“Just ten years ago, most queer teens hid behind a self-imposed don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy until they shipped out to Oberlin or San Francisco.”—Steve Silberman in “We’re Teen, We’re Queer and We’ve Got E-Mail” as printed in “Reading Digital Culture” (David Trend, ed.)
Inspired by recent discussion and blogs of a similar nature, I have decided to embark upon a food stamp “challenge.” Starting October 2nd, and going through the end of the year (twelve weeks), I will be eating on a food stamp budget and blogging about it. If you want to follow or find out more, my blog is located at Food Stamp Frugal.
From the moment the first call for a SlutWalk in the US went out, the AF3IRM membership – transnational women who are im/migrants or whose families are im/migrants from Latin America, Asia, and Africa – has been analyzing and discussing this…
They don’t get it at all. This is a women in general thing, not an opportunity to get on a soapbox about race again. Women, no matter what the colour, have been subject to this. I can’t sit here, with a clear conscience, and not reblog this pointing out how utterly selfish PoC writings like this can be. The writer of the above text has, again, made this all about PoC and stolen an opportunity for reclaiming, turning shame and highlighting that this, historically, is an issue of ALL women and *gasp*, not just PoC.
Sleeping-in-is-giving-in’s language is a little strong I think, but the point is valid. I’m not sure why the AF3IRM letter had to specifically come from PoC. It’s not as if “Slut” wasn’t a derogative word towards other women. In fact I might go so far as to say that (as was pointed out obliquely in the letter) the word itself, with its origins in Late Middle English (late 1300’s-ish), was probably initially used against white women. A lot of the points in the letter are good, although some of them are a matter of opinion and approach. But I’m not sure why it had to come from WoC, not just from Women (or better yet, from “the undersigned,” as I’m always wary of anything that claims to speak for such a huge swath of people.) SlutWalk (or whatever else you’d like to call it) shouldn’t be about creating friction between women. It should be about bringing us together.
Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote?
Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery.
Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country — which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.
Thank you for the well thought out response. I really do appreciate it, and a a student on a campus where these issues come to the fore quite often, it’s nice to have someone respond and actually try to communicate and facilitate some kind of understanding, rather than simply throwing accusations. They’re difficult issues to grapple with, and I don’t have a whole picture of every side of them any more than anyone else does.
The first thing I want to say is in reference to the comment that a couple of people have made that I’m “making it about me.” This may get me railed at as an egocentric hipster who doesn’t understand, but please bear with me, and even if you can’t agree with it, please keep reading. When I hear “white people make it all about them” all I can think is “People of Color make it all about them.”
We shouldn’t be talking in mutually exclusive terms. This is about a network of relationships between a myriad of different groups. It’s not all about me as a white person, no. Nor is it all about any one other person or group of people. It’s all of us. I can’t speak to the Black or Asian or any other perspective. If I tried, I would be called patronizing, and more besides, and rightfully so. All I can speak to is my own experience of race relations, and that experience is as valid and as real as anyone else’s. I am a person. I’ve had experiences, with people who look like me and people who look different. They’re real experiences. That’s fact.
I wanted to get that discussion written before I went on to address specific points you made, because I think it underpins a lot of the other questions and conflicts.
Your first point about the apology makes a lot of sense to me. I know this may get me in trouble for making it about me again, but one of the first steps to conflict resolution is to put yourself into the other person’s shoes, so I’m going to try to. I think that in a similar position, I would feel exactly the same way, that an apology is merely words, and essentially meaningless ones at that.
You write that “we don’t want white guilt.” From a theoretical perspective, I appreciate that. It’s good to know. But just like the apology, it doesn’t mean that much. In my experience, when I’ve tried to engage in discussion of these issues, both today and in the past, I have the distinct impression that I am “supposed” to feel guilty for something that I was born into and have only so much control over. I can accept, and do believe, that that feeing is not the aim of the people I’m conversing with. But something in the vocabulary or syntax being used has given me that impression. And that’s problematic.
