ASTRO has gone full woke

[Ray D. Ayshun]

I appreciate your reply.

You won't hear from me that there isn't a tyranny on the left. There absolutely is. Now in terms of "cancel culture", I think it is important to clarify what that means. Norman Wang was absolutely cancelled because punishment was met out. The punishment is a critical part of cancelling. Disagreeing, unfriending on social media, unfriending in person or insulting are in my mind not cancelling (nor is quitting ASTRO because Kendi was invited to speak). I would say that a boycott is not cancelling. I think it is fair to say that today right leaning people in academia reasonably feel threatened by the prospect of cancelling. Of course, left leaning people have been cancelled in the past and Marxism is used as a dirty word in this thread.

I strongly believe in free speech and would hopefully not cancel anyone outside of criminality, cruelty or negligence.

I don't know Kendi's work well but agree that the proposal for a government department with vast powers and no political oversight is bad and can be described as totalitarian. I also think Wang shouldn't have been cancelled.

I like the Smithsonian's definition of antirascism. Doesn't seem so onerous. Not sure how you would criticize someone who earnestly tries to do this.

There is so much we could discuss. I'll lead with some somewhat propositional logic. Help me fill in the connectors.

Premise 1. There are no meaningful differences in intrinsic potential regarding the subtle human qualities of intelligence, work ethic or character between large groups of people assigned to traditional racial groups.

Premise 2. There are marked disparities in wealth, educational achievement and healthcare outcomes between these groups.

I'll ask you to connect these two honestly.

I contend that if you hold premise 1 to be true, actionable factors that lead to premise 2 must be present. (Prove me wrong.) I also contend that it is society's responsibility to address these. (This may be a matter of taste. Maybe "wokeness" is defined by this second contention.)

I doubt many on this board would deny premise 2.

I contend that when people acknowledge (even privately) premise 2, but are morally opposed to studying or emphasizing actionable factors that could connect premise 1 to premise 2, they are usually denying (even privately) premise 1. (I may be wrong, and am open to arguments about why these actionable factors should not be addressed).

I acknowledge that you can accept both Premise 1 and Premise 2, feel that it is morally right to address actionable factors that lead to Premise 2, and still not support particular programs such as affirmative action.

I'll accept any connector.

Perhaps it's way in which solving premise 2 is happening in our field, with respect to increasing the diversity of our leadership and increasing access to care.

Regarding the first aspect of this, the most important word in your two premises is "groups." Groups are made up of individuals. Solving the diversity of leadership in Medicine/Rad Onc with the rapidity the woke folks want seems to involve damaging the lives or ending the careers of a lot of individuals who had no role in creating the system, and are aware everyday of the challenges they overcame to get where they are, which have been diminished or discounted by the handcuffing of skin color to privilege. In rad onc specifically, it's hard from my perspective, to argue that premise 2 has not been addressed at the level of the residency process. It takes time to filter up. For some reason, waiting for the downstream effects of this to manifest does not seem acceptable to a vocal group of "leaders."

Regarding the second part, access to care, I think the frustration here is a product of this being a small field, and in turn,the awareness a lot of us here have that some of the paper writers and twitterers pushing the woke agenda are themselves products of privilege who have coopted the struggle against the barriers to education and opportunity, and continue to do nothing more than write papers and tweet about it. This isn't a tu quoque argument to discredit their aims. It's true we need more black radiation oncologists, but from the poor side of Birmingham, AL, Jackson, MS, Lake Charles, LA, who might actually return home. Simply getting more minorities in by basing it just on the color of their skin may just lead to more experts on access to care who treat prostates with protons in major metro areas.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted480308]

1. African Americans have always been treated equally in this country (since they were brought on slave ships) and where we stand currently is an entirely just outcome.

2. Historically, African Americans were treated poorly in America, but that all ended instantly in 1968 and in the interim 52 years they should have just bootstrapped themselves to equals.

3. Historically, African Americans were treated poorly and currently they are treated less poorly. That should be good enough.

4. I don’t care, because the current system works well for me and mine and I’m afraid to see it changed.


Those are really the 4 options that you can take. Unfortunately, I think most people are #4.

That’s a false choice fallacy and you know it

 

[Mandelin Rain]

That’s a false choice fallacy and you know it

Not really.

 

[RickyScott]

1. African Americans have always been treated equally in this country (since they were brought on slave ships) and where we stand currently is an entirely just outcome.

2. Historically, African Americans were treated poorly in America, but that all ended instantly in 1968 and in the interim 52 years they should have just bootstrapped themselves to equals.

3. Historically, African Americans were treated poorly and currently they are treated less poorly. That should be good enough.

4. I don’t care, because the current system works well for me and mine and I’m afraid to see it changed.


Those are really the 4 options that you can take. Unfortunately, I think most people are #4.

Would probably go with number 2, (but would add some nuance- ) based on experience of Vietnamese boat people, holacaust Jews, Jews and Catholics in 1920s etc. Chinese immigrants with really tough backgrounds . (lot of big firms- Goldman Sachs, Lehman brothers, bunch of law firms began in this era because Jews were excluded from white shoe firms). Don’t know much about Indians from lower castes in USA- but they seem to do well?
But, I do believe medicine is one of the few fields you can make a convincing argument for AA given potential benefit to pts, but we have to recognize this would mean limiting Asians and Indians.

