Remember when I had a massive rant on the pay of social workers compared to the debt when acquiring a MSW? Well, I still stand by that massive rant. I also have found out that if you're medically cleared to enter the military to become a military social worker, life is pretty good in terms of pay, job stability and respect. See below.
Army 73A (Social Worker)
Navy Social Worker
Air Force Social Worker
According to one Navy recruiter, a Navy social worker pay starts at around 75K and can lead up to 100K in ones third active year. I do not doubt this range because I have heard from other civilian social workers that VA social workers make the most when compared to other social work fields (child services, health care, mental) in the civilian employment. Depending on where you're placed and how wealthy the school is, school social work tends to pay a little better than a social worker working with child protection services or welfare queens.
In many cases it appears that military social work, though the program one graduates from must be CSWE accredited, is somewhat independent of the usual social work politics of "Ally" to LGBT and diversity/inclusion awareness. After all, you're dealing with people suffering from PTSD, stress, marital issues and social alienation (you know, real shit) due to wartime deployment, not some female LGBT sociology/social work student who's quite butch, or some feminist.
Now, to analyze each of the videos. I think each woman shown in the video is attractive. I won't rank them, but they're attractive to me. I think the Air Force video was the best - very sleek when viewed on the Air Force site. Then comes the Navy video where the woman is a very coherent speaker; definitely a person with intellectual capabilities. The Army video is better than most job recruitment videos put out by the Army, but it still has the trademark corniness that the Army videos are known for -- from the outdated graphics, staged hall walks, the Captain Obvious language, the talking and the rapid sequence of pictures to the synchronized head turn. Despite all that, it's an improvement and that's saying something.
The Antonin Scalia Scool of Law of George Mason University. But within the article something is revealed.
Every time young law students entered the ASSoL at George Mason
University they would be reminded of Scalia’s dedication to denying
civil rights to LGBT people, granting corporations immeasurable
influence on our political system, and expanding the Second Amendment to
degrees never imagined by our nation’s founding fathers all in the name
of “constitutional originalism.”
I had a feeling why leftists did not like Scalia. Now I have a clearer picture of their bitterness.
Now I think it's funny, the acronym that is. If I were on the board to change to name I'd just name is The Scalia School of Law, acronym SSoL.
In a situation where I thought I chose the doctor of my choice, I was met with disappointment a few weeks later. I reviewed several doctors in my area that were within my network - saw one that I liked and sent in my choice.
The first issue was that he was named after his father who is also a doctor in the same state and area. Instead of choosing Jr. I chose Sr. I was initially upset, but thought that is wasn't as bad as I thought it was. I was wrong again. I looked up Sr.'s reviews and they weren't good; they were the opposite of his son's.
The second issue was when I called my doctor's office to make an appointment. The receptionist asked who my doctor was, I gave him his name, and said to wait for a moment. She came back and replied that he wasn't accepting any new patients. Okay, why the fuck would the system assign me a doctor that wasn't accepting new patients? I was later given over to a nurse practitioner since my issue - getting an immunization sheet field out - wasn't an actual medical appointment that was serious.
It's a good thing I can change my doctor (and do much better research on my part) every month with my plan.
Did it ever occur to Sr. that maybe, just maybe, there might be some mix-up between him and his son? Add that they're in the same profession and the same area. For a doctor he definitely did not analyze this predicament. Or maybe he did and did not care.
It's a dated article, 2001, but even 15 years ago, the LGBT were still playing the same cards as they are today.
Tucker writes about the supposed modern day victimhood status that the LGBT dearly and desperately want to keep alive and believe -
David
Tuller writing for Salon Magazine, the left-liberal bellweather,
reports that "Virtually every gay person I know is distraught
at the rise of the Bush-Cheney presidency and the passing of the
gay-friendly Clinton-Gore administration." Leave aside whether
this guy personally knows anyone who isn't distraught at
the Bush presidency, and suppose that he is right.
Why
would gays be upset at Bush? Is the new administration plotting
some grand crackdown that would jail people for homosexual acts?
Is it planning to send out the BATF to gay clubs to crack skulls?
