flex Treats Joint Pain $24.99
[Statement—The statement (label claim) has not been evaluated by FDA and
is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease or prevent any
disease]

5. Walgreen’s SAM-E Mood & Emotional Support, $29.99
Joint Comfort, Liver Health
S-Adenosylmethionine 400 mg (anti-inflammatory,
treats chronic liver disease)
[Statement—The statement (label claim) has not been evaluated by FDA and
is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease or prevent any disease]
6. Breathe Right Snore Relief $???
Water, alcohol, glycerine, polysorbate 80,
essential oils

7. Cooling Icy Blue Pain Relief $4.99
Menthol 2% ( anti- itch treatment—not pain relief)

8. Joint Flex Arthritic Pain Relief $18.99
Camphor 3.1% (anti-itch treatment—not pain relief)

9 Capzasin HP Arthritic Pain Relief $9.99
Capsaicin 0.1% (counter irritant)

10. Bengay Pain Relief $8.99
Camphor 4% (anti-itch)
Menthol 10% (anti-itch)
Methyl Salicylate 30% (anti-itch)—(Caution—ingestion of small amounts
can be lethal)
None of these ingredients have any measured topical pain relieve.
11. Blue Star Ointment Powerful Pain Relief $7.49
Camphor 1.24% (anti-itch) This has no pain relief activity.

12. Aspercreme Pain Killer $6.79
Trolamine salicylate 10% (anti-itch)—(Caution—ingestion of small amounts
can be lethal)

13. Australian Dream Pain Killer $29.99
Histamine dihydrochloride 0.025% (gastric secretion, antiallergenic]
14. Absorbine Jr. Pain Killer $7.49
Menthol 1.27% ( anti-itch) [no pain relief activity]

15. Memoryl Memory Improvement $39.99
Vitamin E, Folic Acid,
[Statement—The statement (label claim) has not been evaluated by FDA and
is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease or prevent any
disease]
[ Note—This product was imported from Italy]

16. Pre-Tense Relieves Nervous Tension $24.99
Combination of plant and other natural substances.
[Statement—The statement (label claim) has not been evaluated by FDA and
is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease or prevent any
disease]

17. Relaxane Stress Relief $10.99
Combination of plant and other natural substances
[Statement—The statement (label claim) has not been evaluated by FDA and
is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease or prevent any
disease]

18. Finest Natural ?????????Not Stated $8.99
Proprietary Blend (note—This means that the manufacturer will not say what
is in the product
[Statement—The statement (label claim) has not been evaluated by FDA and
is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease or prevent any
disease]

19. Joint MD Joint Stiffness and Cartilage Support $14.99
Mixture of plant and other natural substances
[Statement—The statement (label claim) has not been evaluated by FDA and
is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease or prevent any
disease]
All of the above products use substances that have no biological activity for the stated uses. The government has allowed "medicines" to be sold on the market that are no better and worse than those banned in the 1960's by the laws passed by the Kefauver Commission in 1960. In other words, we are back to the situation that existed before any of the useless over-the-counter products were tested and banned in the 1960's. Consequently we now have generic products that have destroyed the American Pharmaceutical Industry and we are paying many times the price that existed before the 1960's. Government does not solve any problems, Government IS the problem.

Addendum # 9 Medicaid Pays For Deadly, Unapproved Drugs
Kalamazoo Gazette, Nov. 24, 2008
The FDA and Medicaid are part of the Health and Human Services Department, but the FDA has yet to compile a master list of unapproved drugs and Medicaid---which may be the biggest purchaser---keeps paying.
Medicaid chief Herb Kuhn said “ It raises a whole set of questions, not only in terms of safety but in the efficiency of the program. In other cases, they [medications] have made people sicker, maybe even killed them. The FDA banned injectable versions of a gout drug called colchicine after receiving reports of 23 deaths. Among the other drugs identified were Carbofed, [colds and flu] Hylira, dry-skin, Andehist [ decongestant] and IC AR PRENATAL, a vitamin tablet.


Copyright 2008