Catholics are an interesting bunch.

Catholics who support socialism.
Catholics who think the 'free market' is mean and evil.
Catholics who think that other Catholics put too much emphasis on marriage and the nuclear family.
Catholics who are "no country" types.

Why are they Catholic again? This is good, though. It shows that there's diversity in thought among Catholics.

It's too bad those that want socialism (let me guess, you work a shitty job and you don't have any real marketable skills) want a system that has been proven wrong time and again. But, but, but the 'free market' is killing us! Killing. You read that correctly.

Those who think the Church and other Catholics put too much emphasis on the married nuclear family can just leave. Seriously. I'm not the "move to another country what don't ya" type, but the RCC needs people who believe in the married nuclear family with every fiber in their being, not lukewarm types who are better of at some Episcopalian church.

As for the "no country" types, well, I heard through the grapevine that Interstellar was going to happen - the space habitat that is, not the dust storms. I'm kidding. NASA hasn't yet released an official statement.

New blog.

The Conservative Social Worker.

Currently in class.

I'm sitting in class and we're talking about Reagonomics, among other things.

Some responses -

"Terminated block grants can only hurt welfare recipients."
"Ah, good old 'trickle-down' effects."
"Still not working."
"In my former profession I worked in human resources. The goal was to hire low-income workers and the corporation benefited from it, the workers never saw the benefits."

Well, what benefits do you want them to see? What exactly do you mean by 'never saw the benefits'? A promotion? Higher pay? More vacation days with paid leave?

The professor goes on talking about PRWORA

"Clinton sorta ended welfare. AFDC was discontinued and was turned into TANF."

So what we called welfare just changed names ... Welfare still exists; it never was 'cured.'

 

The never ending road to "nowhere."

It always makes me chuckle when people say "we got a long way to go" when talking about social issues, say, campus rape culture or civil rights. It's usually those that believe that 1 out of 4 women are raped on any college campus. It's usually those that, for whatever reason, think LGBT's are a legit victim group.

In the Boston Globe there's an article concerning campus rape. Campus rape is horrid, but I'm skeptical of these surveys. They always end in destroying traditions (Harvard final's club) and always point to fingers at greek life. Take this comment

"On a recent flight I watched the old WWI movie, "A Farewell to Arms", made in 1932. I was appalled to see that what was called a "romance" started when the main character stalked and harassed a nurse. When she rejected his advances, he kept touching her and insisting, until she finally slapped him. And then he kept on, and eventually she "gave in." This was date rape, characterized as a classic romance. I would say things are improving these days, but obviously there is still a long way to go."

Christian Hoff Sommers further expands on why she thinks surveys and studies depicting campus rape as frequent as opening a book are wrong. The danger to not believing the surveys are people who are taken aback who say, "Well, that one survey had interviews with the sample. Are you daring to question the responses of the women who were interviewed?" Yes.

Rape is a horrid crime, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt the organizations being blamed for rape (fraternities, all-male final's clubs) and look with an equally stern eye to the women and administrators who accuse. UVA turned out to be a false story. The Duke lacrosse story also was deemed highly inaccurate. 

Besides comments totally buying into the survey there were the usual comments dismissing conservatives.

"Gee, I missed that policy message. Where did you find that ? Glen Beck, Limpbag? O'Really? Faux News?"

The only people who bring up such people and network in that way are leftists. I remember watching an interview with the Harry Potter trio where each actor needed to say a word with an American accent, with Daniel Radcliffe receiving "Glenn Beck" in a card. He immediately responded that he didn't want to. I found this strange and rather presumptuous. This was in 2010. Radcliffe was 18 at the time; I was rather liberal when I saw the video but even I didn't have an issue with Glenn Beck being on the card. Without fail the man's an atheist and supports LGBT rights as if the LGBT in either the UK or US were being thrown off of buildings. There's no doubt Radcliffe believes what comes out of BBC and there's no doubt that those he admires have influenced his beliefs.

But back to "the never ending road." SJW's see injustice everywhere. They step out of their room and look out the window and they see injustice. Harvard, the most well-known academic brand, is not immune to "righting the wrongs." Students of the university's law school have successfully petitioned to change the program's seal. Why? Because it has sheaves of wheat which reminds people of slavery.

