Joy & Austin 29: RV Living

[lumpentheologie]

1 hour ago, Queen Of Hearts said:

Um... no. We care about making sure the resources that we have are used wisely. Big difference.

Signed,
A self-proclaimed fiscal conservative who is moderate on many social issues

Aren't most people concerned with making sure that resources are used wisely?  I mean I'm concerned about that and I'm the opposite of a fiscal conservative but to me using resources wisely means using a lot of them to redistribute wealth. 

Fiscal conservatives seem to be the most anti-wealth-redistribution faction out there. Only 1% of Americans own almost 40% of the country's wealth, and the bottom 90% own only 23%.  So being anti-wealth-redistribution means your platform is essentially "let the rich keep most of the money; the rest of you can fuck right off."  This has only worked in a democracy because a lot of Americans have labored under the delusion (that fiscal conservatives have fed them) that if they work hard they'll get to be rich (or at least well-off) someday too.  But more and more are realizing this isn't true and the system is rigged.  The other reason they get away with it is that poor people don't vote, in part because of voter suppression and in part because a lot of them know that neither party is really going to help them. But people are literally dying because of fiscally conservative policies (states refusing to expand Medicaid, for example), and I'm so glad that "fiscally conservative, socially moderate/liberal" is now a much less respectable position that it was just 5 years ago.

(Chart from here: https://equitablegrowth.org/the-distribution-of-wealth-in-the-united-states-and-implications-for-a-net-worth-tax/)

Edited September 13, 2019 by lumpentheologie
extra word

[Dandruff]

7 hours ago, BernRul said:

@DandruffTalking about investigating poor people's "personal responsibility" is like saying "but what about false rape claims?" whenever rape is brought up.

Like yeah it happens, but it is nowhere near the problem you make it sound to be, especially when compared to the overwhelming issue. 

I don't think that bringing the horror of rape into a polite, non-inflammatory discussion is going to provide additional clarity.  Also, your analogy seems to be putting actual rape into the same side of the "argument" as people who are legitimately receiving government benefits, so I'm having a difficult time seeing your point.  You're not suggesting that false rape claims, even if they occur a very small percentage of the time, should be disregarded - are you?

I made no mention of the magnitude of the problem, though some other folks seem to be inclined to infer that I did.

[BernRul]

51 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

I don't think that bringing the horror of rape into a polite, non-inflammatory discussion is going to provide additional clarity.  Also, your analogy seems to be putting actual rape into the same side of the "argument" as people who are legitimately receiving government benefits, so I'm having a difficult time seeing your point.  You're not suggesting that false rape claims, even if they occur a very small percentage of the time, should be disregarded - are you?

I made no mention of the magnitude of the problem, though some other folks seem to be inclined to infer that I did.

No but I am suggesting that both are pedantic point that comes up in both arguments by people who want to hijack the conversation from what really matters. 

And not to be dramatic, but I deal with the horror of systematic poverty as a part of my job and the fact that it is treated as a polite, non-inflammatory discussion by the people who don't experience it is part of the problem. 

By ignoring the magnitude of the problem, you are unintentionally downplaying it. That's probably why so many people are reacting that way.

[socalrules]

3 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

I recommend There Are No Children Here by Alex Kotlowitz for a heart-wrenching depiction of the life of children in hard-core poverty and the forces that conspire to keep them that way. 

That is a really great book. It really shows how difficult it is to get ahead when you are just trying to have enough to just make it through the day. 

[DarkAnts]

On 9/12/2019 at 10:59 AM, Dandruff said:

Sometimes people are actually the cause of their own problems...and sometimes they're not.  I specifically referred to people who choose to not work and have as many children as possible in my earlier post.  I wasn't taking on the entire situation of people who might need help.  I believe most people understand the relationship between unprotected sex and pregnancy and can also afford condoms.  Not all, but most.  I also believe there should be more education on the subject.  There's no turning back after an innocent child has been born into a situation of neglect and/or abuse.  Once they are, human decency - even if the parents lack it - requires that the community provide support, and the problem tends to be perpetuated in environments where core beliefs don't prioritize self-sufficiency.  As I also wrote, I don't know what the answer is.  We try to protect lives by requiring that people obtain driver's licenses before driving, or flying, or practicing medicine.  Anyone who's fertile can legally go ahead and have children they don't want and can't or won't properly take care of, over and over again.  How do we minimize that without infringing on what we consider to be basic human rights?  How does society meet the needs of the needy while also not encouraging problematic choices?  Children shouldn't have to suffer and sometimes die because their parents are actively scheming or trusting that someone else will take on responsibility for their well-being instead of them.  Perhaps early monitoring and support to all young families would help, though I'm not sure how well the concept would be tolerated in the US.  I suspect it could be accomplished though, if people and the powers-that-be cared enough, and that it would eventually reduce suffering and economic burden.