I think I wasn’t very clear about what I was trying to say when I talked about “deserving.” I do feel, to use your phrase that I’ve worked hard for what I have. In fact I don’t feel. I know. We don’t have a limited supply of hard work in the world. We can all work hard. I think the point you’re trying to make (and as you said, correct me if I’m wrong) is that I haven’t worked as hard as someone else who is of color. (Side note.. I’m not sure on the correct capitalization. Could you help out?) You wrote “It is probably a grossly disproportionate diagram if I could ever make it.” I think that’s a really simplistic way to approach things. Race and ethnicity (another side note.. which is the correct term? Is there a different one? Do you consider PoC to encompass both, or just race?) are obviously very important factors, but they’re not the only factors.
I’m worried that this is an offensive way to phrase things, but I can’t think of another way to do it, so please let me know if you can. Let’s consider various positives and negative factors which impact how “hard” someone has to work to get somewhere. A well-off family might be a positive factor, a learning disability might be a negative one. It seems to me that you’re asserting that being white is a positive factor and being of color is a negative one. Am I representing that right? Please don’t misunderstand and think I’m saying that being of color is some kind of Cain-Able infection. I’m just trying to represent this in terms of the list you described.
You’re right, I personally had a lot of “positive” factors playing in when I grew up. I freely admit to that. It doesn’t change the fact that I worked hard, but you’re right, it was a leg up. But I know PoC who had much more “positive” factors in their favor than I did, with being of color one of only a few “negative” factors. And I’ve met a lot of white people who have a lot more “negative” factors against. How hard does the second, white, person have to work in order to have “worked harder” than that first PoC? Is it fair or even useful to try and measure that? That’s a real question.. I personally think the answer is no, but I’m interested to hear your opinion.
So to go back to your quote, I think the diagram you’re trying to sketch is too simplistic. There are a thousand and one other complicating factors. You could diagram yourself and I, I suppose, and perhaps you’d be right, but to diagram entire races? That to me is more racist than anything else, both to PoC and to white people.
I don’t know if I’m trying to say “what and how racism is.” That wasn’t my aim. Is that how it reads? What I’m trying to do is to engage. You implied (I think) that white people have never experienced racism “full scale.” I think that’s unfair. Generally speaking white people haven’t been the victims full scale. But we share a world, and wether I notice it every time or not (and I freely admit that I probably don’t), I am still a witness. I think that gives me some right to comment.
The impression I get is that you want me to listen, but not to say anything. That’s probably unfair, but again, that’s the impression I’m getting. I am trying to process what you’re saying, and the way to process that is by asking questions, and yes, sometimes by poking holes in the things you write. Learning, at least for me, doesn’t work by sitting down and shutting up without engaging.
I’m not sure what you’re point is by pointing out that there are feminists and anarchists specifically who haven’t jumped in and comment. I admit that I wasn’t actually following you until tabithaconstance reblogged this particular one this afternoon and I responded. I’m sure that many of those feminists and anarchists and other people have their own feelings about the things you’re posting, and have their own reasons for not responding (or for responding only in the comfort of their living rooms.) I’m trying to listen, which you applaud them for. But I have questions, perhaps because I’m not as educated on these things as they are, and I’m trying to learn, so that I can not only listen, but also understand.
I didn’t mean to insult you. Please do believe me, this wasn’t an attack. And although I’m sure this will get me in trouble, I want to turn your words back on you. This reads to me as “my feelings as a PoC > white people who are trying to understand.”
I won’t respond again if you don’t want me to. I can sit down, write my questions elsewhere and not engage in this form. To me, the post tabithaconstance reblogged asked for an answer, and so I wrote one. I am truly sorry if it offended you, or anyone else.
I can tell you straight away that an apology is exactly what we don’t want. Throwing an apology at something this big, something that will effect every thing that we as PoC will do is very, very insulting. We don’t want white guilt.
Addressing your feeling about PoC making you feel like you don’t deserve what you have, I’m assume you’ve worked hard for what you have, is how you feel. Correct me if I’m wrong. Seriously. But what I’ve been thinking about recently is how many white people tell me some variation of how they worked hard and how dare I question that because of their privileges. And then I end up thinking, how could they know what their “hard” is, compared to ours? I’m sure that most of them don’t deserve what they have if we compared our amount of “hard” work to theirs vs. what we have accomplished/gained to what they have accomplished/gained. It is probably a grossly disproportionate diagram if I could ever make it. That is to say, all humyns of course deserve enjoyable lives, but I’m trying to keep the terms we’re using in tact.
