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.

What do I collect?

It's a rainy day where I reside and due to this I lost motivation to enter the outside world to finish my errands, so here I am left to think about the handful of things I collect since I was perusing through ebay.

1. college/sports pennants

I don't purchase any pennant, but the ones truly pertinent to my life, and therefore my search is quite specific. The universities I attended. My city's professional sports teams (save for the single baseball team I don't necessarily support). Out of all the things I collect pennants are my favorite. It's the history and tradition behind them that enchants me, not to mention the unique artwork that some have.


2. baseball caps

It's the same specific search that pertains to college/sports pennants. Since I wear my hat collection, if I don't completely feel comfortable wearing it outside I won't purchase it. I'm proud to say that my hat collection is quite small - I'm picky, so it helps. I know some people collect hats from every team - I don't do that, and thank goodness.


3. lapel pins & tie bars

As with the previous collections, the same rules apply on what I purchase but instead of collegiate wear, which I turn to vintage buttons, I look for vintage sports teams. I also try to purchase patriotic pins that were made in the USA, which are rare.

Tie bars are unique. They're like a watch for the tie. I can have more leeway with these so I'm not too particular on what's clipping my tie, that it just "looks good."

4. ties

I'm a sucker for ties, especially bow ties. Yep. Bow ties. I think they're awesome and I occasionally wear them in less formal situations, say on a date or just for the heck of it. Before the t-shirt became an American staple, a shirt and tie was the fashion norm.

One of my professors wore bow ties, relatively young, and I was inspired by him to wear one during commencement (which I didn't give two shits about - I just wanted to get the hell out of dodge to start my post-undergrad life) since I wanted "something different." Enter the bow tie. I haven't looked back since.

My long-ties tend to be solid colors, if not tartan, with the occasional dots (the same pattern goes for my bow ties). I don't wear regiment ties because I don't have any connection to British regiments. I absolutely avoid paisley.

Patriotic ties? Sure, I got a couple, it's just I don't wear any tie that has the American flag on it.

Speaking of patriotic/holiday ties, I'm the guy that walks into a bar on St. Patrick's Day with a green bow tie and asks for a Guinness. It's a good excuse to wear a bow tie, but even better to enjoy a fine stout.

I can't say I collect shoes because most of my shoes are purchased for practically reasons. I don't buy shoes I don't wear; there has to be a purpose for each or else I won't shell out my credit card. I'm all for well-made footwear so my shoes will be well-worn and loved before they're given to Goodwill.

5. playbills

Believe or not I'm a musical fan. My brother got me into them when I was a wee little boy. The first musical that got me enchanted was Annie and then Les Miserables. I sort of fell out of the fascination until I saw my brother perform in high school musicals.

The playbills aren't relegated to musicals, but it expands to plays, operas and ballets as well. I'm more of a play goer, though, if I had to choose between a musical or a play, with Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams producing some of my favorites.

6. movie tickets

I tend to save my stubs and I'm currently thinking of moving them from a stub specific binder to one of these.

Now I have thought of vinyl records, and I may start a collection in the near future.

When I was younger I use to collect comic books. Since then I outgrew them, at least the wanting to collect. I still admire the talent that's needed to make them. I remember being so fascinated with the characters in comic books that I made my own "superheroes," each with their own special power.

I mainly concentrated on comics that focused on Gambit, my favorite X-Men, and Superman.

For whatever reason I was drawn to the 1990s Superman comics. I believe it had to do with the color palette.


A deeper meaning to my collection

The only thing that can be deemed fragile are my pennants. Gosh darn, every time I move I want those secured and safe. Not to mention that encasing pennants is an expensive process. I'm either met with (A) not caring that much about the condition as they age or (B) being anal about their care when I pack my bags. I mean, some of them cost a pretty penny and would be considered collector items let alone heirloom pieces. 

 In fact, I want all of my collections to be worth some sentimental value when I pass away (not including the movie stubs), whether it be to someone else who arrives at my place to see what the old man has after my funeral, or to my kids and their kids.

It's always interesting to see heirlooms being used and/or being cherished and saved by a man's offspring and their lineage. It's like an old American flag on a mantle or a safety razor being used by a grandson. That sort of stuff, that type of reality.

Immigration rears its ugly head.

Okay, not "ugly" but a major irritation (of mine).