One problem is that young women who want to be sterilized are denied the procedure. They are told that they might change their mind later in life. I know someone who is 25. They have two children. They know that two is enough. But, doctors refuse to preform the procedure because of her age. 

[Virago]

2 hours ago, BernRul said:

And not to be dramatic, but I deal with the horror of systematic poverty as a part of my job and the fact that it is treated as a polite, non-inflammatory discussion by the people who don't experience it is part of the problem. 

Entirely this. 

We may not be “fighting” or inflaming a discussion, but if folks here are like me, they’re screaming inside their brain regularly about this issue. This isn’t a polite issue, it is life and death. It’s facing a Sophie’s choice every dang day of your life. 

[BernRul]

39 minutes ago, Virago said:

Entirely this. 

We may not be “fighting” or inflaming a discussion, but if folks here are like me, they’re screaming inside their brain regularly about this issue. This isn’t a polite issue, it is life and death. It’s facing a Sophie’s choice every dang day of your life. 

Oh, definitely. I've recently gone through an existential crisis over the bleak, grim nature of class issues in America and how it's stacked against all of us who aren't super wealthy, not even just the poor.

Tbh, my brain has literally broken because of the dissonance between wanting to encourage and support my kids and knowing that they will likely be victims of the cycle of poverty, and get accused of being "irresponsible" and "making bad choices," by twits who never went without a day in their life.

One of my little girls just wants to be an anime artist and I see that dream and just go "FUUUUCK" internally. Or another girl who, responding to a writing prompt about what would you do if you found $5, wrote, "Save it for colige." Or my favorite kid who tries so hard even though he's grade levels behind and is basically acting as a father to his three younger siblings because his mom's an addict. I think about him a lot, actually, and even though I don't believe in prayer, I find myself praying that he will just please, please be alright. 

So if my rape comments come off as inappropriate to some (as @Dandruff says) then excuse me, I am literally going through empathy fatigue, a mental breakdown, and screaming impotent rage over watching this happen in real time and then coming here and listening to people try to pretend that the solution is complex when really it's as simple as more funding, resources, and regulations.

tldr: ARRRGH!

 

 

[Virago]

@BernRul same. I hold you and the children you love in my heart and hope and work for a different future. One where America summons up some moral courage and does the right thing. 

[LacyMay]

16 minutes ago, BernRul said:

I am literally going through empathy fatigue, a mental breakdown, and screaming impotent rage over watching this happen in real time

I've coined this a world hangover. When you're so hurt/angry/heartbroken/overwhelmed by all of the inequities and awfulness and tired of feeling helpless and overwhelmed and you feel physically gross because of it. 

[SportsgalAnnie]

Where I'm originally from, It's pretty easy to find hard working people in poverty.  There are a lot of farming communities that rely on each other. If there's a bad year for crops it can be disastrous. Not to mention if something like a hurricane or tornado strikes and people lose everything.

[LacyMay]

2 hours ago, SportsgalAnnie said:

Where I'm originally from, It's pretty easy to find hard working people in poverty.  There are a lot of farming communities that rely on each other. If there's a bad year for crops it can be disastrous. Not to mention if something like a hurricane or tornado strikes and people lose everything.

I think this is true in a lot of more rural areas and areas with an economy that relies heavily on natural resources or agriculture. Things that can sort of turn quickly. 

I know it's something I've seen a lot of.

[DarkAnts]

Working homelessness is growing in cities. People just can not afford to rent due to the cost of living. Seattle is a great example. Many people who work for Amazon have a hard time finding housing they can afford. The city said they were going to start taxing Amazon to help build affordable housing. The tax was revoked soon after Amazon pitched a fit. 