I also have to say that if you’re not in some race addressing group, I don’t know if I’m even mad about that. All I want, personally, is for white people to stop telling us about what and how racism is, from a viewpoint that doesn’t experience full scale. I don’t need you to join a group, I don’t even need you to join a discussion. All I want is for us to be heard, listened to, and seriously taken into account. Process what we are saying, we aren’t making shit up for the fun of it. I know plenty of white people (mostly feminists, anarachists) who follow me who have seen these posts that have been coming rapid fire lately and they don’t jump in, they don’t tell me about their feelings as a white person, they don’t do any of that most likely because they know already that we want to be listened to. I wouldn’t be surprised if they take it all in and then don’t say a word because they don’t need to say anything, just listen.
I’m surprised I’m responding to this, because it is annoying (to say the least) and insulting that you’re taking something that literally holds us back beyond our control and follows us for all of our lives and turning it into “my feelings, though!” Even with the “valid or not” you threw in there. It still reads as my feelings as a white person > more important than what PoC are saying about how racism affects their lives.
I know I’m a white person, thanks. You’ve made that very clear. The original post was about white people and so I responded to it and to the issues raised. I’d appreciate the same, rather than a glib answer.
To some extent, yes, these are difficult topics to discuss and we just need to work through the discomfort. However, the feeling I get, valid or not, from the people behind these kinds of statements, is that they are…
White people, missing the point & making it about themselves since forever.
To some extent, yes, these are difficult topics to discuss and we just need to work through the discomfort. However, the feeling I get, valid or not, from the people behind these kinds of statements, is that they are intentionally trying to make me feel uncomfortable about and ashamed of being white. The discomfort for me comes from being categorized as “you people” or “white people” or “the problem is,” much more than it comes from the content of the discussion we are trying to have. I can embrace and admit to the discomfort of discussing affirmative action as someone whose chances of going to my first choice could well have been reduced by it. That’s a healthy discomfort, and the kind of discomfort I think the post below is trying to address. But that’s not the discomfort I’ve felt on campus when people try to engage in these discussions. That discomfort that comes from being told than I, by the simple merit of being born with white skin, am the problem with society as a whole, and no matter what I do I will never deserve it because I got there by oppressing someone else. I resent being told that because I’m not a member of a club directly addressing race tensions, I am therefore not one of “our white people” and thus a part of the problem. I resent that I have to join a society in order to be an ally.
Would it make it better if I apologized for having been born privileged? Are those words out of my mouth going to erase hundreds of years of oppression? Because if they are, and if you can show me they are, then by all means, I will say them. But words are, more often than not, a replacement for action. And frankly I’d rather there be some productive activity and progress than more talking. The time for talking is long past.
“Here’s what you need to realise about anti-racism: It’s not about you. It’s not about your feelings as a white person. What you just said is that you’ll entertain the idea of listening to POC talk about ways they’ve been fucked over by whiteness, white privilege, and white people as long as they don’t hurt your feelings. To put it another way: you’re saying that not having your feelings hurt is more important to you than actually trying to understand PoC’s experiences of enduring racism—which is, itself, perpetuating racism. No, maybe you didn’t partake in whatever act of racism we’re talking about in this very moment, but if you’re white, then you are benefiting from the systemic racism that allowed it to happen, whether you like it or not. Yes, listening to the ways that your privilege fucks over other people is uncomfortable. Yes, it can be embarrassing & lead to feelings of guilt, but it is not up to People of Color to censor ourselves to spare your delicate fee-fees. If you truly want to be considered anti-racist, you need to deal with those feelings with other white people & not add to the burden of PoC’s experiences of racism by saying that you won’t take us seriously unless we’re ‘nice’ about the emotional & psychological violence that we endure simply by being PoC in a racist society. So literally, all I want you to do is understand that being anti-oppression (of any kind) is about understanding how the oppressed group is affected & then countering those systems, activities, mindsets, etc. It’s not about you being comfortable, because if you’re doing it right, it’s not going to be comfortable.”
