On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Allen Esterson went:
An interesting viewpoint. But doesn't it unwarrantedly presume a very close correlation between a person's views on a variety of subjects and one's own? I can recall strongly disagreeing with writers on one topic while valuing their articles/books on others. Surely, except in extreme cases, any article/book should be judged on its merits, not on preconceptions about the author.
Valid points, but I feel that I've taken enough other bites of Satel's work (mostly in the form of op-ed pieces) to conclude that the whole apple is very likely to be rotten. I acknowledge that she and I could have some isolated points of agreement--but probably not above-chance agreement. And on Fri, 3 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] went:
...David's endorsement of harm reduction strikes me as courageous and perhaps even rash, given his current employment as a toiler in the vineyard of Bush. I wonder how Bush et al view the harm reduction approach.
They're clearly antagonistic toward it, but then, so was Clinton, who fired Joycelyn Elders for speaking frankly about it, and whose Drug Czar was the anti-needle-exchange Barry McCaffrey. (McCaffrey was actually pretty good in some respects, but he explicitly stated that he opposed anything bearing the label "harm reduction.") Under the Clinton administration, I never felt partisan politics reach down to my level as a federally employed scientist. Under Bush--not yet, but I sleep with one eye open. --David Epstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
