How Hollywood Thinks We Live

Off Topic
81

[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
lostinthought wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
lostinthought wrote:
Professor X wrote:

The OP sounds like a rich kid.

To this day I can’t stand people who grew up devoid of any knowledge that most people aren’t as well off or anywhere near it.

Agreed. I’ve talked to a lot of social workers…Tons actually since I’m one also. But they’ll come back with pics of a home which they think is dirty and un fit for kids. And after arguing with them, I start to realize ok, they grew up with money and think anything less than what they had, is unfit. Some people can’t realize it’s OK to live differently.

Look, lady. I worked in social services from IV-A to IV-D to IV-E. I’m not talking about what’s fit for kids and what’s not fit for kids. I was talking about how supposedly middle-class people are protrayed in movies, for Christ’s sake! There is a difference between what’s cluttered and unoranized and what’s unsafe for kids.

Not only have done home visits but I’ve adopted a child. I never said anything is unsafe for kids. Rat poison on the floor is unsafe for kids. Open windows on the third floor are unsafe for kids. Five foster-kids and one stoned parent…that’s usafe. And it’s also not what I was talking about.

What the hell is this? I can’t even make any sense out of it…? OP, learn to spell and use grammar.

Wait. I glanced at your profile and I think you’re actually a dude. I think you’re pissed off that I called you ‘lady’. Either that or you’re pissed because, well, you look like a ‘lady’. Also forgive my hurried typing and typos. I get worked up when a man who looks like a woman talks out of his asshole. And if you are a woman, well, good luck with that, too.

For future reference, social worker:

Title IV-D = Child Support
Title IV-A = Public Assistance / TANF
IV-E = Foster Care

Special Bonus!

Title XX = Child Care

Good luck with the career in social work. It might help the people you serve if you actually paid attention to public policy once every few decades.

He said absolutely nothing to offend you, he was just pointing out that one person’s idea of disgusting filth might seem perfectly fine to another person.

You got all caught up in the social worker aspect of it and started being a huge asshole. Get over yourself prick, just because you started the thread doesn’t mean you get to dictate how people respond.
[/quote]

Oh, okay! So it is “he”!

82

[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
lostinthought wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
lostinthought wrote:
Professor X wrote:

The OP sounds like a rich kid.

To this day I can’t stand people who grew up devoid of any knowledge that most people aren’t as well off or anywhere near it.

Agreed. I’ve talked to a lot of social workers…Tons actually since I’m one also. But they’ll come back with pics of a home which they think is dirty and un fit for kids. And after arguing with them, I start to realize ok, they grew up with money and think anything less than what they had, is unfit. Some people can’t realize it’s OK to live differently.

Look, lady. I worked in social services from IV-A to IV-D to IV-E. I’m not talking about what’s fit for kids and what’s not fit for kids. I was talking about how supposedly middle-class people are protrayed in movies, for Christ’s sake! There is a difference between what’s cluttered and unoranized and what’s unsafe for kids.

Not only have done home visits but I’ve adopted a child. I never said anything is unsafe for kids. Rat poison on the floor is unsafe for kids. Open windows on the third floor are unsafe for kids. Five foster-kids and one stoned parent…that’s usafe. And it’s also not what I was talking about.

What the hell is this? I can’t even make any sense out of it…? OP, learn to spell and use grammar.

Wait. I glanced at your profile and I think you’re actually a dude. I think you’re pissed off that I called you ‘lady’. Either that or you’re pissed because, well, you look like a ‘lady’. Also forgive my hurried typing and typos. I get worked up when a man who looks like a woman talks out of his asshole. And if you are a woman, well, good luck with that, too.

For future reference, social worker:

Title IV-D = Child Support
Title IV-A = Public Assistance / TANF
IV-E = Foster Care

Special Bonus!

Title XX = Child Care

Good luck with the career in social work. It might help the people you serve if you actually paid attention to public policy once every few decades.

He said absolutely nothing to offend you, he was just pointing out that one person’s idea of disgusting filth might seem perfectly fine to another person.

You got all caught up in the social worker aspect of it and started being a huge asshole. Get over yourself prick, just because you started the thread doesn’t mean you get to dictate how people respond.
[/quote]

Thank you MarvelGirl…I have no idea on earth why the OP is taking issue with the things I’ve said. It honestly is baffling, but just shows he’s a dick and wanting to argue about things.