“I only have one thing to add. Multiple news stories today are claiming that the GOP candidates didn’t object to the booing of a “gay soldier.” That is an accurate description of what happened. An even more accurate description of what happened is to say that the GOP candidates didn’t object to the booing of a soldier.”— Greg Sargent in today’s Plum Line.
“But if you’re saying we should not educate children who were brought to our state, by no fault of their own, you have no heart… We need to educate those children so they don’t become a drag on our society,”—
“Justice Scalia seems to be the justice that liberals love to hate. If this were a Harry Potter movie, liberals would put Justice Scalia on a wanted poster as ‘undesirable number one.’”—Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, comparing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to fictional wizard boy Harry Potter. (via officialssay)
Reposted from Colorado Pols:
Time To Fight, President Obama
by: Colorado Pols
Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 08:47:08 AM MDT
CBS News reports on their new poll released Friday:
As concerns about the struggling U.S. economy grow, a new CBS News/New York poll finds that President Obama’s overall approval rating has dropped to 43 percent, the lowest so far of his presidency in CBS News polling. In addition, his disapproval rating has reached an all-time high of 50 percent.
Views of the president’s job performance are marked by a striking degree of polarization along party lines — the vast majority of Democrats approve (78 percent), while even more Republicans disapprove (89 percent) of how he’s handling his job. But only 37 percent of independents approve, with 54 percent disapproving…
With just over a year before Mr. Obama faces voters again for re-election, it should be noted that Mr. Obama’s overall approval rating is similar to that of Bill Clinton’s (43 percent) and Ronald Reagan’s (46 percent) about a year before their presidential elections when they won re-election. Conversely, George H.W. Bush had a 70 percent approval rating about a year before the presidential election but then lost his bid for re-election.
Even so, it sounds pretty bleak, doesn’t it? Keep reading:
Just 12 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing - the same as the lowest percentage recorded in this poll, reached in October 2008, right before the November elections.
Dissatisfaction with Congress cuts across party lines. Republicans, Democrats, and independents all overwhelmingly disapprove of the job Congress is doing.
Though most Americans disapprove of both parties in Congress, they disapprove of Republicans more…
The New York Times editorial board helps sort it all out today:
The Times and CBS News released a new poll on Friday, and once again we were impressed that Americans are a lot smarter than Republican leaders think, more willing to sacrifice for the national good than Democratic leaders give them credit for, and more eager to see the president get tough than Mr. Obama and his conflict-averse team realize… [Pols emphasis]
Many Democrats are so gun shy that they don’t dare even to talk about raising taxes on the rich. But 71 percent of those polled said any plan to reduce the budget deficit should include both spending cuts and tax increases. And Americans understand that there are choices to be made; 56 percent said the wealthier should pay higher taxes to reduce the federal deficit.
It bears repeating that this is all entirely rational, and what the Republicans and some Democrats are proposing is absurd. The country has tried reckless deregulation and overly deep tax and spending cuts before. It brought more than one recession in the last century; caused the near collapse of the financial system and another recession in this one; and helped pile up the current deficit.
Mr. Obama has been making many of those points for months. But he has been doing it with speeches that, while eloquent, are often too long and nuanced, and then lack the kind of relentless repetition that is needed to drown out catchy but false Republican talking points.
Got that? 71% of Americans support “both spending cuts and tax increases” to solve the deficit problem. 71% of Americans support the solution that Republicans in Congress have declared a “nonstarter.” 56% say that wealthy Americans in particular should pay higher taxes to shrink the deficit—and Speaker John Boehner has again rejected any consideration of this idea. This support for tax increases is fully consistent with polling during the debt-ceiling debate showing that Americans wanted a “balanced” deal consisting of both tax hikes and spending cuts.
But of course, the headline this weekend is all about Obama’s “declining approval ratings.” Which is a truthful headline, but looking beyond that headline you discover a very different story—yes, an American public that is tired of Obama appearing weak. But it’s also a public that understands why Obama has accomplished so little in three years—a virtually unprecedented campaign of partisan obstruction against him—and supports Obama’s proposals, however meekly advocated or poorly defended, more than they do the Republicans in Congress.
At this point, perhaps the greatest threat to Obama’s re-election is his willingness to make concessions, well beyond the desires of the voting public, to a Republican majority in Congress that the public does not support. If 43% of the public is on your side and only 12% are on the side of your adversary, it’s a good time to toughen up your negotiating position.
