Can a person who is a conservative republican be happy as a social worker? In my social work studies I already feel like everything I’m learning goes against what I believe.
Can a liberal agnostic social worker provide appropriate, strengths based, compassionate Care to a religious fundamentalist conservative client? Yep. When I'm in that position I just remember that it is not about ME or what I believe it is about the client and empowering them to achieve their goals.I have known many conservative Republicans who have really enjoyed helping people. A huge pillar of the Republican belief system is that people are healthier and happier when they get off their bottoms and do things for themselves. Strengths based social work is in no way antithetical to that way of thinking. The main difference is social workers try to not pre-judge anyone or assume that they are responsible for the situation they are in, but both a social worker and a typical Republican would ask a client, “so, what are you ready to do about your situation?”Cops are often the most racist/prejudiced people you will meet because they are exposed to people at their worst. If you are not of a certain race/group and most of your experience with people of that group are with people who are acting like their worst selves you will naturally form a negative opinion of that group.In social work you will have some general conservative pre-conceptions heavily challenged and deeply reinforced. You will generally see people at a low moment in their lives but you will be privileged and amazed to see the incredible resilience of people.There are so many kinds of social work and so many ways to help that you can pick a population that you find it naturally easier to empathize with, (eg kids with cancer, the elderly, disabled veterans) and focus your work with them.As long as you can love empowering people to achieve their goals and you can treat each client as an individual who you can learn from you can stay a Republican and be a heck of a social worker. The conservative social worker club may be small but I think they are probably just as happy as the rest of us.
What do Conservatives conserve?
What do Conservatives Conserve ? 1. Conservatives strive to conserve Moral Ethics and Values. Conservative have 2000 years of history, and have seen time and again civilizations go under due to a moral degeneracy. 2. Conservatives which to Conserve what is working, what is good, what has emerged and functions, in spite of mankind being essentially cruel, violent, mistrustful and lazy.The Left sees progress as just eliminating what is bad, what is not working according to them. That would allow society to prosper on its own, since they believe men to be born good, honest and hard working.3. Conservatives which to Conserve first principles. When things go wrong, their first reaction is to analyze if society has not strayed from course.It's what we call "back to basics" analysis, which many confuse with always looking to tradition and to the past.Not really. If the "back to basics" analysis proves that society has followed time tested rules, and problems still persists, then and only then, do they investigate the possibility of changing the rules. That is the original meaning of Religion, re ligare, re connect, for those that have gone astray.4. Conservatives believe that one learns from example, of others, not from ideas and ideology.5. Conservatives believe one learns from the shoulders of giants, the knowledge they believ should be conserved up to that moment, and not base a new concept of society on half backed Ideias of "revolutionaries"6. Conservatives wish to conserve "good practices", "bench marks" , and "perfect examples"7. Conservatives wish to conserve intimacy and human cooperation, and will never gossip or reveal secrets of prior bosses or allies, even if they become enemies. 8. Conservatives believe that progress is incremental, modifying or conserving what already exists.Revolutionaries believe in radical chances, and help us God.9. Conservatives do not believe in conserving status quo. That is a human trait, even leftist wish their children will follow their steps.What conservatives have seen over 2000 years is how families and nations destroy wealth, become poor again in 3 generations, by gambling, womanizing, drinking, spending etc.They believe that becoming rich is not the real problem, but returning back to poverty in 3 generations is. In that sense, conservatists are one ahead of Leftists, who are worried in making everybody rich, forgetting that all of us are descendents of rich families who have become once again poor.
How truthful is the plant based documentary, "What the Health"?
Read this excellent article, 'A Vegan Dietitian Reviews “What the Health”: Repeated blunders and bad science make What the Health impossible to recommend'. https://www.vegan.com/posts/vegan-dietit... As to your other question - in my experience most people who give up being vegan become vegetarian rather than returning to eating meat. But that's just my experience. I'm aware of one study whose findings indicate that most vegetarians revert to including some meat in their diets; it included vegans, vegetarians and pescatarians rather than limiting itself to vegans. Are there other such studies? If you know of any, can you link to some please?