I do see where the sheaves of wheat is controversial, but I ultimately am not compelled to be angered over it. Yes, Isaac Royal Jr., the land benefactor of Harvard Law School, was a slave owner. So what. Hypothetically, if Royal's house was built by slaves and was put on the shield instead would indignation be present? I'd say no. But because sheaves of wheat are usually associated with slaves in America it's "inconsistent with the values of both the university and the law school." (I could not find Harvard Law "values.")

This isn't the only incident where Harvard was desperate to shed of any connotation of slavery or racism. Recently it has been decided to remove the title of "master" for faculty positions heading the university's residential houses, and instead have renamed them "faculty dean." The damn title, "master," in this case wasn't even slave related, but one of authority and respect towards the undergraduates.

So how many more miles do we have to go? 

Everyday Joe & Jane.

Right now I'm upset.

I'm rather tempted to call such people dumb, flat-headed, idiots, moronic etc. You name whatever pejorative thrown at "the masses" and I'll be urged to call them that.

Why?

They really like The Donald. I'll admit I have a "Make America Great Again" hat, and I do like it, but I'm a Ted Cruz voter. The Donald won Indiana's primary, quite YUGE as well, and which therefore signaled the end of Cruz's presidential campaign. The Donald will be the GOP nominee to face the DNC nominee, who will most likely be Hillary Clinton.

And The Donald will lose in the general election. Big Time. Big. Time.

And Hillary will be the first female president.

And the SJW's and the (D)'s will have an orgy over it like they did with Obama.

I don't have anything against a female president, but let's face it - people will vote for Hillary mainly because they want to "make history" again as they did with Obama. If you were the Everyday Joe or Jane, quite apolitical, would you vote for the person who can be the first female president or the supposed sexist, xenophobic and racist Trump? Those who are "political wonks" want Madam Secretary to become a reality. It's easy to sway the Everyday Joe and Jane to vote for HC.

You had your pick of probably the most intelligent and qualified GOP candidates to choose from, Everyday Joe & Jane. You picked the least brilliant among them.

Congrats, to the non-alt-right Trump supporters. Go ahead and wave your American flags that were made in China until election day, because you won't be waving them once the votes are tallied.

New link added.

The Imaginative Conservative.

From I've read so far, jumping from articles about entertainment, art, faith and political theory, I can confidently say that I highly recommend this site. It's intellectual without getting bogged down with Greek philosophy  *cough*Social Matter*cough* and its spectrum of topics is wide.

A good number of the contributors are in academia - ranging from lawyers, Classic professors, history professors, Catholic writers and the occasional student.

Vegetarianism and Veganism.

I can only see this being a respectable option if:

(1) It's due to religious reasons.
(2) It's for your health e.g. you need to follow a specific diet for health concerns

It's a good thing the first vegan and vegetarian I met were cool people, not at all preachy about their diet. The vegan was a vegan because her mom raised her that way. The vegetarian grew up eating meat but stopped because she realized she didn't like the look of cooked meat, that the brown coloring was just off putting. Fair enough.

After the meeting of the third vegetarian things went downhill and I became suspicious of the movement. The third was my sociology professor who, during his MSW internship, was preparing food for an after-school program and was disgusted by the meat sandwiches he had to make. Meh. His move to not eating meat was more of a moral choice, but as with most secular moralizing I'm usually never persuaded. As with most things secular urging to do "the right thing" it's just creating a moral philosophy out of indignation (my atheist English high teacher said this about religion, but he was actually a cool guy and was nice about it).

The rest of the non-meaters? Cult like. Moral reasons. How about health reasons? That was on the bottom of their list. 

Many will point to the popular, if somewhat obscure (not a contradiction), China Study. I say it's popular because it's widely known by those who advocate for a non-meat diet; usually in such circles it's a common source to use.

I don't buy the "sentient animal" talk. I truly don't. I believe it's the abuse of the narrative of Enlightenment. Of course there's Food Inc., but I also don't give a damn about that because as long as my ground meat is fresh I don't really care if the cow was slaughtered like Olivia in Scream 4 (a straight-out horrible death). I feel morally sick when humans are killed given the circumstance. For example I don't get morally indignant when humans are killed during war. Why? Because it's war. War is complex. I do get get sad and upset when I hear stories of innocent lives being caught in crossfire in gang territories. But animals? Unless it's some psycho chopping up dogs for fun or Peter Wiggin skinning squirrels my heartache for animals being slaughtered for food is near nonexistent. Sure, kill them humanely, don't inject them with hormones and treat the cows to a beer diet, but don't tell me they're "sentient animals" equal to humans. That guilt trip just doesn't work me - I'm immune to it.