We’re pretty sure James Carville would say it’s well past time.
“And Gallup, I just saw this, Gallup’s got a poll result apparently out there that a majority of Americans want the jobs bill passed. Sorry, majority of Americans, it isn’t gonna be passed.”—Rush Limbaugh
“Readers who type “Central Basin Municipal Water District” into Google News get a series of upbeat articles. One story hails the benefits of Central Basin’s new recycled water system. Another piece praises the agency’s legal battle over groundwater rights. Others catalog the successes of its conservation programs. What the average reader doesn’t know is that Central Basin is paying nearly $200,000 in taxpayer money for the glowing coverage. In a highly unusual move, the water district hired a consultant to produce promotional stories “written in the image of real news,” according to agreements reviewed by The Times. The articles appear on a professional-looking news website called News Hawks Review. The site is indexed on Google News, carries its own advertisements and boasts an “experienced and highly knowledgeable” staff of editors and reporters. But records show it is directly affiliated with a corporate communications firm under contract with Central Basin.”—LA Times, Water district taps Google for good coverage (via markcoatney)
Chairman Fitzwallace:We’re discussing gays in the military, huh?
Major Thompson:Yes sir.
Fitzwallace:What do you think? I said, what do you think?
Thompson:Sir, we’re here to help the White House form a possible -
Fitzwallace:I know. I’m asking you what you think.
Major Tate:Sir, we’re not prejudiced toward homosexuals.
Fitzwallace:You just don’t want to see them serving in the Armed Forces?
Tate:No, sir, I don’t.
Fitzwallace:Cause they pose a threat to unit discipline and cohesion.
Fitzwallace:That’s what I think too. I also think the military wasn’t designed to be an instrument of social change.
Fitzwallace:The problem with that is that's what they were saying to me fifty years ago. Blacks shouldn’t serve with whites, it would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. The unit changed. I’m an admiral in the U.S. Navy and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Beat that with a stick.
“When President Barack Obama in his elegant address accepting the Nobel Peace Prize declares to the world that he has “prohibited torture,” we should pause in our pride to notice that torture violates international and domestic law and that the notion that our new president has the power to prohibit it follows insidiously from the pretense that his predecessor had the power to order it—that during the state of exception, not only because of what President George W. Bush decided to do but also because of what President Obama is every day deciding not to do (not to “look back” but “look forward”), torture in America has metamorphosed. Before the War on Terror, official torture was illegal and anathema; today it is a policy choice.”—After September 11: Our State of Exception by Mark Danner | The New York Review of Books (via firthofforth)
“The Democratic griping is well under way, and it undercuts the White House’s message — no matter how good the politics are. Republicans never panic the way Dems do. Just look at how Republicans handled the Ryan budget plan.”—MSNBC’s First Read
Al-Qaeda killed many times more Muslims in Iraq alone than Americans who died on Sept. 11. That doesn’t count the Muslims murdered by the group in Turkey, Morocco, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Afghanistan and elsewhere. In the name of al-Qaeda’s vision of Islam, children have been turned into suicide bombers, both Muslims and non-Muslims have been beheaded (sometimes on video), women have had their faces burned off, schools were destroyed, lovers stoned, aid workers murdered, and the whole world held hostage to terror.
In the minds of many non-Muslims, Islam has become synonymous with barbarism. Nothing said by more moderate Muslim voices could compete with the appalling imagery put forward by al-Qaeda’s terror masters.
Then came the Arab Spring.
To understand the scale of nonviolent sacrifice that Muslims have endured in the pursuit of democracy and justice in recent months, it is useful to look back at a similar time in American history. There is a monument in Montgomery, Alabama, to the martyrs of the civil-rights movement. Only a few of the 40 names on that memorial — Emmett Till, Martin Luther King Jr., Medgar Evers — are familiar to most Americans. The architecture of civil-rights laws that arose from their sacrifice made America a more just nation.
Compare those 40 names to the martyrs of the Arab Spring so far: Some 200 died in the revolution in Tunisia. The death toll in Egypt reached 840 during the 18 days of revolution. More than a thousand have been killed in the youthful rebellion in Yemen. So far in Syria, more than 2,200 lives have been lost.