[Bad Wolf]

In the 30s, where I grew up, iron ore was discovered, and a steel company moved in. They built housing, mostly duplexes (semi detached) which were 3 bedroom one bath. Many people came from Scotland. They put in a direct train link to Glasgow. The houses still stand, though the steel company is long gone.

Obviously that wouldn't work in a city,with limited space, but it shows what can be done if companies realize that taking care of their workers, might just increase their profits. Loyalty vs throw away employees.

[Cleopatra7]

@Bad Wolf the last thing we need to do is return to the days of the company town. Maybe things were different in your country, but American company towns were paternalistic and oppressive: https://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/company-towns/

A company is never going to have loyalty to its employees, only its stockholders and its board of directors. Workers are completely expendable, especially today when a company can always move operations to whatever country has low enough standards for its liking. The logic of capitalism is constant, ravenous growth, and pesky things like ethics and loyalty are only good for marketing purposes.

To go back a couple of pages, the issue of what the government (specially the American one) should or shouldn’t do always goes back to race. There is a long-standing belief that the US was founded as an white country and only white people are the only ones the government should be invested in.  People are color are merely a resource to be mined for cheap labor and tax revenue, but they are not to share in any of the benefits of civic citizenship.

For example, during the early twentieth century, my hometown of Atlanta, Georgia embarked on a modernization project, building public libraries, mass transit, parks, and schools, none of which the black population (which ranged from 30 to 40 percent of the population at any given time) was allowed to use. There were a couple of Jim Crow facilities that were eventually built, but they were far inferior to their white counterparts and inadequate to the size of the black community.As late as the 1950s, many black areas did not have electricity or proper sanitation in Atlanta. Black leaders often petitioned whites for improvements (and it should be noted that said whites claimed to be “the Negro’s best friend”) and the response was essentially, “lol, nope.” Similar stories can also be found in localities around the US, and it hasn’t changed because the Ferguson uprising revealed that black residents were still being used as expendable resources.

We can see a similar trend at the national level as well. The Aid to Dependent Families with Children program, which was part of the New Deal was very popular with whites, because blacks were specifically excluded from it. Interestingly, the idea with this program was that white women without husbands would be given enough money so they could be housewives and not have to work, a far cry from “welfare reform” where working outside the home became a stipulation. Once welfare for single women became a colorblind program during the Great Society programs, suddenly whites turned against it and considered women who used it to be “welfare queens.” Given this, it’s not really hypocritical when some white women criticize women of color who receive benefits while they do the same, because they recognize that these programs were designed for them and not women of other race.

When fundies or their libertarian fellow travelers say they believe in charity not government involvement, what they really mean is that they want to criminalize poverty and don’t want to invest in individuals who are not white or middle class. We’ve all seen how the Duggar’s don’t do any real charity work besides self aggrandizing photo ops. Why should we think that they would step up to the plate and help the indigent if our meager social safety network vanished altogether? 

[Bad Wolf]

@Cleopatra7I hear you. I was born in one of those company houses with socialized medicine.. My dad and brothers all worked there. Dad earned enough to buy a house in a nearby village, and ended up with a nice pension, along with his state pension. I guess things were different from what you are describing.

 

[nausicaa]

1 hour ago, Cleopatra7 said:

When fundies or their libertarian fellow travelers say they believe in charity not government involvement, what they really mean is that they want to criminalize poverty and don’t want to invest in individuals who are not white or middle class. 

Well this is...a claim. 

A claim that I'm sure goes over well within the echo chamber of a graduate program, but doesn't stand up to much scrutiny outside of that. Not least of which because of how comfortable you are making assumptions about a large, radically diverse swathe of people and assuming the worst of them and their arguments. Though you're certainly not the first person to do so in this thread. Also interesting that you feel comfortable stating what people "really mean," as if you possess some preternatural powers that allow you to know individuals better than they know themselves. (Also need to point out that there are plenty of libertarians who are neither white nor middle class. )

Also, I have no idea why libertarians would be fellow travelers of Fundies, considering the former are overall wildly supportive of the separation of church and state, sexual freedom, and contraception and abortion. Many are atheists (and they actually don't want to "criminalize" much at all--that's kind of the point).