But to respond to OP dick, I’ve been a social worker for 12 years so I think I’m doing just fine. I work in child protection, not assistance as you said you did. So you don’t know anything about what I do. But that really has nothing to do with the topic, or again, with why you’re upset, other than you just being an asshole who can’t spell and type correctly.

83

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Otep wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I get where you’re going with this, OP.

Remember “American Beauty?” Everyone in the suburbs is a closeted homosexual, a pedophile, an adulterous career woman, etc. “Hollywood” is the west side of Los Angeles (usually north of the 10 fwy) where all of the “industry people” in “show business” live. They tend to have a lot of money or put on a front like they do and are really disinterested in anything outside of their own insular world.

How do you and others take one movie and act like ALL movies are made this way? I keep pointing to the blockbusters over the last 2 or 3 years and they do NOT seem to have the issues you think plague all of Hollywood. Even here you had to go back to 1999…A WHOLE DECADE AGO to talk about American Beauty. No other movies that did well at the box office that show this in 10 years?

  1. PRC’s point was somewhat tangential, and displays the surburban lifestyle instead of ‘realistic’ one the OP initally ranted about.
  2. Very rarely are movies ABOUT a lifestyle. More often, they involve very select situations (star wars, James Bond, Batman… or… Harry Potter, I guess)
  3. More recent examples of PRC’s point:

Mr. & Mrs. Smith
Guess Who
Burn After Reading
The House that Preys
The Dying Gaul (Excellent play, have not seen the movie)

All of which typify the rich, surbaban lot as not even remotely human (as shown in their inability to have honest relationships with each other. Guess Who may be an exception

Don’t forget “Babel” and “Crash”[/quote]

I did not see Babel.

Crash should have gone on the list though. Good point.

84

Quick point. I could very easily get pissed off about how my state, or the south in general, is portrayed by Hollywood. Meh, why let them get to you.

Plus, we have Billy Bob there to represent.

85

[quote]AngryVader wrote:
malonetd wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
malonetd wrote:
I never heard of any of these movies.

You married?

Umm, sort of. Are they movies only married people watch?

Not at all. I’ve seen both The Savages and Smart People, although this is likely not a surprise to anyone that follows my posts in the ‘Movies’ thread.
[/quote]

Yeah, but you don’t count. You’ve seen every movie.

86

[quote]lostinthought wrote:

But to respond to OP dick, I’ve been a social worker for 12 years so I think I’m doing just fine. I work in child protection, not assistance as you said you did. So you don’t know anything about what I do. But that really has nothing to do with the topic, or again, with why you’re upset, other than you just being an asshole who can’t spell and type correctly. [/quote]

Good to see u posting again lostinthought, u work in a really difficult job, all the best for the future.

87

[quote]lostinthought wrote:
MarvelGirl wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
lostinthought wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
lostinthought wrote:
Professor X wrote:

The OP sounds like a rich kid.

To this day I can’t stand people who grew up devoid of any knowledge that most people aren’t as well off or anywhere near it.

Agreed. I’ve talked to a lot of social workers…Tons actually since I’m one also. But they’ll come back with pics of a home which they think is dirty and un fit for kids. And after arguing with them, I start to realize ok, they grew up with money and think anything less than what they had, is unfit. Some people can’t realize it’s OK to live differently.

Look, lady. I worked in social services from IV-A to IV-D to IV-E. I’m not talking about what’s fit for kids and what’s not fit for kids. I was talking about how supposedly middle-class people are protrayed in movies, for Christ’s sake! There is a difference between what’s cluttered and unoranized and what’s unsafe for kids.

Not only have done home visits but I’ve adopted a child. I never said anything is unsafe for kids. Rat poison on the floor is unsafe for kids. Open windows on the third floor are unsafe for kids. Five foster-kids and one stoned parent…that’s usafe. And it’s also not what I was talking about.

What the hell is this? I can’t even make any sense out of it…? OP, learn to spell and use grammar.

Wait. I glanced at your profile and I think you’re actually a dude. I think you’re pissed off that I called you ‘lady’. Either that or you’re pissed because, well, you look like a ‘lady’. Also forgive my hurried typing and typos. I get worked up when a man who looks like a woman talks out of his asshole. And if you are a woman, well, good luck with that, too.

For future reference, social worker:

Title IV-D = Child Support
Title IV-A = Public Assistance / TANF
IV-E = Foster Care

Special Bonus!