Did I cry when the horses were shot in Atonement? I was a little taken aback, but no. I felt sorrow for Cecelia and Robbie. I thought Briony was a sympathetic little bitch.

My rebuttal to Amanda Woolsten, Rachel West, Deona Hooper & Tricia Fronek.

 Part 1: Tricia Fronek

I'm currently a graduate candidate in a MSW program. I've read about whether or not a conservative can function within the boundaries of social work, its political atmosphere and its infrastructure, and the responses were leaning towards a no.

Tricia Fronek, the administrator of the blog Social Work, Social Work, brought me attention to Deona Hooper's article which led to the thoughts of Amanda Woolsten and Rachel West. The last two being the biggest offenders.

All three give their thoughts on conservatives in social work (and why they do not support conservative thought) when expressing their views on the  "conservative v liberal" debate in the helping field.

Fronek writes -

"Can a social worker hold conservative views? Well I suppose they can but I think the question should be can a social worker continue to do so if they are practising social work well?"

And interesting thought. Fronek implies that if one holds conservative views one can be in the field, but since conservative thought does not practice "critical reflection," which she says is "real reflection," it impedes the person from being an exceptional social worker. As she continues -

"I don’t necessarily mean empathy with the people we see every day– essential but not the point. I mean the practising of social work. I am talking about critical reflection – real critical reflection. Fook and Gardner describe it well in their book   – it is not simply about understanding our clients’ internal struggles and the interpersonal interactions between ourselves and our clients. Critical reflection also demands attention to structural factors that affect individuals and communities and brutal self-examination.

Now, I have not read Fook & Gardner's book - I will, by my own admission, if it isn't assigned to me. If what Fronek writes is accurate from the the book, I fail to see how that would make conservatives incapable of being a social worker let alone excelling in their given population. The burnout rate of a social worker is rather high, or so I've heard, and burnout is mostly due to the emotional stress the field brings.

From what I've gather, once a social worker gets to know the system he's working with, be it the welfare system, adoption services, school systems, health care systems etc., it does not matter what his politics are. There is no study or valid anecdote that says conservatives are incapable of learning a given system and working with a given population to access benefits and resources. It's basically a librarian for the social services. One can do the job with proper training and experience.

I am not sure what "brutal self-examination" means unless it means acknowledging one's "privilege." If it means to feel endlessly sorry for one's client and to work on their behalf, without question, then Fronek has a good point. To always be on the client's side to get them benefits & resources would execute my own intelligence and standard. But, there's one thing: To advocate on behalf of a client by holding conservative views does not mean the social worker is destroying the goal of his field.

I'm against abortion and if I so happen to work at a crisis center, or in health care, the option of abortion would be on the table. This confession would be a shock given my beliefs, but I'd always frame the situation as this: Is the embryo a living thing or is it "goo"? Is the right of the embryo a "voice that does not have a voice"? Given that the helping field is all about standing up for those that do not have a voice, the option to have an abortion is there - I just won't advocate for an abortion since that's up to the female and to implant the idea of a living "thing" in her mind is my duty - but I will frame it in a way where the choice to have one is not one done out of a "so what?" mentality. I refuse to be the parent with the credit card to which the teenager seeks it out for personal use. In many ways I am practicing the philosophy Yale's CLAY.

If my client chooses to get an abortion I cannot stop her. I will give her the resources and pathway to a clinic that offers abortion services that has a high success rate despite the sadness that comes to my heart. Of course, this does not mean I won't fight against the federal funding of abortion clinics.

Fronek states the following about the book -

"If we really practise critical reflection well, we constantly challenge our own beliefs so they don’t interfere with our work by imposing our prejudices on others. If we are honest with ourselves things change – for us and our clients. The down side is we can be uncomfortable a lot of the time."

The feels. I mean, this is utter baloney because it's based on pure conjecture.

If we use abortion as the topic: A pro-abortion child & family social worker will not see any issue with advocating for abortions, in fact, that same social worker will have an issue with someone advocating for a pro-life stance.

I also do not completely understand when she writes "If we are honest with ourselves things change – for us and our clients." I take these are Fronek's own interpretation of the book since it wasn't quoted. If she's implying that once a social worker learns the case and background of their clients, once they challenge their (conservative) beliefs, they'd push aside their beliefs and be "Team Client" - whatever they need, they'll get. If so, this is a horrible way of doing social work.