I think some of FJ, and many progressives in general-- after the understandable fatigue of dealing with Trump and his supporters-- have begun to dismiss anyone not within their narrow political niche as a homogeneous, unthinking, ill-intentioned blur. I understand that it's easier in a political world that is now hour-to-hour frustration. But doing the hard work of making a good faith attempt to understand others' arguments and discerning nuance demonstrates emotional and intellectual maturity and allows your own arguments to be more persuasive in the end. 

There are so many things to hate about this administration, but I do think we will be dealing for years to come with how Trump has led many progressives to lock themselves into some fucked up ouroboros echo chamber. 

Edited September 15, 2019 by nausicaa
Trying, and probably failing, to make less bitchy.

[Cleopatra7]

Quote

A claim that I'm sure goes over well within the echo chamber of a graduate program, but doesn't stand up to much scrutiny outside of that. Not least of which because of how comfortable you are making assumptions about a large, radically diverse swathe of people and assuming the worst of them and their arguments. Though you're certainly not the first person to do so in this thread. Also interesting that you feel comfortable stating what people "really mean," as if you possess some preternatural powers that allow you to know individuals better than they know themselves. (Also need to point out that there are plenty of libertarians who are neither white nor middle class. )

Here are some sources for my claims to show that I'm not just pulling them out of the ether:

Katznelson, Ira. When Affirmative Action Was White : An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-century America. 1st ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005. Print.

Sklaroff, Lauren Rebecca. Black Culture and the New Deal : The Quest for Civil Rights in the Roosevelt Era. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina, 2009. Print.

Driskill, Jr. Jay Winston. Schooling Jim Crow: The Fight for Atlanta's Booker T. Washington High School and the Roots of Black Protest Politics. Charlottesville: 2014.

Kruse, Kevin Michael. White Flight : Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UP, 2005. Print. Politics and Society in Twentieth-century America.

There are actually a lot more I could list, but I doubt you'll be reading any of them, especially since they're from university press and rather expensive. 

Why do I think I know what libertarians and fundies "really mean"? First, I'm a PhD student working on a dissertation that touches on the intersection of white supremacy, religion, and the distribution of public goods, so it's a subject I know more than a bit about. I spend a lot of time looking at primary sources. If you look at old newspapers and magazine from 60+ years ago, they're pretty open about the need to keep blacks "in their place" and their fear of racial mixing. People from the past were quite open about their racism.  When you spend six hours writing for a qualifying exam about evangelicals and the Religious Right, you have to know the subject intimately, and one things that's quite apparent is that the term evangelical is a political and a racial marker as much as it is a religious one. I mean, the modern Religious Right started as part of the "massive resistance" against school desegregation, and many have posted here about the racism embedded in A Beka textbooks or the stuff Vision Forum used to publish.

One of the major justifications for opposing equal accommodations was the belief that private business owners should be free to refuse service to anyone they please, which is the exactly the same line of argumentation we hear now with reference to Christian bakers who refuse to serve LGBT couples. Rand Paul also uses it to explain his opposition to  the Civil Rights Act, but never seems to come up with an explanation for how the market would have ended Jim Crow. I've never yet managed to find a libertarian who could answer this, although you could be the first one.

The crux of the issue is that it seems like libertarians don't see anything wrong with doing away with equal accommodations, because they tend to overwhelmingly be part of groups that wouldn't be adversely affected by this and don't think about it. The alternative is that they think the only thing wrong with Jim Crow is that it's not around, which is also a possibility, given the "states' rights" angle that libertarians like. Ostensibly atheist libertarians have locked arms with Christian fundamentalists because both believe that free market economics is the best economic form that has and ever will exist, and they think non-discrimination laws cramp their style, albeit for different reasons. This odd coupling began under Reagan, and it shows no signs of stopping. This too is well-documented: 

Keckler, Charles, and Mark J Rozell. "The Libertarian Right and the Religious Right." Perspectives on Political Science 44.2 (2015): 92-99. Web.

Trump himself is a good example of the convergence of the Religious Right and the Libertarian Right. He seems to be personally irreligious, but gives religious conservatives everything they want, so everybody's happy. I don't think the Kochs are particularly religious either, nor is Sheldon Adelson. The fact that there are non-white libertarians doesn't erase the history and future implications of that ideology.