These demonstrators are not marching into fire hoses or police batons, like the brave marchers in Selma, Alabama, and elsewhere in the civil-rights movement; they are facing tanks and helicopter gunships. Some are killed randomly, others are hunted down by secret police in their homes and even in hospitals.
Most of the dead were nonviolent protesters or innocent bystanders; a few were soldiers shot down by other troops when they refused to fire on their fellow citizens. The protesters are not just bringing about badly needed social revolutions in their societies. By their moral example, they are redefining Islam and redeeming it from the savage caricature that bin Laden made of his religion.
“It’s amazing that the government can be so far-sighted and judicious about their policy toward clean air, fracking and mountaintop removal, but so draconian when it comes to policing milk.”—Why Good Mozzarella Is So Hard to Find in America (via meghanwithanh)
Thank you for your email. Your concerns and questions are important to me, and I will be back in touch with you shortly with an answer. As always, you are welcome to contact my staff for further assistance in Colorado Springs or in Washington, D.C.
Member of Congress
”—Just got this one in my email… I think I might have emailed his office during the Healthcare vote? Possibly TarBabyGate, but I don’t think so.
As you, my loyal readers, may have noticed, I’m a pretty staunch liberal. (In the American sense of the word.) However, videos like the one linked in on MoveOn.org today (linked above) make me hate everything about the left side of the isle. Name calling, mocking and simplification of real political opinions and real people is lower than any of the things described in that video. It makes me want to vote Palin, because at least she clings to the pretense of not degrading and patronizing half of the population. For shame, MoveOn.
This is a very good article itself and well worth reading. However, it also brings up a point related to the Republican platform that would be interesting to investigate.
The Articles of Confederation were a very loose set of guidelines to facilitate a confederation of states (similar to the League of Nations, UN or EU) that were put into effect more or less directly after the American Revolution. It became clear very early on that they weren’t going to cut it, so a convention was held in Philadelphia to re-evaluate. It would later be known as the First Constitutional Convention, and the document that was there drafted (see that little bit of constitution-esque language?) is the same one republican hopefuls and officials have been waving around quite a bit lately.
The Constitution written there grants the government a lot more power than the Articles of Confederation, which more or less left governance up to the states. Shouldn’t, therefore, the anti-government, pro-personal-freedom Tea Party types be waving the Articles of Confederation around instead? They must have some catchy language in there somewhere.
STEPHEN COLBERT:"Why did you drop out after Ames?"
PAWLENTY:"I was out of money, and I came in third place to Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul. I think that's enough for any one person to endure."
COLBERT:"But the fact that you're out of money makes you relatable to so many Americans. 'He's like me,' they say."
PAWLENTY:[later] "This is taking on, these races, more and more of a reality TV show component to it. You got to have not just money, but an entertainment component to it. And so, I brought a record of serious policy approaches to the campaign, and at least in that moment, the electorate was looking for something else."
COLBERT:"Did you think about learning to juggle?"
PAWLENTY:"I thought about shooting sparks out my butt."
LATER, COLBERT:"Let's make some news. Is there someone you'd like to endorse in the 2012 race?"
COLBERT:"I'm not running. I'm not running. I'm more like Sarah Palin. I'm a television personality."
SNP MPs accused CBI Scotland of mounting “politicised attacks” against the Nationalist case, and of failing to represent the views of Scottish businesses accurately.
It’s not a “politicized attack” if you say “we’re worried about this, please do it in such a way that won’t be detrimental to Scotland (which you profess to adore) as a whole.” That’s called patriotism. But I suppose Salmond wouldn’t understand that.
"This is not the first time CBI Scotland has blundered into the constitutional debate, and this latest intervention will fuel concerns that the CBI’s leadership has a political rather than a business agenda"
Politics and business are far from mutually exclusive, especially in a nation with as much government control and intervention as Scotland. Just sayin’.
If they’re living in Maine, they *are* paying taxes in Maine, you idiot. Income tax is only a tiny portion of all the taxes we pay day to day. But perhaps you’ve forgotten, up on your high horse, that whenever you pay for anything with your own money (not with a tax exemption form) you pay tax on it.