"Let’s assume for a moment that I truly believe that unemployed people don’t work because they are lazy. If they took personal responsibility and got off their butts they would get a job – a belief shared by my family and my community. Ok let’s take it a step further. Imagine I approach my unemployed clients with this belief (consciously or unconsciously)"

Let's stop here for a moment. Fronek is painting in inaccurate broad strokes; also so what if she has family members who think this way (which is a common tactic of a modern mind - "Well, my community thinks this way but I think another so it must be them!"). They aren't entirely wrong.

"I guarantee you no change will happen and I would more than likely do harm by cementing fixed notions of privilege and disadvantage. If I acknowledge and challenge my beliefs and recognise any assumptions in those beliefs or indeed my own position in society, I might be open to hearing (and I mean hearing) about intergenerational poverty, social exclusion, marginalisation, lack of education, caring for a child with a disability or even dyslexia or depression (the list goes on)…and their interaction together."

(A) You are only committing more harm if the client is not open to any possible motivational flaws. (B) You are only being ignorant if the economy does not produce more jobs than the current number of those in unemployment.
(C) If we bring in part-time jobs or even full-time jobs at Burger Kind and whatnot, those jobs aren't meant to raise a family let alone make one financially stable.

If one talks about "intergenerational poverty, social exclusion, marginalisation, lack of education" they better have an understanding, an intellectual one which is based on economic, historic and political bases, that causes such things. I do not see social exclusion being a main prohibition of entering the work force. This isn't the Jim Crow days, though many truly believe it still is  (see: Deona Hooper). I'm also a bit lost when she mentions a "lack of education." Does she mean no GED? Does she mean no college diploma? It's a loaded point, too vague to dig into effectively. But she has the feels. She comes to a person caring for a disabled person, to which I give a sigh of relief. She at least has a legitimate point now. Dyslexia? Okay, what about it? Depression? Fair enough.

So within he own list, I can only see two that can be legit reasons for unemployment. If Fronek's mission to say that those who think unemployment is due to laziness, and therefore such a group unfairly creates a hostile and unwelcoming environment, I say Get. Over. Yourself.

If those who say social services should be cancelled because of the lazy then she'd have a stronger cause for doubting the ability of a conservative social worker. The thing is, many do not advocate for this. Again, Fronek paints in a very wide brush, easily setting up her own sentiments to triumph while doing a disservice, the irony, to the opposition.

(In my personal experience, those that were unemployed had one of these two things. Their field not having enough jobs or personal laziness. I've met more moochers than people genuinely searching, yet failing, for a job due to those things she has listed. The only people I know that genuinely could not hold a job were the mentally ill aka many of the homeless in my city.)

"If I truly hear I would be forced to acknowledge that these stories do not quite fit with concepts of laziness as the root cause or potential cure. Recognising this mismatch could be very uncomfortable for me and perhaps challenge the core of my own socialisation and dearest held beliefs. Only then can the real work can begin – with my client and on myself."

Oh please, Fronek, stop with the "if I can only open my eyes and my heart, so freakin' wide, then I'd truly understand the plight of my clients" talk. I get the feeling that social worker like Fronek take themselves way too seriously and think of themselves as some sort of savior. Her sentiments, again, plays off belief that the opposition fails to recognize the various reasons for unemployment. Like those who say unemployment is solely due to laziness, Fronek commits the same ignorant and lazy mistake - not delving into any layers.

"Our practice frameworks encompass knowledge and draw on theory and research (and I don’t mean the products of think tanks). It is often difficult to distinguish between independent information and ideologically driven beliefs (see the Point of Inquiry podcast with Gabriel Sherman for an interesting example). By practising social work, we are constantly challenged to consider alternative perspectives especially when the realities of what we see and hear do not fit with current approaches, beliefs, ideologies or politics. We live with uncertainty in a world that is far from black and white."

First, what's wrong with theories and research from think tanks? Yes, they can be partisan, but the real dirt is the methodology and the premise. I can only assume that by "think tanks" she means right-wing think tanks. Second, what does non-think tanks knowledge, theory and research have over those that are produced by think tanks? I'm a newbie to the social work world, but I can bet that many of the knowledge, theories and research done by academia tend to lean one way: In favor of leftist thought. I may be knew, but I am not naive nor am I a sucker.