Is it preparing tanks to mow down gay churches or burn them to the
ground? Is it agitating for a law that would prevent or otherwise
punish private businesses and associations from hiring gays?
Of
course not. In fact, Bush went out of his way during the campaign
not to offend the gays. He uttered no statements that could be pigeon-holed
into the anti-gay category. However, it is instructive to see precisely
what Tuller considers to be anti-gay political positions: 1) opposing
the extension of hate-crime law to covering gays, 2) cutting back
funding for AIDS research, 3) permitting public schools to bar pro-gay
seminars for students in the guise of AIDS education, and 4) opposing
the extension of "civil rights" to gays at the federal
level.
It's an excellent read. Unfortunately, Tucker has "broadened" his views on legal rights since the time of this article and now supports civil unions. As one anarchist puts it, referring to Tucker's original stance on same-sex civil unions, "I may not agree with his stance on civil unions, as I support them as a
halfway measure between state-sanctioned marriage and a stateless
society."
You see, with anarchists is that they appeal to a moral order but then they play the whole "stateless society" bullshit card. And this anarchist is a Christian.
It's a libertarian and anarchist site. As their philosophy proclaims -
Here at Altar & Throne, we seek to be a voice for the victim
marginalized by coercive power and institutionalized violence, standing
with the Lamb of God who vacated the divine throne and suffered, bled,
and died for every soul in a world pervaded by corruption and
unrighteous conflict.
What's Wrong With the World (W4) comments on libertarianism and how it's ultimately a failed philosophy.
Some of the writers at A&T are non-denominational Christians while others are Anabaptists. Interestingly enough, underneath their Christianity tab there is a sub-tab called "The Way." I'm not sure if it has anything to do with The Way International, though I did notice a decent number of the writers have Ohio ties.
It’s a funny meme, a well-known saying amongst nerds and geeks, but
whenever I hear it I am reminded of how many people are all too willing
to follow government without a second thought and how those who would
question the institution are instantly put at risk for ridicule.
Many would never consider the state a religion, but there is a
definite knee-jerk reaction whenever it is implied that we do not need
it. The idea of a society functioning without government is so
frightening that the mere mention of it throws most into a tirade of,
“Well, who would build the roads?” and other arguments basically
amounting to a philosophy of “Who else will take care of us?” But that’s
the problem. We do not need to be taken care of.
The brainwashing of the youth makes it difficult to remove the image
of the government as a benevolent care taker, and the long standing view
that if only the right people were in place that it would somehow
function “properly.”
The truth is obvious, however; it was never meant to function in the
public’s best interest, but in a way to subdue the public for the gain
of those truly in power. It’s time to start asking bigger questions, and
not just swallow what we’re told.
When I tell someone, “I am an anarchist,” and they initially have
that knee-jerk reaction, looking at me like I’m crazy because I dare
defy the system we’ve been born into, I realize I’m putting my faith in
something bigger than government.
My response to their defense of the state: “You find my lack of faith in a twisted government system disturbing–well actually, that’s a compliment.”
Unlike anarchists who think government should be non-existent, I think government should be minuscule as possible, only concerning itself with issues like taxes, road building and the military.
The issue I have with Thoris' philosophy is that an anarchist to me is a government atheist. I couldn't help commit an eye-roll when she mentioned her being an anarchist to "defy the system we've been born into." That's the same as the SJW's and fellow like minded so-called rebels "defying" the status quo because society doesn't fully accept non-straights. It's great that Thoris doesn't like the government, putting self-reliance on ones back, but she goes full-retard with the anarchy.
Altar & Throne has written about the Founding Fathers and they come across as pretentious losers. As with their kind, they think they're smarter than the Found Fathers. All clues points to "no."
Unlike Bolland's Throne & Altar who dismissed free-markets, Altar & Throne supports it. Both sites do away with what is called conservatism. Bolland replaces it with monarchy while Altar & Throne replaces it with voluntaryism. I think it's safe to say both are "no country" types.