Quote

A claim that I'm sure goes over well within the echo chamber of a graduate program, but doesn't stand up to much scrutiny outside of that. Not least of which because of how comfortable you are making assumptions about a large, radically diverse swathe of people and assuming the worst of them and their arguments. Though you're certainly not the first person to do so in this thread. Also interesting that you feel comfortable stating what people "really mean," as if you possess some preternatural powers that allow you to know individuals better than they know themselves. (Also need to point out that there are plenty of libertarians who are neither white nor middle class. )

What echo chamber? I've spent my life being the only black person in 95. percent of the activities in which I participate. On most days, the only black face I see is my own, and even that's not saying much since I'm rather lacking in melanin. I've spent most of my life around the mileues created by white libertarians, conservatives, and evangelicals at private schools. They're the country club type Republicans, the type who find Trump vulgar, but not vulgar enough not to support him if it means getting $8 off their tax returns, which in a way is even worse than those who voted for Trump because they openly embrace the prejudice. I'm also far, far to the left, so its not like I'm on board with MSNBC or the DNC anymore than I am with Fox News.

Quote

I think some of FJ, and many progressives in general-- after the understandable fatigue of dealing with Trump and his supporters-- have begun to dismiss anyone not within their narrow political niche as a homogeneous, unthinking, ill-intentioned blur. I understand that it's easier in a political world that is now hour-to-hour frustration. But doing the hard work of making a good faith attempt to understand others' arguments and discerning nuance demonstrates emotional and intellectual maturity and allows your own arguments to be more persuasive in the end. 

 

I think you must have me confused with that apocryphal woman who didn't understand why Nixon was elected when no one she knew voted for him. I have listened to their thoughts and arguments for decades, and they're wrong. How do you argue with someone who believes that Mexicans are infested with plague or who thinks that blacks should be grateful for being enslaved or that trans women are men in wigs trying to rape cis women? More importantly, why should you? Logic is never going to convince a bigot of your humanity, and no one should have to prove such a thing in the first place. That minorities are expected to do so in the name of "civility" illustrates how farcical political discourse is. The truth is the barebones civil rights laws we have didn't come into existence because James Baldwin won that Oxford debate with William F. Buckley. 

[lumpentheologie]

While we're on the topic of race and politics, I want to add that there's a heavily racial dimension to the claim that people "shouldn't have children they can't afford," and that a lot of well-meaning people are unaware of that. 

It sounds like a common sense claim, and for people who are middle class it tends to mean that you should delay having kids until you get a stable job to provide for them (and ideally a partner who could also help provide). This is advice I've been careful to follow in my own life. 

But there are lots of people out there, especially people trapped in generational poverty, who will never have the kind of stable job that would provide for a family. Should these people just agree to never have children?  When you look at the disproportional racial makeup of families in generational poverty, this is essentially a call to reduce the black birthrate. When you consider that call in relation to the explicitly racist policies white people have used to keep black families in generational poverty (currently including mass incarceration and de facto school segregation) it borders on a form of ethnic cleansing. 

We used to force some of these people to get sterilized, but we try not to do that anymore, so now we want to "educate" them to see the world would be so much better if they would just give up the joys of parenthood and family life, let their family lines and traditions die out, and face old age poor and alone. 

A resource that opened up my eyes to a lot of this is the blog Family Inequality (which I was pointed to by Libby Ann's blog).  One particularly memorable post went into the economics of teen parenthood among poor black girls and how they're actually making a rational economic decision by having kids early. Since she's unlikely to be able to get enough education for a middle class job, delaying children for education doesn't make sense for this young woman.  There is a marked shortage of young black men with jobs in her community, and so the best partner for her in providing for her child is usually her mother, who tends to offer a lot more stability than her child's father. But the catch is that she has to have kids while her mother is still young and healthy enough to be a strong partner.  Since the bodies of the poor give out much earlier than those of the middle class, that means she has to start having kids by her mother's early 40s, at the latest.  So if she starts at 17, her mother might still be able to offer enough help for multiple children. 

 

[tabitha2]

Is that fair at all to the children being born in poverty though? Just so you won’t have to grow  old alone?  To preserve A family line? 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

8 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Is that fair at all to the children being born in poverty though? Just so you won’t have to grow  old alone?  To preserve A family line? 