Title XX = Child Care

Good luck with the career in social work. It might help the people you serve if you actually paid attention to public policy once every few decades.

He said absolutely nothing to offend you, he was just pointing out that one person’s idea of disgusting filth might seem perfectly fine to another person.

You got all caught up in the social worker aspect of it and started being a huge asshole. Get over yourself prick, just because you started the thread doesn’t mean you get to dictate how people respond.

Thank you MarvelGirl…I have no idea on earth why the OP is taking issue with the things I’ve said. It honestly is baffling, but just shows he’s a dick and wanting to argue about things.

But to respond to OP dick, I’ve been a social worker for 12 years so I think I’m doing just fine. I work in child protection, not assistance as you said you did. So you don’t know anything about what I do. But that really has nothing to do with the topic, or again, with why you’re upset, other than you just being an asshole who can’t spell and type correctly. [/quote]

It’s a message board on the Internet, He/She. Relax with the typos. And child protection is a part of one of the programs that I mentioned, genius. You can look it up to discover which. Not knowing which government programs you are facilitating might betray slightly more ignorance than a mis-spelled word. And perhaps you should double-check your own work now and again.

88

[quote]dumbbellhead wrote:
Quick point. I could very easily get pissed off about how my state, or the south in general, is portrayed by Hollywood. Meh, why let them get to you.

Plus, we have Billy Bob there to represent.[/quote]

I agree with regards to the portrayal of the south in Hollywood. It seems as if they just do not get it, almost as if they are writing/directing/acting about things that happened millennia ago by a now extinct race, speaking a dead language. I have a friend from Mississippi and he likes to say that his state is ‘terra incognita’ for Hollywood.

I don’t let it get to me, really. It’s just kind of fun to rail about stuff that, in the end, does not matter. There are enough serious issues to get pissed off and/or worry about to let things like this really get to you, eh?

89

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:

For future reference, social worker:

Title IV-D = Child Support
Title IV-A = Public Assistance / TANF
IV-E = Foster Care

Special Bonus!

Title XX = Child Care

Good luck with the career in social work. It might help the people you serve if you actually paid attention to public policy once every few decades. [/quote]

I’m also a social worker (outpatient clinician) and I didn’t know what you were talking about either, though I’ve read a great many policy articles in the present decade. At work, when we need to know if a child is in foster care, we say something along the lines of “Is Johnny in foster care?”

Or if we’re talking to another professional and using our special social worker in-speak we might tell someone “Johnny is DCF-involved, he’s been in and out of foster care.” Last time a client mentioned TANF, she said something like “I’m on welfare.” To which I might have responded, “Oh, well, then you should be eligible for Medicaid. They’ll cover Johnny’s glasses.” It would be silly to call it “Title XIX.”

DSM diagnoses are important where I work. Everyone has to have an Axis I diagnosis to receive services. But we don’t go around saying “I’ve got someone coming in, an Axix I 300.4.” We say “she’s dysthymic” or “she’s depressed.”

I’m really struggling with this thread. I sort of agreed with you (or at least saw how you could view things the way you did) and thought it was an interesting topic. But you’ve engaged in nastiness with everyone who’s disagreed with you.

How come?

90

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:

For future reference, social worker:

Title IV-D = Child Support
Title IV-A = Public Assistance / TANF
IV-E = Foster Care

Special Bonus!

Title XX = Child Care

Good luck with the career in social work. It might help the people you serve if you actually paid attention to public policy once every few decades.

I’m also a social worker (outpatient clinician) and I didn’t know what you were talking about either, though I’ve read a great many policy articles in the present decade. At work, when we need to know if a child is in foster care, we say something along the lines of “Is Johnny in foster care?” Or if we’re talking to another professional and using our special social worker in-speak we might tell someone “Johnny is DCF-involved, he’s been in and out of foster care.” Last time a client mentioned TANF, she said something like “I’m on welfare.” To which I might have responded, “Oh, well, then you should be eligible for Medicaid. They’ll cover Johnny’s glasses.” It would be silly to call it “Title XIX.”

DSM diagnoses are important where I work. Everyone has to have an Axis I diagnosis to receive services. But we don’t go around saying “I’ve got someone coming in, an Axix I 300.4.” We say “she’s dysthymic” or “she’s depressed.”

I’m really struggling with this thread. I sort of agreed with you (or at least saw how you could view things the way you did) and thought it was an interesting topic. But you’ve engaged in nastiness with everyone who’s disagreed with you.

