Class Warfare

For several weeks now this notion of "class warfare" has been bantered about in the media. Actually, it's been used before, but recently it's been gaining in popularity, and I completely understand why. Do you?

Let me begin by introducing the word of the day: demagoguery. Excuse me if I borrow the following from Wikipedia (mostly because I like the goofy letters used in pronunciation keys):

Demagogy (/ˈdɛməɡɒdʒi/[1]) or demagoguery (/ˈdɛməɡɒɡəri/[2]) (Greek: δημαγωγία, from δῆμος dēmos "people" and ἄγειν agein "to lead") is a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears, vanities and expectations of the public—typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist, populist or religious themes.

The concept has been discussed since ancient times, as far back as we have been able to trace intelligent persons willing to discuss the tools their leaders use to increase the number and dedication of their followers. Look at that definition: impassioned rhetoric, prejudices, emotions, fears, vanities - anyone think these are positive qualities? Anyone think these are tools to making good decisions? Anyone think decisions based on demagoguery will lead to a better future?

So back to "class warfare." The phrase brings to mind a battle in which one (or more) classes is pitted against the others. It implies that there is an attacking party and a defending party. If there is an attacking party, said party may be attacking justly or unjustly. The same can be said of the defending party (defending their position, whether that position is defensible or not). The Grand Old Party maintains Obama has called the middle and lower classes to arms against the upper class.

I must say, I like John Fuglesang's observation: 'Class Warfare' is when the bottom 98% fights back (http://twitter.com/#!/JohnFugelsang 19 sept 2011). What I don't like is that this presumes we are fighting a war - which I think Obama is trying to avoid. It presumes that asking people to pay "their fair share" (jeeze, whenever I say or think that I hear it falling out of the Governator's mouth) is tantamount to the opening salvo at Lexington on April 19, 1775 or Gavrilo Princip's two shots on June 28, 1914. At this point, Obama has only asked that those who have more, give more.

Let me use an analogy: Jeff has a decent income. He is neither rich nor poor. David and Betty make much less, and Carla and Rebecca qualify as legally 'poor.' Theo is a multimillionaire. They are all "friends," and Theo says, "Hey, let's go to dinner at El Torito Grill."

Jeff orders Surf and Turf, which consists of a 6 oz filet mignon and 8 oz of lobster tail. $45
David and Betty each decide on a 1/2 pound hamburger with fries. $25 each
Carla and Rebecca go along reluctantly, mostly due to feeling socially obligated, and split an appetizer. $9 each.
Theo also orders the Surf and Turf, but since he eats at El Torito Grill at least 3 times per week and always brings a bunch of friends, his meal is comped by the chef.

Is it fair for Theo, the richest of the group, to not have to pay for his meal, while Carla and Rebecca have to pay $18 for an appetizer? Would it be "class warfare" for Jeff to mention to Theo, "Hey, maybe you should talk to the Chef and ask them to not comp your food, since you can afford the meal much more than Carla or even I?"

I don't think this should be a war, and it only is because of demagoguery: the Grand Old Party knows that by mentioning "class warfare" they will get a visceral reaction from their constituents, a gut instinct to vote against yet another war.

As John Stewart says, let's tone down the rhetoric and make some sane decisions to get our country back on the right track.

Michele Bachmann

Yeah, I know - I've been absent for a while again. I get busy - and frustrated. But I'm back for another try.

I just saw Michele Bachmann interviewed after her Straw Poll win. I don't understand the obstinate nature of the Tea Party, insisting on a course of action economists inform us will only worsen our budget and credit rating crisis. In particular, she says two things I think everyone in the WORLD agrees with, and yet they are total lies meant to play on our sentiments. They are meant to stir up fear and anger, allowing unscrupulous politicians to use things such as "the default of America" as bargaining chips to further their own political careers, which Standard & Poor's flat out told us is the reason we've been downgraded.

The first thing she says that bothers me is that we (as a country) should not spend more than we make. That sounds so true, and yet it doesn't always work in reality (and NEVER works in a recession). She makes it sound like the US is going to hell in a hand basket because we've decided all our children should go to the most expensive private school, we have to have the most expensive package of not one, but EVERY cable and satellite TV provider in EVERY room of the house, and we're dining out nightly on caviar, veal, truffles, etc, after which we're so full we can't drive home so we need to stay in the MGM Grand's The Mansion.