What is the most outrageous lie a politician has recently told?
Given the political climate of today, this is one tough question.House Speaker (R-FL) José Oliva recently referred to pregnant women as a “host body;” a fetus as “an additional life;” and finally said, “…one has to think, until what time does the host body have veto power over this other life?”Not only is the phraseology demeaning; there are several lies inherent: The biological definition of a host is “an organism that harbors another organism inside his/her body.” This is an equal opportunity position, by the way: Both women and men can be hosts to a variety of parasites.This would mean that, 1) if women are host bodies, then fetuses are parasites; 2) men, for some unknown reason, cannot host this particular parasite (temporarily referred to as “fetusite”); 3) we need scientific studies to determine why men are resistant to the fetusite; 4) if women and men are really considered equal, then no expense can be spared in this effort to solve the fetusite mystery — a mystery including, but not limited to, the following…A. Overt gender discrimination by the fetusite: These little organisms invariably live in women; not in men.B. In spite of this shunning of the male body, men are obsessive about protecting the fetusite.C. To be fair, there are also women who obsess over the rights of the fetusite.D. As soon as the fetusite leaves the host body, both genders lose interest in that particular organism. Both genders will, however look for another fetusite to protect.I suggest that if this mystery is left unsolved, a dangerous precedent will be set: Tapeworms, deer ticks, etc. could become members of this protected class of parasites, over which the host body may not have veto power. At this point, maybe the male body will have its veto power removed or restricted, too, by obsessive “pro-lifers” cooing over how cute the cancer cells are, and of course they have the right to develop and realize their full potential.Then, again, maybe women aren’t host bodies and fetuses aren’t parasites. But we have to know, one way or the other, so I’m declaring a national emergency. All funds presently up for diversion to the border wall should, instead, be diverted to studying the mystery of the fetusite.And I’ll bet you thought I would simply pick one of the baker’s dozen of lies (t)Rump and his fellow republican’ts tell every day. Heck, that would have been too easy.
Why do Democrats have a problem with "alternative facts" (also known as “lies”)?
The phrase “alternative facts”, as applied, is an oxymoron. Let’s look at how it originated.White House press secretary Sean Spicer, when talking about President Trump’s inauguration, claimed that "this was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period."[1]This claim flies in the face of any observations that can be made personally by one’s eye. See for yourself:Source: White House accuses media of playing down inauguration crowds.Caption:A combination of photos taken at the National Mall shows the crowds attending the inauguration ceremonies to swear in U.S. President Donald Trump at 12:01pm (L) on January 20, 2017 and President Barack Obama sometime between 12:07pm and 12:26pm on January 20, 2009, in Washington, U.S., REUTERS/Lucas Jackson (L), Stelios Varias/File PhotoFurthermore, news outlets quickly chimed in to fact-check the claims Spicer made.[2]Trump senior adviser Kellyanne Conway then defended the claims on an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press.[3]Conway:" Sean Spicer, our press secretary -- gave alternative facts to that"So not only did Conway deny that Spicer made false claims, she called his false claims “alternative facts”.Even Forbes, a largely conservative magazine, was befuddled.[4]THAT is why Democrats have a problem with alternative facts. The phrase is associated with painting untruths as truth. How can a fact be alternative???There is no alternative to the truth; there are no alternative facts. When the other side can simply call lies alternative facts to refute our statements, then there is nothing we can do to have a logical, rational debate.I understand some people call facts “alternative facts” as a way to draw attention to the fact that these “alternative facts” are ignored by mainstream media. This is however a terrible way to convey such a meaning considering the negative connotation the phrase has as a result of its origin. Just call them facts and be prepared to defend their validity; calling them alternative facts isn’t helping you make your points.Footnotes[1] Sean Spicer: Trump inauguration had largest audience ever - CNN Video[2] Fact check: The controversy over Trump's inauguration crowd size[3] Conway: Press Secretary Gave 'Alternative Facts'[4] 'Alternative Facts' May Be The End Of Trustworthy Government Data