How come?
[/quote]

Agreed it would be silly to refer to the Social Security Act designations (i.e. Title IV-E, etc.) when dealing with clients/recipients. On the other hand it should be important, from a documentary and educational perspective, to know which programs (and their federal designations, etc.) you are facilitating. It’s how you access changes in public policy (there have been sweeping changes to all SSA programs through FSA88, PRWORA, and most recently, the Deficit Reduction Act). Not knowing such designations would make it impossible to access and understand changes and impacts to existing programs, funding streams, etc.

But, perhaps I am looking at things from a more administrative, public policy focused perspective. I began my career in public service working a file room. I then became a caseworker, then moved the state level, federal level, etc. I’m now in consulting, dealing mainly with public policy and systems (MIS). Of course I have great respect for what workers do at the local/county level. But I also have many frustrations with regards to how public policy, programs, aid, customer service, client relations, caseloads, etc. are managed at that level. And I also have issues with the current workforce and a seemingly pervasive resistence to the use of technology, AS WELL as an ignorance of statue, rule, and policy. Knowledge of which should be requisite to the job.

I’m not passing judgement on you. There is a significant percentage of staff that I feel are making great strides in moving programs forward at the local level, although the hiring of many qualified individuals is stifled right now by rampant state budget issues. Another obstacle: The pay must improve for these positions. See my comments on budgets to understand why this is - currently - a losing proposition. That said, I’ve also experienced my share of sanctimonious caseworkers, lectures at the ready. “I’m sick of people who…” and “You don’t know what you’re talking about! I’m out there!” Right or wrong (probably wrong) I probably perceived and reacted to ‘lostinthought’ based on my experience with individuals such as this. A gut reaction, to be certain. Got out of hand. I’m sorry for that.

Most of what I say in threads such as this is tongue-in-cheek. I don’t regard the original topic as a serious one, therefore I simply enjoy the debate (over what amounts to nothing).

On a serious note, I do value your service.

91

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:

Agreed it would be silly to refer to the Social Security Act designations (i.e. Title IV-E, etc.) when dealing with clients/recipients. On the other hand it should be important, from a documentary and educational perspective, to know which programs (and their federal designations, etc.) you are facilitating. It’s how you access changes in public policy (there have been sweeping changes to all SSA programs through FSA88, PRWORA, and most recently, the Deficit Reduction Act). Not knowing such designations would make it impossible to access and understand changes and impacts to existing programs, funding streams, etc.

But, perhaps I am looking at things from a more administrative, public policy focused perspective. I began my career in public service working a file room. I then became a caseworker, then moved the state level, federal level, etc. I’m now in consulting, dealing mainly with public policy and systems (MIS). Of course I have great respect for what workers do at the local/county level. But I also have many frustrations with regards to how public policy, programs, aid, customer service, client relations, caseloads, etc. are managed at that level. And I also have issues with the current workforce and a seemingly pervasive resistence to the use of technology, AS WELL as an ignorance of statue, rule, and policy. Knowledge of which should be requisite to the job.

I’m not passing judgement on you. There is a significant percentage of staff that I feel are making great strides in moving programs forward at the local level, although the hiring of many qualified individuals is stifled right now by rampant state budget issues. Another obstacle: The pay must improve for these positions. See my comments on budgets to understand why this is - currently - a losing proposition. That said, I’ve also experienced my share of sanctimonious caseworkers, lectures at the ready. “I’m sick of people who…” and “You don’t know what you’re talking about! I’m out there!” Right or wrong (probably wrong) I probably perceived and reacted to ‘lostinthought’ based on my experience with individuals such as this. A gut reaction, to be certain. Got out of hand. I’m sorry for that.

Most of what I say in threads such as this is tongue-in-cheek. I don’t regard the original topic as a serious one, therefore I simply enjoy the debate (over what amounts to nothing).

On a serious note, I do value your service. [/quote]

ProwlCat, I appreciate your support, but really it’s not necessary. I love what I do and am grateful to be able to do it. I don’t consider it a sacrifice or a service.

