I was so happy to walk onto the fairgrounds Thursday at 6:30 a.m. that it brought tears to my eyes. I chatted with a lot of people I never met before like we were old friends — the girl showing her 4-H ducks, the needlework demonstrators in the Creative Activities Building, the people admiring my blue ribbon plant in the Horticulture Building.

That's the real Minnesota — not the suspicion and fear of the last year and a half.

Elaine K. Murray, Minneapolis

•••

We went to the State Fair, as we always do every year. We arrived early (8:30) and entered near the livestock barns. We put our masks on and went to see the sheep and swine. We saw a lot of people tending to their animals but no masks. That's OK; I understand that there is no mandate, and these folks are just doing what they do every year. But, as we got further into the grounds of the fair, not many people were wearing masks. Should we be wearing ours? We were outside, for the most part.

After wandering most of the fair, we probably saw about one third of the attendees wearing masks. We mostly stayed outside, and when we went in a few buildings we saw more masked people. The workers were mostly all masked, so that was reassuring. But I feel that the fair should have required masks, considering the rise in positive COVID numbers and the fact that even with a mandate, not everyone follows it.

Because the fair left it up to everyone to decide if they need a mask or not, there weren't many people wearing masks.

Richard Fenton, Minneapolis

In reply to the reader who opposed Sen. Amy Klobuchar's solution to high drug prices ("Here's how we'll lower costs," Opinion Exchange, Aug. 24): Klobuchar's bill would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices under Part D.

Negotiation is not equivalent to price controls. The reader may not know that the VA negotiates drug costs with pharmaceutical companies. As to his other point, EpiPen's inflated prices were a result of management decisions by Sen. Joe Manchin's daughter, the CEO.

The reader suggests a combination of economy-based solutions: (1) Legalize purchases from other countries. Answer: This would affect other countries' prices and would not be possible for emergency usage drugs. (2) Change patent laws to allow generic production. Answer: Big pharmaceutical companies buy up generic producers. (3) Encourage competition among pharmaceutical companies. Answer: See the influence of patent law and consolidation of production. (4) Publish grant information. The writer said, "Prime Therapeutics referred me to the proper people and the cost dropped [from $4,000] to $100 per month." Answer: Right! No one can afford these drugs — even with insurance coverage! So who is paying the price difference? Why? Can we follow the money?

The lesson is clear. Market forces are not working for drug costs.

•••

A letter writer says that letting Medicare negotiate lower drug prices would be a disaster that would lead to shortages. He then offers buying cheaper drugs from Canada as part of a solution.

And why are drug prices in Canada cheaper than in the U.S.? It's because Canada's national health care system sets lower prices with drug companies! No one complains about drug shortages in Canada.

So why don't we just eliminate the potential middleman here (Canada) and do what Canada does?

And as for higher drug prices funding research and development, most "new" drugs are copycats — drugs that are chemically similar to cheaper drugs already on the market. These higher-priced "new" drugs add little in value to consumers but allow drug companies to charge higher prices. Most research and development into genuinely new drugs is done at taxpayer expense in public universities. These universities then license the technologies to the drug companies.

Before swallowing whole the Aug. 27 editorial, "Bombings compound Afghan tragedy," readers should ingest some reality. Writing at MintPress News on Aug. 24, Australian journalist John Pilger offers a powerful emetic, "The Great Game of Smashing Nations." Some highlights:

In 1978 the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) toppled the dictatorship of Mohammad Dawd, cousin to the Afghan king. The New York Times and Washington Post rejoiced at the new government, which proceeded to deliver results. In a decade, life expectancy, free medical care, literacy and the rights of women surged; fully half of all university students in Afghanistan were women. As documented by Bob Woodward, the CIA responded with $70 million in bribes aimed at undermining the new government, while funding, arming and training in Pakistan an army of Islamic fundamentalists to wage guerrilla war. Pilger writes:

"In August, 1979, the US Embassy in Kabul reported that 'the United States' larger interests … would be served by the demise of the PDPA government, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan.'

"The US was saying that a genuinely progressive Afghan government and the rights of Afghan women could go to hell.

"Six months later, the Soviets made their fatal move into Afghanistan in response to the American-created jihadist threat on their doorstep."

If "serious self-reflection" is the goal, best start with some facts.

William Beyer, St. Louis Park

•••

In just eight months, President Joe Biden has become the worst president in American history. For four years, I read letter after letter in this newspaper about how President Donald Trump lied, how he was basically a Nazi, etc. He was impeached over a call about Ukraine. President Biden is not upholding his oath to protect the U.S. from harm — first the border crisis and now the bungled withdrawal from Afghanistan. He cannot be believed. Our friends don't trust him and, in fact, are very upset with him (just watch the news). Each of these points individually and certainly all together are far more grounds for impeachment than for the Trump call. When are Democrats going to move to save America by impeaching Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris?

Richard Burton, Ramsey

Yesterday, 13 service members were tragically killed in Afghanistan evacuating Americans and Afghans. It has been reported that until yesterday, no American troops had been killed there in combat in the last 18 months, so some reason that it would have been better to keep our troops there to stabilize the country. Nobody is mentioning the thousands who have been injured, developed PTSD or committed suicide during that time, let alone during the 20 years the war has been going on. Were these deaths yesterday avoidable? Possibly. But so were the previous 2,500 or so deaths and countless more disabilities.

Were the Afghans helping us fight terrorism, or were we helping those Afghans of good character with nation-building? I sincerely empathize with all Afghans of goodwill who genuinely fought for their rights and values. In the end, we see that ruthless elements persist in Afghanistan that don't value human rights or life. This isn't unique to that country, and the U.S. can't change that fact in Afghanistan any more than we can in other countries. The outrage over the loss of our troops and the plight of the Afghan people is legitimate but beyond our control. Why isn't there similar outrage over the U.S. COVID-19 deaths, many of those avoidable and currently over 100 times as many each day as the troops killed yesterday?

Wayne Dahlsten, Bloomington