You're right. I do wonder why Africans, First Nations, Aborigines, so many black, brown and indigenous Brazilian people and many minority Americans still dare to reproduce themselves, they aren't going to come out of poverty any time soon, better get extinct. /angry sarcasm *insert angrily banging head emoji*

I can't say for the US, but in my country family is by far the greatest social safety net. Poverty coupled with loneliness is a hundred times worse than just poverty would be.

Edited September 16, 2019 by laPapessaGiovanna

[lumpentheologie]

10 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Is that fair at all to the children being born in poverty though? Just so you won’t have to grow  old alone?  To preserve A family line? 

This isn't just a few isolated individuals though, it's tens of millions of people, making up large percentages of many communities in the US. I don't think it's fair to say communities currently facing adversity should just give up and die out. Having a family should not be a luxury for the middle class and up. 

The problem isn't that poor people have children, the problem is that society is structured to keep those people poor. We need more jobs that pay a living wage, healthcare for everyone, accessible daycare, fully-funded schools in poor neighborhoods, safe and affordable housing, programs that treat addiction instead of criminalizing it, cheap and reliable public transit, and substantial investment in these neglected communities. We also need to overhaul the criminal justice system, which focuses almost entirely on the (often very minor) crimes poor people commit, while the crimes wealthier people commit go unpunished. 

ETA: We also need to reform voting rights so that people in poor minority neighborhoods don't have to wait in line for 3 hours to vote, while middle class white people often waltz through in 20 min or less. 

Edited September 16, 2019 by lumpentheologie

[tabitha2]

That all may be and very fine sentiments but my mother had one child because she thought it was the “Right” thing to do. She had to hick the TV to buy food, my shoes had holes, we had no functioning vehicle most of the time amount other things.And she was certainly not able to “enjoy family life” for being exhausted from 2 jobs, stress and going to work injured.   Fuck being lonely. I would never bring a child into this world I could not give the best too materially or emotionally. 

 

[lumpentheologie]

20 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

That all may be and very fine sentiments but my mother had one child because she thought it was the “Right” thing to do. She had to hick the TV to buy food, my shoes had holes, we had no functioning vehicle most of the time amount other things.And she was certainly not able to “enjoy family life” for being exhausted from 2 jobs, stress and going to work injured.   Fuck being lonely. I would never bring a child into this world I could not give the best too materially or emotionally. 

 

I'm sorry you and your mother suffered during your childhood.  There should have been more supports to help both of you.  No children should have to wear shoes with holes and no parents should have to work through injuries. 

The policies I'm advocating would make it so that children and parents wouldn't have to suffer like you and your mother did.  That's something we should all want.  We, as a society, can do better. A wealth tax on the 1% of the population with 40% of the country's wealth would go a long way toward fixing these issues. 

[Smee]

It’s also worth noting that these people who “can’t afford to raise children” are often the same people who can’t afford birth control and have extremely limited access to abortion.

[Smee]

Sort of on topic, what do people think of the argument that the government should get rid of tax deductions for charitable contributions? I can’t remember where I was reading it now, but a while back I saw an article that made a fairly compelling argument that the effect of those policies is people picking and choosing who is worthy of support. So (extremely simplified version) wealthy alumni donate to their old university or private school, and get reduced tax, leaving less money in the government accounts to spend on public education. 

Personally I donate to charities because I want to, not because it’s tax deductible, and I’d donate the same amount regardless. But maybe I should just not claim the tax deduction, so the government has a few extra bucks.

On the other hand, I kind of get where libertarians are coming from. It’s difficult to endorse theories where I have to trust the government to distribute wealth appropriately. If the government looks at my income and wants to charge me more tax, then in theory I’d be ok with it, until I find out they don’t plan to increase spending in health or education but instead budget the extra money to pay for more security guards at offshore detention centres or other policies I loathe. Raising taxes is all well and good, but only if the government puts that money into programs that better society. And we all have slightly different views of what would better society.

Which, of course, is where being politically involved comes in. I pay my taxes, and then I vote for the party who I think will do the better job of spending them. And I write letters to my local representatives reiterating the priorities I want them to focus on, and I talk to others about politics and who I’m voting for and why. And then I’m inevitably disappointed by the rest of my country and how they evidently want to spend “my” taxes.