You missed my point entirely, which was that people don’t typically talk in the numeric jargon or billing code of their professions. That I’m involved in social work was really secondary. When someone from our billing department asks me what my three o’clock was yesterday I might answer “a 104,” but when people ask me what I do at work I don’t say “mostly 104s and 107s, occasionally a 153.” No. I would say “mostly individual and family therapy, occasionally group therapy.” Medicaid is especially important to me, but I still don’t speak its code unless I’m speaking to people as immersed in it as I am. We all have different jobs. You get paid to know your codes, I get paid to know mine. Professor X is a dentist. If I ever talk about teeth to him, I hope he’ll use words like “incisor” or “wisdom teeth” rather than calling them by their numbers.

I think you’ve fallen into the same trap you did with the movies. You’re viewing something from a very narrow perspective and making the assumption that others should see what you do and are somehow at fault if they don’t.

92

[quote]Otep wrote:

I did not see Babel.

Crash should have gone on the list though. Good point.[/quote]

Babel was a hoot - not because it is good, but because the director’s own ethnocentrism could not have been more apparent. Everyone American and white in the movie is portrayed in some sort of absurd caricature and the Mexicans are noble victims and teach the spoiled rich white people a thing or two about what it means to be truly human and form normal relationships - kind of like other movies you and I have mentioned on the thread. Looking at some of the director’s other movies:

I’m starting to notice a pattern.

93

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Otep wrote:

I did not see Babel.

Crash should have gone on the list though. Good point.

Babel was a hoot - not because it is good, but because the director’s own ethnocentrism could not have been more apparent. Everyone American and white in the movie is portrayed in some sort of absurd caricature and the Mexicans are noble victims and teach the spoiled rich white people a thing or two about what it means to be truly human and form normal relationships - kind of like other movies you and I have mentioned on the thread. Looking at some of the director’s other movies:

I’m starting to notice a pattern. [/quote]

Yeah, the little middle eastern boy jacking off to his sister and shooting at a bus was portrayed in such a positive light. Same for the mute japanese school girl getting drunk and throwing herself at random guys.

God that movie sucked ass.

94

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:

Agreed it would be silly to refer to the Social Security Act designations (i.e. Title IV-E, etc.) when dealing with clients/recipients. On the other hand it should be important, from a documentary and educational perspective, to know which programs (and their federal designations, etc.) you are facilitating. It’s how you access changes in public policy (there have been sweeping changes to all SSA programs through FSA88, PRWORA, and most recently, the Deficit Reduction Act). Not knowing such designations would make it impossible to access and understand changes and impacts to existing programs, funding streams, etc.

But, perhaps I am looking at things from a more administrative, public policy focused perspective. I began my career in public service working a file room. I then became a caseworker, then moved the state level, federal level, etc. I’m now in consulting, dealing mainly with public policy and systems (MIS). Of course I have great respect for what workers do at the local/county level. But I also have many frustrations with regards to how public policy, programs, aid, customer service, client relations, caseloads, etc. are managed at that level. And I also have issues with the current workforce and a seemingly pervasive resistence to the use of technology, AS WELL as an ignorance of statue, rule, and policy. Knowledge of which should be requisite to the job.

I’m not passing judgement on you. There is a significant percentage of staff that I feel are making great strides in moving programs forward at the local level, although the hiring of many qualified individuals is stifled right now by rampant state budget issues. Another obstacle: The pay must improve for these positions. See my comments on budgets to understand why this is - currently - a losing proposition. That said, I’ve also experienced my share of sanctimonious caseworkers, lectures at the ready. “I’m sick of people who…” and “You don’t know what you’re talking about! I’m out there!” Right or wrong (probably wrong) I probably perceived and reacted to ‘lostinthought’ based on my experience with individuals such as this. A gut reaction, to be certain. Got out of hand. I’m sorry for that.

Most of what I say in threads such as this is tongue-in-cheek. I don’t regard the original topic as a serious one, therefore I simply enjoy the debate (over what amounts to nothing).

On a serious note, I do value your service.

ProwlCat, I appreciate your support, but really it’s not necessary. I love what I do and am grateful to be able to do it. I don’t consider it a sacrifice or a service.

You missed my point entirely, which was that people don’t typically talk in the numeric jargon or billing code of their professions. That I’m involved in social work was really secondary. When someone from our billing department asks me what my three o’clock was yesterday I might answer “a 104,” but when people ask me what I do at work I don’t say “mostly 104s and 107s, occasionally a 153.” No. I would say “mostly individual and family therapy, occasionally group therapy.” Medicaid is especially important to me, but I still don’t speak its code unless I’m speaking to people as immersed in it as I am. We all have different jobs. You get paid to know your codes, I get paid to know mine. Professor X is a dentist. If I ever talk about teeth to him, I hope he’ll use words like “incisor” or “wisdom teeth” rather than calling them by their numbers.