 

[BobbyHeenan]

I’m fine with ASTRO doing this. I don’t belong to ASTRO and can fully understand frustrations with the organization, the quality of research in general in radiation oncology and the impact that overtraining has on everyone in the field.

People are excited or at least passionate about the talk. It resonates much like grievance threads on this board or grievance in general. How many talks at ASTRO are people really interested in? How common are practice changing presentations given? We should not indulge in logical fallacies equating the public embrace or traction of things like disparity research or pushes for equity with the lack of real and exciting basic and translational scientific or general clinical research in our field. These things are almost certainly not related. (Of course, health care disparities are real and should be studied scientifically.)

This did not occur in a vacuum. As mentioned above, ASTRO is a political organization. It plays an important role in presenting our profession to the public and lawmakers. In principle, it should aim to present us as a high value and principled group. It should advocate for reasonable remuneration and protect us from creep from outside specialties. The cynical person would say that it should ensure our continued regulatory capture and is a classic special interest group. ASTRO’s public image matters.

The most famous radiation oncologist today is Steve Hahn, who was on the board of directors of ASTRO. He is the head of the FDA, a miraculous regulatory body tracing its roots to the first progressive president (Teddy Roosevelt). I call it miraculous because I have little confidence that the market alone would guarantee the safety, efficacy or even identity of food or medicine delivered to the public. I doubt that anyone on this board believes that the public trust in the FDA has increased under Steve Hahn’s tenure. He is the political appointee of Donald Trump. I will let Trump’s rhetoric, including his cultivation of far right social capital by attacking a black, moderate democrat’s citizenship, speak for itself. But the relationships between Steve Hahn, Trump and the public’s perception of radiation oncology in general is important and I suspect that ASTRO leadership is aware of this and open to narratives far from that represented by the Trump Administration.

I have never been victimized by critical race theory in particular or critical theory in general. I am sure that there have been some victims. I am aware of contentious faculty meetings and frustrations with trying to rectify disparities at a very downstream point where upstream talent is not diverse. I am sure that Bret Weinstein was victimized by radical proponents of critical theory at Evergreen State, an institution not very reflective of our country in general. But, how many of you have been victimized by critical theory? It is a theoretical framework. Like all theoretical frameworks it should be considered and not censored. Bret Weinstein is by the way a much more public intellectual now than he ever was before he was victimized.

I know that systemic racism is real. I know because I am white and middle aged and have heard all the whites only conversations over the years. These conversations now routinely occur in mixed company online forums. When there is anonymity and no upvoting, what is the dominant narrative online? Is it that disparities are complicated and are undoubtedly related to social structures and upbringing and history or is that they are the product of inherent differences?

When I recruit for my red county practice, representative of where the opportunities are and where I was able to land a job, I am aware of color, and the question of whether an applicant of color could be happy there crosses my mind. Mainly because the dominant narrative that I hear from patients and the friends of my teen children is one of white grievance.

I appreciate you coming here and posting this in good faith.

The CRT came for me (sort of) in the pandemic.

In brief - I've always been a big proponent of public schools. We sent our kids there in spite of my wife (she's a democrat; I'm not even registered to vote if that matters...I know that's bad) favoring private schools. When COVID hit and we shut down our county school system forbid us from contacting their teacher and forbid the teachers from teaching new material once they went online. The rationale was that it was not equitable to those without home computers/internet. They didn't care that it was hurting everyone else, as long as everyone was hurt in an equitable amount.

When challenged about this policy they stuck to the equity discussion (first and foremost priority was equity, and it took me down a rabbit hole further investigating it I read their rationale and citations and they had had prior diversity meetings and I went back and looked at their powerpoints and meeting minutes and citations.

I found CRT to be non scientific - it starts with a conclusion and works backward. It seemed antithetical to MLK Jrs vision and I don't think it's a good way to look at the world. It seems to destroy everywhere it is ingrained (see Evergreen State fiasco) and causes more racial strife.

I came to the conclusion that its Ok to think there are still race/racism problems but CRT wasn’t the answer.

 

[deleted480308]

Not really.

You seem to have left out, “there were some really horrible things that happened with govt sanction a long time ago and now that almost all the people that participated in that or suffered during it are gone it’s a really impossibly complicated equation to try and determine who would allegedly owe what to who, this is made more complicated by the fact that (and this is a good thing) there aren’t two monolithic racial groups in the US and we’re a constantly intermingling population with constant immgration and increasingly blended families which might mean that the simplistic and arbitrary demands that govt “do something” might not be appropriate”

 

[Mandelin Rain]

I’m not demanding anyone do anything. I think everyone can acknowledge there’s a problem and figure out if they care enough to address it. Like I said, I think most people do, and most people don’t.

#4

 

[deleted480308]

I’m not demanding anyone do anything. I think everyone can acknowledge there’s a problem and figure out if they care enough to address it. Like I said, I think most people do, and most people don’t.

#4

The rub is what you want to be the definition of “address” it. This is the strawmanning that happens in these discussions too often, if you don’t agree to “x” then you don’t care about racism

 

[Mandelin Rain]

So, you’re a 4. It’s okay.

 

[deleted480308]

So, you’re a 4. It’s okay.