Many of the social work jobs in my city and metro require one to be bilingual. You must speak Spanish and English in order to accommodate those who cannot speak English well. If not, your resume won't even be looked at. Into the reject pile you go.

But let's start with a little story.

A few Easters ago my family and I were enjoying brunch. Near the end of our stuffing we found out our waitress and I shared the same alma mater (I didn't give two shits). She was working the holiday for extra cash because she was a bilingual elementary teacher on break. Her class had a huge population of primary Spanish speaking children.

As we talked, language came up. She, with a heavy sigh and frown, wished aloud that Americans would speak another language besides English. I quickly spoke up saying that, though a nice idea, shouldn't be pressured on Americans - it should be on non-English speaking immigrants to learn the language ASAP. I then added that other countries, like Canada and Ireland, primarily spoke English. Countries that were surrounded by other countries that spoke a different language were more likely inclined to speak their native tongue, English and maybe two other languages. Why? It's not out of curiosity or being worldly/enlightened, it was out of necessity. The balkanization of America wasn't in language.

Yes, in some parts of Canada like Quebec (Canadian) French is spoken and is mandatory. Other parts of Canada were like America on how it taught French compared to America's Spanish, mostly in high school - maybe in elementary - but competency is no better once one graduates from high school (read: almost nonexistent).

Ireland, located in the much admired Western Europe by leftists, speak mostly English. Gaelic is dying, going the way of Latin, sadly. Why does Ireland speak mostly English? Because Ireland is an isolated country. How many speak French in England? A whopping 0.28. The USA, like Ireland is isolated, only having a Spanish speaking country immediately south of the border. French, one of the mother tongues of Canada, is dominated by English speaking Canadians. A good percent of bilingual Canadians (speaking both French Canadian and English) are located in the providence of Quebec.

I have family in St. John's and the kids', whose parents are Asian immigrants, French speaking capabilities are the equivalent to the average American speaking Spanish: shitacular. They're an English speaking family first. Granted Newfoundland isn't Quebec so the French language is not pushed as hard and that the province is rather isolated - it's the Canadian version of Alaska.

I was at a health clinic that primarily served Hispanic and low-income residents. As the nurse clinician walked in the first thing she said was "Inglés o español?" I'm Asian, do I look like I speak Spanish? (I do, sorta.) I should've said "Si" so I could've messed with her mind. "Wait, you're Asian preferring to speak Spanish?" I'm not sure how long the Spanish speaking people at the clinic lived in the States, but if it was more than two years I'd be upset. 

In many ways Americans who work directly with the population, particularly in social services (teaching, social work, non-profit, receptionists, medical field) must adapt to the incoming immigrants from Mexico. Not only that, but these fields, especially social work and non-profits, are advocated for Mexicans. They see Mexicans being forced to learn English as unfair and see those who advocate it as insensitive to their plight and narrow-minded. In my state illegal immigrants, just a couple of years ago, were granted driver's licenses. Why? Cause it's a damn right and without one it creates a barrier to their goal to live the American Dream, so goes the reasoning of those that lobbied for it.

My mother, an immigrant who came to the US with wanted skills and was proficient in English, admitted that America, lately, has been bending over backwards for immigrants in almost every aspect of American life. My aunt who doesn't have a driver's license manages to get to her job via public transportation. Then again she speaks English and has wanted skills, so her mindset is different than the Mexican population at the clinic.

In many ways, advocates for "those who don't have voices" are creating safe spaces for them. They talk about conservatives alienating the non-white, non-straight, poor and female population of America (I don't entirely agree) yet they're slowly creating a balkanized nation due to language. The irony (as always with modernism).

Reading up on Medicaid.

It's inconsistent to reject an applicant if they live with their parents, say a 30 yr old woman who is unemployed and living with her parents - one working and making 100K, because the household she lives under is financially secure.

One, isn't the government practically forcing the parents to pay for their daughter's medical coverage (annual check-ups, basic vaccinations) even if the ground rules laid by the parents is to  not pay for such coverage? The daughter herself cannot pay for it since her annual income is a net zero, though she still has to file taxes regardless of her employment status. If we use the "it's inhumane for the government to 'let people die on the side of the street'" the government is not keeping its promise to provide for the daughter since she is unable to secure health coverage. Yes, the parents are letting her live under their roof, rent & utility bill free, but they will not provide no health coverage.

Two, the expansion of medicaid isn't really an expansion, just lip service.