revity, says Shakespeare, is the soul of wit. Sworn here to near asphyxial brevity, I would like to guarantee a corresponding level of acumen. Consequently, this is a doubly tough assignment for someone who, in keeping with Stein's confessional style, admits his true inclination is to rebut point by bloody point. For there is much I yearn to say (or, having already said it in my original article, to say again) to the good colleagues who took the time and trouble to read and provide heartfelt, if pointed, comment. I would like very keenly to return that honor. Lacking the space to do so, however, at least I gain some small pleasure in knowing that my work has offered opportunity for the airing of alternative (dare I say, conflicting) points of view, a process I think healthy, although it is oft condemned (not infrequently by those who preach balance but worship conformity). No doubt, all the complimentary things said about my paper in the preceding pages are completely and totally beyond reproach. As for the criticisms, I am of course reminded of Disraeli's insight that it is far easier to be critical than to be correct. Even under the duress of limited space, a few statements demand immediate response. I found Stein's psychoanalytically nuanced treatment of oppression most entertaining. Given as I am to class analysis, however, it is hard not to notice the political function of Stein's Dylanesque assertion that the first one now shall later be last, and the times, they are a-changin'. If we convince people that, eventually, they, too, will be top dog, surely that will take something out of their bark; historical reality is another issue all together. Also, I hope Suzanne Heurtin-Roberts understands that I am in full agreement that sociopolitical oppression is not the sole source of all human suffering and ill health. That said, it is critical that we not stop early in our search for political economic causation. Let me close then by announcing that as my work over the last 12 years in inner-city minority health organizations does not count in Johnson's book as struggling in the trenches, I am available for employment at a large university health center. If hired, I promise to have the effect on students that, with considerable humility, I am honored to hear I have had on some of those lucky enough to claim Lynn Morgan as their teacher. Because, as Stein tells us, there is no "us" and there is no "them," only and everywhere "we" (although he does appear to exclude the Hitler youth from his peaceable kingdom), I am sure that my critical views will not be held against me as I happily seek employment in the medical ivory tower. Oh, yes: if hired, I also promise not to use the irritating H-word but will stick to the plainer English that Stein recommends, like "tyranny of silence" or "collusion of anonymity," to make the same point. rrespondence may be addressed to e author at 34 Ch rry Lane Amherst, MA 122