When you reply to someone, it’s generally best practice to actually use the reply feature so they can know someone is speaking to them.

and no, you are strawmanning. I said i’m not sure that all demands for govt actionare appropriate and despite claiming you don’t have any demands you want to drop “don’t care about racism” on someone. It’s dishonest discussion behavior.

what exactly is your criteria for someone to “care”? Specifically

 

[medgator]

When you reply to someone, it’s generally best practice to actually use the reply feature so they can know someone is speaking to them.

and no, you are strawmanning. I said i’m not sure that all demands for govt actionare appropriate and despite claiming you don’t have any demands you want to drop “don’t care about racism” on someone. It’s dishonest discussion behavior.

what exactly is your criteria for someone to “care”? Specifically

Acknowledgement said problem exists for one, i would imagine. Even the richest man in the world acknowledges that black lives, in fact, matter, while many on the right ascribe negative aspects to it (some on the far right call it a terrorist group).

 

[deleted480308]

Acknowledgement said problem exists for one, i would imagine. Even the richest man in the world acknowledges that black lives, in fact, matter, while many on the right ascribe negative aspects to it (some on the far right call it a terrorist group).

There is a lot of misleading phrasing in your statements. Almost no one of any importance actually denies that many metrics/outcomes are different by race. Almost no one actually denies that racism exists and still happens and shouldn’t. There is no appreciable group actually claim that the lives of black people don’t matter.

but saying that all lives matter (they do) has now been dishonestly labeled as somehow thinking black lives don’t. And there are a lot of people with legitimate concerns that the phrase has too much confusion between the sentiment (a good thing) and the organization (fraught with problems).

we can talk through that if you like

 

[Gfunk6]

Despite all the rhetoric and verbosity on this thread, I think we can all agree on one thing. If we see an underrepresented minority medical student who expresses an interest in Rad Onc we ought to tell them to run, not walk way. Tell them to go to any other field where the leaders at least take the long view.

Or, better yet, if they are not yet in medical school tell them avoid it and become an NP or PA instead.

 

[seper]

that is very pessimistic

 

[KHE88]

1. African Americans have always been treated equally in this country (since they were brought on slave ships) and where we stand currently is an entirely just outcome.

2. Historically, African Americans were treated poorly in America, but that all ended instantly in 1968 and in the interim 52 years they should have just bootstrapped themselves to equals.

3. Historically, African Americans were treated poorly and currently they are treated less poorly. That should be good enough.

4. I don’t care, because the current system works well for me and mine and I’m afraid to see it changed.


Those are really the 4 options that you can take. Unfortunately, I think most people are #4.

It's obvious that you think just ensuring that everyone has equal opportunity and that nobody is judged by the color of their skin ala MLK is not enough for you. So what exactly is your solution? Cash reparations? Racial quotas based on skin color with government mandates to private employers and schools to meet these quotas?

In the past, blacks did not have access to the same system of rights that whites did. Early civil rights leaders fought for access to this system. And they rightly won it, and these legal barriers have been torn down. Yet for some, including you, this is not enough. So what do you want? Other racial groups have emigrated to this country and thrived on average despite dark skin colors. So it can't all just be about whites trying to hold back people with dark skin can it?

There is a cycle of young black men being raised in fatherless households below the poverty line, having children out of wedlock at a very young age and ending up incarcerated or otherwise not able to raise their children. BLM, as far as I can tell, seeks to solve this through heavy-handed marxist redistribution and communal raising of children to even the playing field of those being able to enjoy the privelege of a nuclear family (I'm not making this up, you can read their own statements on this). The lie that is being promulgated is that their is a ghost in the machine purposely keeping them from achieving. Do we solve this by just giving everybody no-strings-attached cash, taking police off the streets, and stop prosecuting all but the most serious crimes? Is it fair to explore possible negative outcomes of these proposed "solutions?"

In my opinion, these views are fairly paternalistic and offensive as they essentially suggest that the woke whites need to be the saviors of the black community, and the wokes are using all of it to signal their own virtue (because it's all about them). People are already upset about this. (One of many articles: White people have gentrified Black Lives Matter. It's a problem ). While I don't agree with a lot of the premise, I share the annoyance at the bumper-sticker woke-brigade. How many of these are really honestly willing to put their money where their mouth is when it comes down to it?

Thought experiment (I'm assuming you are a white male based on your posts, but if not pretend that you are): Would you, personally, be willing to give up your high paying private practice job to a new African American rad onc residency grad who is struggling in the job market? If the answer is no, then why? And furthermore, how would you feel about a government-mandated employment redistribution requirement like this in order to right the wrongs of the past that you have benefited from by nature of the birth lottery?

 

[RickyScott]

It's obvious that you think just ensuring that everyone has equal opportunity and that nobody is judged by the color of their skin ala MLK is not enough for you. So what exactly is your solution? Cash reparations? Racial quotas based on skin color with government mandates to private employers and schools to meet these quotas?

In the past, blacks did not have access to the same system of rights that whites did. Early civil rights leaders fought for access to this system. And they rightly won it, and these legal barriers have been torn down. Yet for some, including you, this is not enough. So what do you want? Other racial groups have emigrated to this country and thrived on average despite dark skin colors. So it can't all just be about whites trying to hold back people with dark skin can it?