I think you’ve fallen into the same trap you did with the movies. You’re viewing something from a very narrow perspective and making the assumption that others should see what you do and are somehow at fault if they don’t.
[/quote]

Best post. It is as if they assume that no one they are speaking to could possibly have more experience or education than they have. I guess I saw the “asshole” in his original post easier than some.

95

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I guess I saw the “asshole” in his original post easier than some.[/quote]

Does this fall under the ‘it takes one to know one’ category?

96

[quote]Christine wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I guess I saw the “asshole” in his original post easier than some.

Does this fall under the ‘it takes one to know one’ category?[/quote]

I’m not an asshole. I’m a “cynic-realist prone to extreme sarcasm”. “Asshole” is 5 degrees that-a-way.

97

[quote]Professor X wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:

I think you’ve fallen into the same trap you did with the movies. You’re viewing something from a very narrow perspective and making the assumption that others should see what you do and are somehow at fault if they don’t.

Best post. It is as if they assume that no one they are speaking to could possibly have more experience or education than they have. I guess I saw the “asshole” in his original post easier than some.[/quote]

x2

98

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:

Agreed it would be silly to refer to the Social Security Act designations (i.e. Title IV-E, etc.) when dealing with clients/recipients. On the other hand it should be important, from a documentary and educational perspective, to know which programs (and their federal designations, etc.) you are facilitating. It’s how you access changes in public policy (there have been sweeping changes to all SSA programs through FSA88, PRWORA, and most recently, the Deficit Reduction Act). Not knowing such designations would make it impossible to access and understand changes and impacts to existing programs, funding streams, etc.

But, perhaps I am looking at things from a more administrative, public policy focused perspective. I began my career in public service working a file room. I then became a caseworker, then moved the state level, federal level, etc. I’m now in consulting, dealing mainly with public policy and systems (MIS). Of course I have great respect for what workers do at the local/county level. But I also have many frustrations with regards to how public policy, programs, aid, customer service, client relations, caseloads, etc. are managed at that level. And I also have issues with the current workforce and a seemingly pervasive resistence to the use of technology, AS WELL as an ignorance of statue, rule, and policy. Knowledge of which should be requisite to the job.

I’m not passing judgement on you. There is a significant percentage of staff that I feel are making great strides in moving programs forward at the local level, although the hiring of many qualified individuals is stifled right now by rampant state budget issues. Another obstacle: The pay must improve for these positions. See my comments on budgets to understand why this is - currently - a losing proposition. That said, I’ve also experienced my share of sanctimonious caseworkers, lectures at the ready. “I’m sick of people who…” and “You don’t know what you’re talking about! I’m out there!” Right or wrong (probably wrong) I probably perceived and reacted to ‘lostinthought’ based on my experience with individuals such as this. A gut reaction, to be certain. Got out of hand. I’m sorry for that.

Most of what I say in threads such as this is tongue-in-cheek. I don’t regard the original topic as a serious one, therefore I simply enjoy the debate (over what amounts to nothing).

On a serious note, I do value your service.

ProwlCat, I appreciate your support, but really it’s not necessary. I love what I do and am grateful to be able to do it. I don’t consider it a sacrifice or a service.

You missed my point entirely, which was that people don’t typically talk in the numeric jargon or billing code of their professions. That I’m involved in social work was really secondary. When someone from our billing department asks me what my three o’clock was yesterday I might answer “a 104,” but when people ask me what I do at work I don’t say “mostly 104s and 107s, occasionally a 153.” No. I would say “mostly individual and family therapy, occasionally group therapy.” Medicaid is especially important to me, but I still don’t speak its code unless I’m speaking to people as immersed in it as I am. We all have different jobs. You get paid to know your codes, I get paid to know mine. Professor X is a dentist. If I ever talk about teeth to him, I hope he’ll use words like “incisor” or “wisdom teeth” rather than calling them by their numbers.

I think you’ve fallen into the same trap you did with the movies. You’re viewing something from a very narrow perspective and making the assumption that others should see what you do and are somehow at fault if they don’t.
[/quote]

I didn’t miss your point. You asked me to explain myself (relative my reaction to ‘lostinthought’), I tried to do that.