Like Bolland, A&T writers are living in a fantasyland where there is no state; and they prove that they don't know how society works let alone functions in order to create what we call Western Civilization. Like Leftists, they yearn for "liberation" but in the end they destroy everything. It's similar when a bunch of millennials and aging hippies gloat that "they know how the economy" works when defending "free" education and healthcare.
Poster by the name of "Terrence Allen" went full-retard over at Throne & Altar.
He posts -
Dear, Allah, where do I begin? I can picture this guy now, in a church, out of all the places, acting like a legit racist, in his mind puffing out his chest as he "stone faced" the Negroes and Coloreds. Did bring anti-septic to wash his hands with? His post strongly reminded me of the scene in Remember the Titans when Gerry Bertier was going to go play basketball with Julius Campbell to which Bertier's mother objected. Bertier responded that if she only got to know Campbell she wouldn't act this way. "I don't want to get to know him," the mother proclaimed, forcing her son to attend church instead.
I'm not sure if this guy's a Catholic, but it's something I'd expect some Southern Baptist to do. Even his name sorta screams "white guy with a Confederate flag and a white supremacist." Terrence Allen. Wow. Where is that Natalie Portman gif? Ah, here it is.
She's Jewish so that's some irony there.
Bonald, the headmaster of the site, I don't think is a racist, though his view of a monarchy has attracted some losers to his site - "thordaddy" (which other posters have verbally confronted him of his obsession with white nationalism, basically saying he's one annoying shit) and Terrence, Terrence being the worse of the two.
At first I thought Terrence was joking, but then he wrote "14/88." Immediately I thought this was strange and had to mean something, so I googled it. Apparently it's a strong indicator of a Neo-Nazi. There are white nationalists and then there are Neo-Nazis/racists. 14/88 should be your big clue on how to differentiate the two.
Terrence Allen is the type of person that anyone with half a mind should reject and condemn. He is a pimple on The Right's race and actually adds to the animosity towards the Confederate flag (I'm quite indifferent about it despite me living above the Mason-Dixie line) and Southerners. I am disappointed that Bonald did not say anything about Allen's post, but as I discovered it's all fair game.
Here he states (bold: my emphasis) -
The danger when Christians form an alliance with liberals is that
Christianity will end up being redefined as the spiritual endorsement of
liberalism. Not every anti-Islamic conservative falls into this
trap–Larry Auster, Lydia McGrew, and Alan Roebuck are good examples of
conservatives who have sounded alarms against advancing Muhammedan
hordes without falling into the Left. From a traditionalist
perspective, there’s nothing wrong with accusing Muslims of violating
the natural law, being a false religion, or just being incompatible with
the majority culture. On the other hand, it is very easy to slip into
the prejudices of the surrounding culture, and start criticizing Muslims
for being insufficiently committed to free speech, gay rights, and
public nudity. The rule I would suggest is this: before you criticize
Muslims for something, ask yourself if the criticism would also apply to
conservative Christians circa 1800. If so, you’ve slipped into
liberalism. This danger is very real.
Is Bolland alluding that Christians circa 1800 basically acted like Muslims, and that now they're "more advanced" aka more tolerant of such things? He outright said that Christians shouldn't condemn Muslims because that would be hypocritical, reaching back to a time whe
Bolland writes on his homepage
If you’ve always felt like there’s something wrong with women soldiers,
open marriages, state-sponsored blasphemy, public nudity, and
kindergarteners practicing putting condoms on bananas, but you felt that
it is “irrational” or “intolerant” to criticize these things, guess
what: you’re not crazy.
In the great irony, Bolland himself slips into liberalism (or maybe I'm operating on a different definition of 'liberalism' than he is). To criticize such things is, as he puts is, "irrational" and "intolerant." What exactly would Bolland say about kindergartners putting condoms on bananas? I don't know. I suppose he'd just object to it but wouldn't actually object to it. He'd just shrug his shoulders and say, "If I were to criticize I'd slip into liberalism."
Like Vox Day, Bolland is not married, never was married and has no kids. I suppose the saving grace is that he isn't a prog and that he's a Catholic (a Catholic who things he can run the organization as if he holds an MBA from Harvard).