There is a cycle of young black men being raised in fatherless households below the poverty line, having children out of wedlock at a very young age and ending up incarcerated or otherwise not able to raise their children. BLM, as far as I can tell, seeks to solve this through heavy-handed marxist redistribution and communal raising of children to even the playing field of those being able to enjoy the privelege of a nuclear family (I'm not making this up, you can read their own statements on this). The lie that is being promulgated is that their is a ghost in the machine purposely keeping them from achieving. Do we solve this by just giving everybody no-strings-attached cash, taking police off the streets, and stop prosecuting all but the most serious crimes? Is it fair to explore possible negative outcomes of these proposed "solutions?"

In my opinion, these views are fairly paternalistic and offensive as they essentially suggest that the woke whites need to be the saviors of the black community, and the wokes are using all of it to signal their own virtue (because it's all about them). People are already upset about this. (One of many articles: White people have gentrified Black Lives Matter. It's a problem ). While I don't agree with a lot of the premise, I share the annoyance at the bumper-sticker woke-brigade. How many of these are really honestly willing to put their money where their mouth is when it comes down to it?

Thought experiment (I'm assuming you are a white male based on your posts, but if not pretend that you are): Would you, personally, be willing to give up your high paying private practice job to a new African American rad onc residency grad who is struggling in the job market? If the answer is no, then why? And furthermore, how would you feel about a government-mandated employment redistribution requirement like this in order to right the wrongs of the past that you have benefited from by nature of the birth lottery?

need to get with kendis program. Apparently, we must “confess” to being racist (like cultural revolution China) before problem can be addressed.

kendis thoughts on capitalism on npr
On the connection between racism and capitalism
Kendi: Historically, when you look at the emergence of capitalism itself, it emerged in the same place at the same time as what became known as the transatlantic slave trade. And it grew through colonialism. It grew through chattel slavery, particularly in the Americas. And so when you talk about its origin and its growth, it originated and grew side by side with racism itself. ... When you look at it empirically, particularly in our time, you can't really separate wealth from race in the United States and across the world, and you can't really separate poverty from race. And the reason being is because racist and capitalist policies have long intersected to essentially make it such that let's say black people were disproportionately poor and white people were disproportionately wealthy.

 

[Lamount]

need to get with kendis program. Apparently, we must “confess” to being racist (like cultural revolution China) before problem can be addressed.

Not to say I am on board with Kendi's argument, but there is an important component that no one has mentioned here: if most people struggle with racism within themselves, then "racist" isn't an irredeemable evil label, but rather the name of a negative tendency that is part of human nature.

Thought experiment (I'm assuming you are a white male based on your posts, but if not pretend that you are): Would you, personally, be willing to give up your high paying private practice job to a new African American rad onc residency grad who is struggling in the job market? If the answer is no, then why? And furthermore, how would you feel about a government-mandated employment redistribution requirement like this in order to right the wrongs of the past that you have benefited from by nature of the birth lottery?

I would not (if I had a high paying PP job)... as I value providing for my family above social justice -however, I don't think that anyone is actually proposing "redistributing" jobs.

The argument for affirmative action (which is admittedly flawed) lies in the veil of ignorance thought experiment whereby one designs the ideal society not knowing whether you will be born into a rich house or a poor house, a white house or a black house. The goal is to "optimize" this society so that the most people have the best lives, regardless of which house they are born into.

Whether or not you believe that systemic racism exists (and you should), you must acknowledge that it is all-but-impossible for people to succeed who are born into the wrong zip code. Here is a really interesting data tool that shows projected incomes based upon where you were born.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

Is there a “Mansplaining Internet Message Board Best Practices” book I can pick up?

I really need to learn the codified rules of evidence based anonymous internet interaction.

 

[medgator]

Not to say I am on board with Kendi's argument, but there is an important component that no one has mentioned here: if most people struggle with racism within themselves, then "racist" isn't an irredeemable evil label, but rather the name of a negative tendency that is part of human nature.




I would not (if I had a high paying PP job)... as I value providing for my family above social justice -however, I don't think that anyone is actually proposing "redistributing" jobs.

The argument for affirmative action (which is admittedly flawed) lies in the veil of ignorance thought experiment whereby one designs the ideal society not knowing whether you will be born into a rich house or a poor house, a white house or a black house. The goal is to "optimize" this society so that the most people have the best lives, regardless of which house they are born into.

Whether or not you believe that systemic racism exists (and you should), you must acknowledge that it is all-but-impossible for people to succeed who are born into the wrong zip code. Here is a really interesting data tool that shows projected incomes based upon where you were born.

Sounds like a big strawman to me. I think the solutions would be more generalized. I mean many of these historically black communities were redlined into the worst parts of many major metro areas and still live there, often next to and under interstates. Just supposed to pretend that isn't a problem i guess

 

[OTN]

need to get with kendis program. Apparently, we must “confess” to being racist (like cultural revolution China) before problem can be addressed.

kendis thoughts on capitalism on npr
On the connection between racism and capitalism
Kendi: Historically, when you look at the emergence of capitalism itself, it emerged in the same place at the same time as what became known as the transatlantic slave trade. And it grew through colonialism. It grew through chattel slavery, particularly in the Americas. And so when you talk about its origin and its growth, it originated and grew side by side with racism itself. ... When you look at it empirically, particularly in our time, you can't really separate wealth from race in the United States and across the world, and you can't really separate poverty from race. And the reason being is because racist and capitalist policies have long intersected to essentially make it such that let's say black people were disproportionately poor and white people were disproportionately wealthy.