99

[quote]Professor X wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:

Agreed it would be silly to refer to the Social Security Act designations (i.e. Title IV-E, etc.) when dealing with clients/recipients. On the other hand it should be important, from a documentary and educational perspective, to know which programs (and their federal designations, etc.) you are facilitating. It’s how you access changes in public policy (there have been sweeping changes to all SSA programs through FSA88, PRWORA, and most recently, the Deficit Reduction Act). Not knowing such designations would make it impossible to access and understand changes and impacts to existing programs, funding streams, etc.

But, perhaps I am looking at things from a more administrative, public policy focused perspective. I began my career in public service working a file room. I then became a caseworker, then moved the state level, federal level, etc. I’m now in consulting, dealing mainly with public policy and systems (MIS). Of course I have great respect for what workers do at the local/county level. But I also have many frustrations with regards to how public policy, programs, aid, customer service, client relations, caseloads, etc. are managed at that level. And I also have issues with the current workforce and a seemingly pervasive resistence to the use of technology, AS WELL as an ignorance of statue, rule, and policy. Knowledge of which should be requisite to the job.

I’m not passing judgement on you. There is a significant percentage of staff that I feel are making great strides in moving programs forward at the local level, although the hiring of many qualified individuals is stifled right now by rampant state budget issues. Another obstacle: The pay must improve for these positions. See my comments on budgets to understand why this is - currently - a losing proposition. That said, I’ve also experienced my share of sanctimonious caseworkers, lectures at the ready. “I’m sick of people who…” and “You don’t know what you’re talking about! I’m out there!” Right or wrong (probably wrong) I probably perceived and reacted to ‘lostinthought’ based on my experience with individuals such as this. A gut reaction, to be certain. Got out of hand. I’m sorry for that.

Most of what I say in threads such as this is tongue-in-cheek. I don’t regard the original topic as a serious one, therefore I simply enjoy the debate (over what amounts to nothing).

On a serious note, I do value your service.

ProwlCat, I appreciate your support, but really it’s not necessary. I love what I do and am grateful to be able to do it. I don’t consider it a sacrifice or a service.

You missed my point entirely, which was that people don’t typically talk in the numeric jargon or billing code of their professions. That I’m involved in social work was really secondary. When someone from our billing department asks me what my three o’clock was yesterday I might answer “a 104,” but when people ask me what I do at work I don’t say “mostly 104s and 107s, occasionally a 153.” No. I would say “mostly individual and family therapy, occasionally group therapy.” Medicaid is especially important to me, but I still don’t speak its code unless I’m speaking to people as immersed in it as I am. We all have different jobs. You get paid to know your codes, I get paid to know mine. Professor X is a dentist. If I ever talk about teeth to him, I hope he’ll use words like “incisor” or “wisdom teeth” rather than calling them by their numbers.

I think you’ve fallen into the same trap you did with the movies. You’re viewing something from a very narrow perspective and making the assumption that others should see what you do and are somehow at fault if they don’t.

Best post. It is as if they assume that no one they are speaking to could possibly have more experience or education than they have. I guess I saw the “asshole” in his original post easier than some.[/quote]

Ouch! I guess you get ticked when you’re not getting your ass kissed! I’ll try harder next time. Let’s practice! “Gee! You sure are huge, X! And smart, too! And you come from such humble roots! Much poorer and more humble than anyone else! Welll done with the whole dentist thing! And being so huge and all! You’re AWEsome!”

100

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Otep wrote:

I did not see Babel.

Crash should have gone on the list though. Good point.

Babel was a hoot - not because it is good, but because the director’s own ethnocentrism could not have been more apparent. Everyone American and white in the movie is portrayed in some sort of absurd caricature and the Mexicans are noble victims and teach the spoiled rich white people a thing or two about what it means to be truly human and form normal relationships - kind of like other movies you and I have mentioned on the thread. Looking at some of the director’s other movies:

I’m starting to notice a pattern.

Yeah, the little middle eastern boy jacking off to his sister and shooting at a bus was portrayed in such a positive light. Same for the mute japanese school girl getting drunk and throwing herself at random guys.

God that movie sucked ass. [/quote]

Agreed. That movie was garbage. I think the fact that movie was nominated for Best Picture is better example of Hollywood being out of touch. Well, the Academy anyway. Apparently, they can’t even identify a bad movie when they see one anymore.