And, as expected, Bolland is a "no country" type. Now, I can't say I despise "no country" types (the cousins of "global citizens") but I do have a decent amout of irritation with them. They're practically useless. Given his long and somewhat boring "how-I-became-a-reactionary" story no wonder he's never been married (he has expressed being socially awkward amongst the opposite sex, poor bastard).
With that said I don't feel bad for getting personal. If modern liberalism mocks (American) mainstream conservatism about "going back to the good old days" aka 1950s, or even the Bronze Age if we talk about the advancement of science, I think the world that Bolland wants, as one online poster puts it, is truly a "fantasyland." Bolland is a wannabe knight but doesn't have the balls to pick up a sword or even has the skill to make a mad banner to attach to a medieval herald trumpet.
An intellectual who doesn't have tenure (the man has a Phd), no kids and has never married. He isn't even published. Sigh.
But still, I enjoy Bolland's site and his words even if I disagree with them. His site is his "contribution" to society (though he'd probably rant that society is beyond saving) and I thank him for that. Better be an alt-right loser than a prog.
Catholic Answers: A bunch of DNC sympathizers.
Fisheaters: A bunch of "no country" Catholics.
Let me explain. People posting in CA's secular forum are pretty much obsessed with Donal Trump. Not in the "The Donald" way, but in a OH GOD THIS IS WHAT THE BASTARD SAID! Fisheaters tend to attract more traditional Catholics who are more aware of The Left, with a touch of 'alt-right' but not in a good way. This 'alt-right' is home to somebitches who have some odd interpretation of what the Civil War meant, bemoan that there is no third party (fair enough, but the way they do it so pathetic) and no longer can be deemed as patriotic. Their country isn't the USA; it is seen as a lifeless body in which they supposedly happen to live in.
Instead of hating on the United States that it isn't like Western Europe, New Zealand or South Africa, or even Brazil, like Leftists do the Fisheater political aware poster doesn't believe it's been a real nation since 1865. Instead of omitting God (as would the ardent atheist/secularist/humanist ... whatever they call themselves) when he says the pledge of allegiance he omits "indivisible" and "one nation." These people I call "government sedevacantists."
These two distinct types do have one thing in common, besides trying to be the best Catholics they can be: They make note that they aren't happy with the current slate of POTUS nominees. Some on CA will be sympathetic to Sanders because they went full retard and think that doing God's will is enacting "fairness" and a "living wage" aka socialism. Fisheaters, acting like weird-ass political outliers, think that every (R) candidate is filled with corruption. Basically, these people don't vote. Then they have the audacity to moan about how America is a godforsaken land.
Oddly enough I have more qualms with the fisheater type. He's more hardheaded and plays his own version of "want your cake and eat it too." In some striking ways he is the same at the Leftist who hate's American for not being like Sweden, Norway or Iceland. At least those who subscribe to Western Europe bowing tells the world what they want; the political fisheater doesn't broadcast what he wants America to be, just that it "it's lost" and that his version of patriotism really doesn't do anything besides bitching about how every politician is bought-and-sold.
Of course, like every jaded poster, he tends to express his heart either in his handle or avatar (again, like secular Leftists - with the "A" for atheist for their avatar, or maybe the popular Spaghetti Monster). Notice the stars in the American flag are replaced by the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Remember, this government sedevacantist is only loyal to his state and the RCC. The stars representing each state means nothing to him because the US was lost in 1865.
Let's look at headmaster of fisheasters, Vox, thoughts on the term Judeo-Christianity. Gone full retard? I'll leave that up you to decide.
Posters like Vox and the government sedevacantists are modernists/leftists in their own special way despite adhering to traditional Catholicism: They dismiss any patriotism and make up their own version of it, sorta like Leftists when it comes to family and marriage. They are no better than their Leftist counterparts.
And it takes a son of immigrants to show how idiotic the "American Dream is Dead" types are. The poster "Might_4_Right" has an Italy flag for his location. An American expat in Italy, maybe? If he is then he's the last person who should talk (e,g Vox Day). A coward who left for "greener pastures." If he's indeed a foreigner then he's the same anti-American European who just drinks the BBC-esque Kool-Aid.