He's good at being verbose while saying essentially nothing.

 

[deleted480308]

Is there a “Mansplaining Internet Message Board Best Practices” book I can pick up?

I really need to learn the codified rules of evidence based anonymous internet interaction.

The reply botton is at the bottom right of each post. Beyond that you just try to answer the questions asked of you about your posts and then offer your own thoughts/responses

Getting back to prior, what specifically do you want out of each person for them to meet your standard to be some who wants to address the problems of past codifed racism?

 

[Lamount]

Sounds like a big strawman to me. I think the solutions would be more generalized. I mean many of these historically black communities were redlined into the worst parts of many major metro areas and still live there, often next to and under interstates. Just supposed to pretend that isn't a problem i guess

No argument from me on redlining... and I would imagine we are on the same page regarding systemic racism in general.

I think my greatest grievance with the CRT has to do with messaging. It’s important that these inequalities are righted... so I don’t think it is very productive to try to recruit people by demanding they apologize for existing in the current system. There are a lot of people who are never going to be on board with that. It seems easier to convince people to help make things better when you don’t first make them atone for the way things are.

 

[deleted480308]

Sounds like a big strawman to me. I think the solutions would be more generalized. I mean many of these historically black communities were redlined into the worst parts of many major metro areas and still live there, often next to and under interstates. Just supposed to pretend that isn't a problem i guess

So what is the solution to that? Everyone is allowed to buy anywhere now. But there is a problem that if investors try to revitalize an area they are criticized for breaking up a neighborhood. If white people move in they are gentrifying. And if a neighborhood that used to be primarily white changes demographics quickly there are accusations of white flight. There absolutely were problems, it was wrong. But what do we do now?

 

[medgator]

So what is the solution to that? Everyone is allowed to buy anywhere now. But there is a problem that if investors try to revitalize an area they are criticized for breaking up a neighborhood. If white people move in they are gentrifying. And if a neighborhood that used to be primarily white changes demographics quickly there are accusations of white flight. There absolutely were problems, it was wrong. But what do we do now?

That's a good question and i don't claim to have the answers. The solution probably starts with at least acknowledging that these things happened well less than a century ago.
Mandelin hit the nail on the head with the previous post.... It's easier for many to gloss over it than even acknowledge it

 

[deleted480308]

That's a good question and i don't claim to have the answers. The solution probably starts with at least acknowledging that these things happened well less than a century ago.
Mandelin hit the nail on the head with the previous post.... It's easier for many to gloss over it than even acknowledge it

It feels like you are implying that I am not acknowledging it or you are saying that I implied it was older than “well less than a century ago”. Neither of those are true. I acknowledge it happened well less than a century ago, the CRA was only in the 70s

so we have now solved acknowledgement, what step would you like to discuss next?

 

[theradiator]

need to get with kendis program. Apparently, we must “confess” to being racist (like cultural revolution China) before problem can be addressed.

kendis thoughts on capitalism on npr
On the connection between racism and capitalism
Kendi: Historically, when you look at the emergence of capitalism itself, it emerged in the same place at the same time as what became known as the transatlantic slave trade. And it grew through colonialism. It grew through chattel slavery, particularly in the Americas. And so when you talk about its origin and its growth, it originated and grew side by side with racism itself. ... When you look at it empirically, particularly in our time, you can't really separate wealth from race in the United States and across the world, and you can't really separate poverty from race. And the reason being is because racist and capitalist policies have long intersected to essentially make it such that let's say black people were disproportionately poor and white people were disproportionately wealthy.

This is dangerous thinking that can lead to the following dystopia.

Since capitalism is the problem, lets adopt Marxism/Maoism to achieve "equality". The founders of BLM are trained Marxists and even Politifact does not dispute that. PolitiFact - Is Black Lives Matter a Marxist movement?

Here's the problem. If the Chinese Communist Party is the modern exemplar of totalitarian Marxism in a large country, we will nationalize land and businesses and send the intellectuals (like doctors who are oppressing others through their educational attainment) to work camps. Let's have some struggle sessions. How is the Chinese Communist Party treating the Uighurs, Tibetans, Mongolians and Christians not to mention freedom fighters in Hong Kong? Look up a picture of the Chinese Community Party Politburo Standing Committee. Any women or ethnic minorities?

The United States remains the beacon of freedom for the oppressed world that has elected and reelected President Obama, produced Dr. Martin Luther King and promoted Dr. Curtiland Deville to Associate Professor at the #2 ranked medical school. Meanwhile, the violent BLM anarchists in many of our great cities are actively trashing this great country.

So, just like ASTRO wants to wade into this morass instead of addressing the residency expansion problem in the setting of declining fractions, the woke media, Hollywood, professional athletes and parts of corporate America are promoting the radical agenda of BLM instead of confronting the real problem, the Chinese Communist Party.

Through our 9 years of post-secondary education, we have accrued a wealth of experience in multivariable analyses. I came across this paper on fatal officer shootings. I'm amazed that we are in a political climate that this paper had to be "voluntarily" retracted despite being factually correct.

Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings

There is widespread concern about racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings and that these disparities reflect discrimination by White officers. Existing databases of fatal shootings lack information about officers, and past analytic approaches have made it difficult to assess the...

www.pnas.org

 

[RickyScott]

This is dangerous thinking that can lead to the following dystopia.

Since capitalism is the problem, lets adopt Marxism/Maoism to achieve "equality". The founders of BLM are trained Marxists and even Politifact does not dispute that. PolitiFact - Is Black Lives Matter a Marxist movement?

Here's the problem. If the Chinese Communist Party is the modern exemplar of totalitarian Marxism in a large country, we will nationalize land and businesses and send the intellectuals (like doctors who are oppressing others through their educational attainment) to work camps. Let's have some struggle sessions. How is the Chinese Communist Party treating the Uighurs, Tibetans, Mongolians and Christians not to mention freedom fighters in Hong Kong? Look up a picture of the Chinese Community Party Politburo Standing Committee. Any women or ethnic minorities?

The United States remains the beacon of freedom for the oppressed world that has elected and reelected President Obama, produced Dr. Martin Luther King and promoted Dr. Curtiland Deville to Associate Professor at the #2 ranked medical school. Meanwhile, the violent BLM anarchists in many of our great cities are actively trashing this great country.

So, just like ASTRO wants to wade into this morass instead of addressing the residency expansion problem in the setting of declining fractions, the woke media, Hollywood, professional athletes and parts of corporate America are promoting the radical agenda of BLM instead of confronting the real problem, the Chinese Communist Party.

Through our 9 years of post-secondary education, we have accrued a wealth of experience in multivariable analyses. I came across this paper on fatal officer shootings. I'm amazed that we are in a political climate that this paper had to be "voluntarily" retracted despite being factually correct.

Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings

There is widespread concern about racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings and that these disparities reflect discrimination by White officers. Existing databases of fatal shootings lack information about officers, and past analytic approaches have made it difficult to assess the...

www.pnas.org

The sick irony is that Kendi may be right when it comes to radonc. Robber baron medical systems with monopolistic leverage like mskcc/mdacc/ etc charging 50k+ for 5 fraction breast excludes black pts who rarely have Cadillac insurances.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

I’m not a policy wonk. But voting for a candidate who doesn’t actively stoke racism would be a good start.

Saying “black folks have never had a fair chance/equal opportunity in this country (including now), and I’m supportive of/open to that changing” and then using the one avenue the average American has to enact policy change (ie their vote) is enough for me.

 

[RickyScott]

I’m not a policy wonk. But voting for a candidate who doesn’t actively stoke racism would be a good start.

Saying “black folks have never had a fair chance/equal opportunity in this country (including now), and I’m supportive of/open to that changing” and then using the one avenue the average American has to enact policy change (ie their vote) is enough for me.

With the exception of Steve Hahn, I would guess 95% of radoncs are not voting for Trump?

 

[Mandelin Rain]

I would bet you’re incorrect

 

[medgator]

This is dangerous thinking that can lead to the following dystopia.

Since capitalism is the problem, lets adopt Marxism/Maoism to achieve "equality". The founders of BLM are trained Marxists and even Politifact does not dispute that. PolitiFact - Is Black Lives Matter a Marxist movement?

Here's the problem. If the Chinese Communist Party is the modern exemplar of totalitarian Marxism in a large country, we will nationalize land and businesses and send the intellectuals (like doctors who are oppressing others through their educational attainment) to work camps. Let's have some struggle sessions. How is the Chinese Communist Party treating the Uighurs, Tibetans, Mongolians and Christians not to mention freedom fighters in Hong Kong? Look up a picture of the Chinese Community Party Politburo Standing Committee. Any women or ethnic minorities?

The United States remains the beacon of freedom for the oppressed world that has elected and reelected President Obama, produced Dr. Martin Luther King and promoted Dr. Curtiland Deville to Associate Professor at the #2 ranked medical school. Meanwhile, the violent BLM anarchists in many of our great cities are actively trashing this great country.

So, just like ASTRO wants to wade into this morass instead of addressing the residency expansion problem in the setting of declining fractions, the woke media, Hollywood, professional athletes and parts of corporate America are promoting the radical agenda of BLM instead of confronting the real problem, the Chinese Communist Party.

Through our 9 years of post-secondary education, we have accrued a wealth of experience in multivariable analyses. I came across this paper on fatal officer shootings. I'm amazed that we are in a political climate that this paper had to be "voluntarily" retracted despite being factually correct.

Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings

There is widespread concern about racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings and that these disparities reflect discrimination by White officers. Existing databases of fatal shootings lack information about officers, and past analytic approaches have made it difficult to assess the...

www.pnas.org

How would you characterize the current system, esp post GOP tax cut?

Hint: it ain't capitalism, even more so now when most if not all of us are paying a higher effective rate than a billionaire.

Trump Tax Cuts Helped Billionaires Pay Less Taxes Than The Working Class In 2018

For the first time ever, America’s 400 wealthiest people paid a lower tax rate in 2018 than any other group of people, according to a new study completed by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.

www.forbes.com

 

[medgator]

With the exception of Steve Hahn, I would guess 95% of radoncs are not voting for Trump?

