>Doug Henwood wrote:
>>
>>
>> True enough, but again, what's your point? Should we fight for a
>> different FDA, or just give up on everything?
>
>Your alternatives are identical, and hence not alternatives. We, whoever
>you mean by we, are not going to get a different FDA under either the
>RP or the DP. Hence arguing for that is the same as just giving up.
>
>The trouble with posing pseudo-alterntives is that they then usurp the
>intellectual and political space which could otherwise be devoted to
>discovering _actual_ alternatives.
>
>You make the same error over and over again. You balance alternatives
>which exist and can exist only in purely mental space, and then
>judiciously propound that Alternative A is certainly better than
>Alternative A.
What the hell are you talking about?
As I suspect you don't know, the pharmaceutical industry leans heavily Republican. The two parties are not identities in the A=A sense on health issues. But I'm quite aware that the Dems aren't all *that* different, even if they aren't indistinguishable.
But why do you think I'm looking to the DP to change the FDA in a significant way? I admire the way ACT-UP organized in the 1980s to pressure the industry and the regulatory structure. I had a long phone chat at the time with one of their drug experts, who had been just an ordinary guy who really studied up when he got AIDS. He was incredibly impressive. The whole thing seemed like an excellent model for how laypeople could agitate, educate, and organize - and invade the turf of "experts" for the public good. Of course, if you think that's a "pseudo-alternative" and only the unspeakable, unimaginable Revolution can change anything, then I suppose there's not much point in talking further.
Doug