As an example of a foggy resource, she links Point of Inquiry, whose missions is "to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values." I'm not sure if Fronek is religious, but as a religious person I don't see much of a problem because I'd never use it as a legit source, may be a third-tier source, but never a source of authority. If I use a similar source, I'd feed off the pundit and later build off whatever ideas with sources that may or may not uphold their views. In fact I don't know any social worker who uses Point of Inquiry as a resource.

I also don't believe that social workers are "are constantly challenged to consider alternative perspectives especially when the realities of what we see and hear do not fit with current approaches, beliefs, ideologies or politics." If this were true than conservative thought wouldn't be looked at with scorn and disdain by fellow social workers. If anything, social work seems more than happy to chug along its current (leftist) narratives.

"As Hooper pointed out, all people do not start out on an equal footing. Inequality and social problems are disturbing realities in the OECD countries where political environments are conservative and pay homage to the cult of individual responsibility as the sole cause and solution to all complex problems. This approach leaves a whole lot out and has little hope in alleviating the problems people face."

Fronek, again, goes off into a straw man when she states that the levels of inequality are "disturbing" when viewing conservative environments (never defined) who "pay homage to to the cult of individual responsibility as the sole cause and solution to all complex problems." I can only guess she means Australia or the USA since she fails to list examples of such environments given by Hooper. As with her false positioning against the "unemployment is due to laziness" she writes things that are too vague, rendering itself almost meaningless. We're just suppose to take them at face value because OH MY GOD THE INJUSTICE OF SELF-RESPONSIBILITY!

"Wilkinson and Pickett’s research shows that these approaches contribute to inequality and make things worse for everyone. Marston, McDonald and Bryson point out who really benefits from the ways welfare is delivered – or not. Interestingly it is not the people that first come to mind."

The great irony about linking a UK social science site devoted to economic "equality" is that Western Europe is all on the bandwagon for a socialized government. Has she read the book she listed, "Welfare and the State: Who benefits?" I haven't but I will now. It also seems that she's working off the narrative that conservatives think the welfare state is bad and that it should be abolished - or something like that.

Overall, listing studies and books does not help Fronek. I do not believe she has read most of the books and studies she has listed. 

"When it comes to politics is there any robust research that shows a sole focus on individualism contributes positively to all people rather than simply the privileged minority at the top of the class ladder?

Another false premise. Individualism -- in government form? In collective thinking? C'mon Fronek, fucking define you terms for once. Can we count inventors being an example for the individual than for the collective? By creating a product or even a business they can employ, inspire and lift out the poor to a greater economic bracket. She creates the false narrative of the "evil, greedy 1%."

"We are constantly told it does but where is the evidence that supports the claim? Sure we have a value-based profession but so do all professions – just look at anybody’s codes of ethics. But we do not blindly accept values whether they are professional or personal. We challenge and deconstruct these too.

Where is the evidence that it doesn't? She gives a link to the OEDC but so what. Without noting a particular study I refuse to dig in that. If she wants to propose a certain premise then it's on her to given the opposition the resources that backs up her claims.

It is a pathetic tactic by the left - and yes, they are the left - to play the "where's the evidence card" while showcasing their own shoddy studies. Where's the evidence that a collective government helps the poor more? Fronek acts like Western Civilization is a sad collection of societies.

Fronek's thinking is lazy, vague and just plain porous. And, as I suspected, the magical word: deconstruct. The goal of deconstruction to pick apart a supposed social structure because it it believed to create inequality (as if that was innately bad) and psychological harm (as if an individual needs to be babied). Fronek again attributes traits and actions to social workers that I do not see.

As she writes -

"Social work values moisten the soil so we can dig into people’s lives without doing harm and critical reflection sharply spotlights our own assumptions. Knowledge and evidence works hand in hand with values and self-knowledge to ensure we practise social work well."

 She calls upon this "critical reflection" once again which challenges a social worker's assumptions (conservatives only!), while whatever research further perpetuates an unfair world in which the (liberal) social worker can pick up their sword and cry for justice. She appeals to "knowledge and evidence" yet she never states statistics or theories (besides "critical reflection") as if a non-liberal social worker is incapable of doing so. The last time I heard social work, as an academic discipline, wasn't known for its social science theories. It's a field that build off of sociology, psychology and sometimes off of (selective) history and rarely calls in philosophy.

Next up: Part 2 - Deona Hooper.