Look at who McCain Romney and dubya former staff members are voting for and you'll probably find your answer, but some still want their 2.6% marginal tax cut!!

 

[KHE88]

Is there a “Mansplaining Internet Message Board Best Practices” book I can pick up?

I really need to learn the codified rules of evidence based anonymous internet interaction.

I'm not surprised you didn't answer my hypothetical about whether you would give up your sweet PP gig to a new black grad and take a lower paying job elsewhere or whether you would support government mandates that force you to. And instead decided to reply with the above.

This is basically what Kennedy is proposing. Also, how do you feel about low income blacks being moved into your neighborhood to better integrate everyone? Again, this is basically what Kennedy is proposing. Medgator loves to say redlining over and over again to point to how racist and awful America is, but as noted above there are no legal barriers to keep non-white people from buying in your gated community. I would love to see the day when you all welcome with open arms relocated families into your 1% neighborhoods via government issued funds. You are for defunding the police, but you still want their services in your neighborhood if someone is vandalizing or trespassing on your property. It's do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do so typical of the white woke left crowd, who typically preach from a platform of security brought to them by their privileged upbringing (yet aren't willing to give this up). Similar to hollywood elites who preach that climate change will kill us all yet still fly on private jets every weekend.

I’m not a policy wonk. But voting for a candidate who doesn’t actively stoke racism would be a good start.

Saying “black folks have never had a fair chance/equal opportunity in this country (including now), and I’m supportive of/open to that changing” and then using the one avenue the average American has to enact policy change (ie their vote) is enough for me.

That's because your crowd has literally attempted to redefine "racism." You live in an environement of constantly shifting goalposts such that you are always morally victorious. Trump has actually pushed for policies that establish equality of opportunity for all more than anyone else. I would argue that it was actually Obama, particularly during his second term, that really stoked racial division in this country by promulgating this lie that black people are being slaughtered in the streets en masse and that America is a very racist place and that most whites are out to get people like him. Ummmmm...what? America elected a black president TWICE. (I voted for him the first time) That argument is on its face absurd. Yet he convinced a lot of both black and white people that there are would-be KKK members all around us. And a lot of other people saw through this and ended up voting for Donald Trump, one of the most personally off-putting candidates in history.

You brought up Trump.
For you and medgator and the like, it always about Trump. You all always bring up Trump. Everything is about Trump for you. How you all can't see your bias is beyond me.

 

[medgator]

The best part of KHEs reply is when he accused me (rather than @RickyScott ) of bringing up 45s name by bringing it up himself, but it was all good

 

[Lamount]

That's because your crowd has literally attempted to redefine "racism." You live in an environement of constantly shifting goalposts such that you are always morally victorious.

It’s not just “our crowd”. It’s progress. It’s the nature of American society. 15 years ago same sex marriage was a pipe dream... even Obama didn’t support it at first. Now it is legal everywhere. The goal posts have always moved and will hopefully continue to do so

 

[medgator]

It’s not just “our crowd”. It’s progress. It’s the nature of American society. 15 years ago same sex marriage was a pipe dream... even Obama didn’t support it at first. Now it is legal everywhere. The goal posts have always moved and will hopefully continue to do so

Correct. People forget about prop 8 in Cali 2008

 

[KHE88]

The best part of KHEs reply is when he accused me (rather than @RickyScott ) of bringing up 45s name by bringing it up himself, but it was all good

Oh not this BS again. I was replying to MR's post, which was directly quoted, not yours, and he brought up voting for the non "racist" candidate (obviously referring to Trump). Stop lying.

So are you going to give up your high paying PP job to a new black grad struggling in the job market in the name of progress? It was an honest question intended to generate discussion and instead got nonsense responses like yours and comments about "mansplaining."

 

[deleted605854]

With the exception of Steve Hahn, I would guess 95% of radoncs are not voting for Trump?

Granted, it's not easy to have in person drinks with colleagues these days , imbibe and palaver i.e. shoot the breeze

But you can do it on zoom or something. Try that and get your colleagues to be a little bit upfront

At the end of the day, we're all in it for ourselves. Less taxes and a better stock market can provide the foundation for numerous arguments about who to vote for. Today is a federal holiday and I'm not on call. So, cheers.

 

[scarbrtj]

 

[thecarbonionangle]

With the exception of Steve Hahn, I would guess 95% of radoncs are not voting for Trump?

dude most of the rad oncs I know are YUGE trump people. Don’t be so sure. The field is filled with MAGA types

 

[DoctwoB]

The best part of KHEs reply is when he accused me (rather than @RickyScott ) of bringing up 45s name by bringing it up himself, but it was all good

I thought the best part was that America’s race problems are because Obama. (Which would be hilarious if it wasn’t sad)

 

[deleted480308]

How would you characterize the current system, esp post GOP tax cut?

Hint: it ain't capitalism, even more so now when most if not all of us are paying a higher effective rate than a billionaire.