But that's not the case. It's easy to say, "Hey, cut back on expenses," when the majority of your expenses are luxuries (actually, I've spoken to a lot of people who get into problems because they can't figure out how to spend less than $500 per month on their non-business phone and they can't imagine their kids in public school, but that just means their priorities are out of whack. A fat lot of good it will do to take your kids to private school in their new bedroom, the 1982 Mercedes you bought to replace the repo'd 2010 Landrover). The problem here is that the country has already put the metaphorical kids in public school, we're already watching TV via antenna, we're already dining on Mac N Cheese and Stone Soup every night, and we've already downsized from a queen to a double bed in our own apartments. So when little Justin turns up with Hodgkin's disease, do you just say, "Well, kid, you had a good run, but Mommy and Daddy don't have the money for your chemo, so it looks like this is it. Oh, and, uh, since you're not going to make it anyway, we've decided to reduce your food budget to zero. Jessica! You're our new #1 kid!" or do you go into debt, save Justin and take that second (or third) job to make ends meet?

This brings us to the second (and most glaring) lie the Tea Party tells us: "No one has said, Oh, please, raise my taxes. They aren't high enough already." The statement is true, but the meaning is a blatant lie. I am a doctor, and as such, I deal with difficult choices all the time. No one wants surgery (unless it will make them slimmer, give them a cuter nose, or make their boobs topple them over when they bend past 10 degrees from the vertical). I would never walk up to a patient and say, "Hey, everything looks great, how would you like to get a very painful shot?" or "Oh, hey, how about I lop off a testicle or two?" or "You have wonderful boobs, do you mind if I remove them?"

On the other hand, I most certainly will tell a syphilitic patient, "Hey, you have a disease that will make your life uncomfortable for the next few weeks, but then it will go away, but then it will come back, and then it will go away, and finally it will attack your brain and kill you. Do you mind if I give you a shot today that will cure it 100%?"

Or, "Hey, I have some bad news. While your breasts are stunning, we've found Stage IA cancer in your left breast, plus you've turned up positive for the BRCA 1 gene mutation, which means it is highly likely your cancer will recur. We most definitely need to remove your current tumor and then we should discuss radical bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction in the future. This is the best option to save your life now and preserve your body image afterward."

Or, "I'm sorry sir, but you have testicular cancer. While there are a lot of unwanted effects of orchiectomy, your best chance of survival is surgical removal of the tumor. This means we will have to remove the testicle."

So, if you walk up to anyone and say, "Hey, do you think we should raise your taxes?" Of COURSE they'll say "NO!" But if you ask, "Are you willing to pay more taxes if that means saving your job, your neighbors and the country at large?" I think most people would begrudgingly say, "Yeah, ok."

And those advocating tax hikes are not even saying, "Let's raise the taxes of Joe the Plummer." They're saying, "Let's raise the taxes of anyone making more than $250,000 per year." What does that mean? The average American, making $25,000 per year, last year fell into the 15% tax bracket. They paid $3,750 in taxes and kept $21,250. This would not change after the tax hike. They pay the same, and keep the same. But someone making $250,000 last year fell into the 33% tax bracket. They paid $82,500 in taxes, and kept $167,500. If the old tax rates (prior to Bush's tax reductions) went back into effect for these people, they would pay 36%, or $90,000, and keep $160,000. Following my previous analogy, this would be the equivalent of telling the country to get a second job. Actually, it's more like telling the country, "Hey, management can't have Monday and Friday off anymore. We need to work the full week to get the full pay."

So the question should become, "Do you think your taxes should stay the same, and that the people who are hurt the most from this tax increase should get to keep $160,000 instead of $167,500?"

I think you will get a very different answer from this question. Do I want you to cut off my testicles? No. Do I want you to perform an orchiectomy to save my life? Yes, please.

Death of a Terrorist

So I've been watching the aftermath of the bin Laden thing. I'm
not quite sure how to feel about it.

On the one hand, he was quite the dangerous person. As the
Doofenshmirtz Dance Brigade would say sing, "He's an evil, evil
man." Do I think he deserved to die? That would be a resounding
"YES," not out of any desire for revenge, but to keep him from
continuing to hurt/kill others.

On the other hand, it really bothered me to see people
celebrating in the streets. That seems too barbaric to me - as if we were part
of the Roman Empire. I expect nations based on tribal systems to have these
kinds of reactions - but I would expect more from a 'sophisticated society.'

Then the really bad part of me comes out: the comedian who
wants to make all kinds of jokes about the whole situation. Thankfully, the
other two sides of me are in hyperdrive right now, and I am able to suppress the
comic urge.