Trump Tax Cuts Helped Billionaires Pay Less Taxes Than The Working Class In 2018

For the first time ever, America’s 400 wealthiest people paid a lower tax rate in 2018 than any other group of people, according to a new study completed by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.

www.forbes.com

That’s a misleading article. As close as I could get to the source material (it’s a book) they didn’t use federal income tax rate which is what everyone thinks of when they hear “the billionaires aren’t paying their taxes”. They used a (not at all specifically defined) “total tax rate” which included state and local taxes. The closest exact rate estimate I could find was calling the top 400 as paying 23% but since any family making lower end money has zero federal income tax liability it would be near impossible to find enough state/local income taxes to get over 23%.

i’m calling that claim generally a lie, or so misleading in definition that it’s still a lie as described

 

[medgator]

That’s a misleading article. As close as I could get to the source material (it’s a book) they didn’t use federal income tax rate which is what everyone thinks of when they hear “the billionaires aren’t paying their taxes”. They used a (not at all specifically defined) “total tax rate” which included state and local taxes. The closest exact rate estimate I could find was calling the top 400 as paying 23% but since any family making lower end money has zero federal income tax liability it would be near impossible to find enough state/local income taxes to get over 23%.

i’m calling that claim generally a lie, or so misleading in definition that it’s still a lie as described

Not at all. They are talking about effective tax rate. There is more out there on this.

The effective tax rate is lower for them with the recent tax cut. Many of them are in real estate like 45 and benefit from the 20% passthrough deduction which phases out for physicians, lawyers etc around $415k joint, while it remains unlimited if you're in real estate. Also many of them are paying much lower rates on long term capital gains and qualified dividends than what many of us pay in terms of our top marginal rate. Also didn't eliminate the carried interest loophole which benefits hedge fund managers

Where is the loophole/handout for physicians?

Billionaires vs. the Middle Class Across America: Who Pays More in Taxes?

Is the current tax situation fair?

finance.yahoo.com

Trump-O-Meter: | PolitiFact

www.politifact.com

Some Doctors May Qualify for a 199A Deduction | Gordon Feinblatt LLC

President Trump’s 2017 tax cut created a new deduction pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 199A (199A Deduction) for the owners of certain businesses that operate as a sole proprietorship, pa

www.gfrlaw.com

 

[deleted480308]

Not at all. They are talking about effective tax rate. There is more out there on this.

The effective tax rate is lower for them with the recent tax cut. Many of them are in real estate like 45 and benefit from the 20% passthrough deduction which phases out for physicians, lawyers etc around $415k joint, while it remains unlimited if you're in real estate. Also many of them are paying much lower rates on long term capital gains and qualified dividends than what many of us pay in terms of our top marginal rate. Also didn't eliminate the carried interest loophole which benefits hedge fund managers

Billionaires vs. the Middle Class Across America: Who Pays More in Taxes?

Is the current tax situation fair?

finance.yahoo.com

Trump-O-Meter: | PolitiFact

www.politifact.com

Some Doctors May Qualify for a 199A Deduction | Gordon Feinblatt LLC

President Trump’s 2017 tax cut created a new deduction pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 199A (199A Deduction) for the owners of certain businesses that operate as a sole proprietorship, pa

www.gfrlaw.com

Your original forbes post said the top 400 paid less taxes than any group in america which sure seems to be false when it clearly implies federal income tax but includes (still can’t find the exact list) a nebulous grouping of all federal/local/states income/payroll/sales tax and your followup link mentions it specifically does NOT include things like the child tax credit.

so i’m with you that taxing earned income of high income docs can potentially end up with andoc paying a higher effective rate than a billionaire with a more tax favored incomestructure. The answer ther would be reduce the taxes on the doc, not raise them on anyone else.

but again, I’m calling shenanigans on the oft repeated lie that “everyone pays more taxes than the highest earners”. They don’t

 

[medgator]

.

but again, I’m calling shenanigans on the oft repeated lie that “everyone pays more taxes than the highest earners”. They don’t

As a percentage six figure professionals do, and there are plenty of loopholes to explain why

 

[deleted480308]

As a percentage six figure professionals do, and there are plenty of loopholes to explain why

I’ve already agreed that high earned income filers can pay more and I agree there are too many complicated rules to taxes. I disagree with the misleading statement in the article you posted and certainly with the common notion that the answer is to charge wealthy people more as opposed to just lowering taxes overall and simplifying tax code

 

[medgator]

I’ve already agreed that high earned income filers can pay more and I agree there are too many complicated rules to taxes. I disagree with the misleading statement in the article you posted and certainly with the common notion that the answer is to charge wealthy people more as opposed to just lowering taxes overall and simplifying tax code

Can't really lower overall taxes when we are running trillion dollar annual deficits pre Pandemic.

You want to cut Medicare, SS and military spending? Because that's the only way to balance things. Good luck with that

 

[deleted480308]

Can't really lower overall taxes when we are running trillion dollar annual deficits pre Pandemic.

You want to cut Medicare, SS and military spending? Because that's the only way to balance thing s

Deal.

look at us agreeing to solutions

 

[medgator]

Deal.

look at us agreeing to solutions

No sane Republican runs on that platform unless they lie about it. Anyways, we are getting into the weeds. Getting back on topic, maybe the woke speaker can address this

 

[scarbrtj]

No sane Republican runs on that platform unless they lie about it. Anyways, we are getting into the weeds. Getting back on topic, maybe the woke speaker can address this

Soon we'll see "financial toxicity grading" in the CTCAE? Don't know how they'll do it exactly, but I hope it's on a sliding scale of sorts.