we need a new way to discuss important subjects and topics. too
often, we deal with single issues, one at a time. but, in the real
world, everything is intertwined.
for example, it makes no sense to speak of inner-city education
without discussing the nature of black cultural values, hispanic
cultural values, white trash cultural values. and, public education
also links up with issue of family. but, when we speak of public
education, we only talk of spending, teachers, administration,
etc. to be sure, people do bring up issue of family problems and
social problems of the larger community when discussing the issue of
education. but, we speak of them as side issues when they are central
to the issue.
instead of dealing with social issues, we should deal with social
tissues. issue-ism isolates one topic from related topics and from the
larger society. tissue-ism understands and acknowledges that social
reality is a tissue made up of many fibers--like muscle tissue.

so, instead of discussing issues based on or around a single topic,
issues should consist of the RELATIONSHIP between various social
threads. the relationship should be the MAIN topic; we must focus on
the loom and how it processes the various threads to form the fabric
than deal with single threads within the larger fabric.
it's like we can't understand a marriage by simply speaking of bob or
of jane. we must discuss the bond, the relationship, the chemistry,
the interaction, the dyamic between bob and jane. that very
interaction or the relational process IS the marriage. it makes
little sense to speak of mainly of bob and mention jane as merely a
sideshow or vice versa. marriage is the constant interactivity
between bob and jane.

similarly, it's flawed to discuss the issue of inner city education by
focusing on education as the MAIN or SEPARATE topic with everything
else being secondary. the MAIN topic or issue should be the
relationship, link, or connection between education and other forces/
factors. if we focus on education, we foolishly think that problems
can be solved by focusing on education. so, liberals call for more
spending, more teachers, more this and that. but, the fact is there
is a disconnect--a divorced reality--between education and social
reality in the black community. it makes little sense to go on and on
about educational policy when there is no respect for education in the
black community. it takes two to tango. indeed, try to discuss
dance in terms of the individual than of the partnership. dancing--
between partners anyway--is the sum of the interaction of the dancers.
similarly, educational success is the product of the school, family,
cultural values.
it makes no sense to say we must improve schools to produce better
students IF there's no functional family or cultural values that push
kids to do their homework and arrive in school on time everyday. IF
the poor are to rely more on the state, then the state must exert
greater authority to enforce its will on those helps. but, liberalism
is like a permissive parent to the poor.
liberalism is tough on those who do the right thing but goes easy on
those who do the wrong thing.
problem of liberalism is it forces productive people to pay higher
taxes but doesn't force idiots to stop having babies they cannot
support nor force black kids to come to school, respect teachers, and
do their homework. liberalism uses the threat of violence to take
money from the taxpayer, but it uses compassion when it doles out
money and services to the 'underprivileged'. if honest/hardworking
people don't pay taxes, the government will send federal agents and
policemen to our doorsteps, confiscate our property, and throw us
behind bars. so, we are forced/coerced to pay taxes to take care of
the poor. yet, there is no force used to implement programs funded by
our money on the poor. so, if our tax money is spent in neighborhoods
to help the poor, the poor just take the money but don't have to
follow any instructions. we build schools for the poor, but the poor
don't have to show up to class everyday.
if we are threatened with force to pay taxes, shouldn't force be used
to drag kids to school and make them study in the inner city? when
it comes to social programs, US government is big and fat but lacking
in muscle and bone. sad to say, but communist cuba does a better job
at teaching the three R's than american public schools. it's not
because cuban system is better funded; it most certainly is not; it
works because parents are forced to send their kids to schools and
kids are forced to study. now, we don't want that for most americans
who earn their own money and pay their own way and manage freedoms
responsibly. but, shouldn't force be used against the poor who take
government money? if we are being FORCED or threatened with force to
pay taxes to take care of the poor, why shouldn't FORCE or the threat
of force be used on the poor to make sure that our money is used
properly?
if you don't want the government to force you, make your own money and
live your own life. BUT, if you rely on the government to force
working people to pay taxes to take care of you, why should you be
free to flush all this help down the toilet? liberalism has a big fat
heart and a big fat bureaucratic ass which threatens to sit on you if
you don't pay taxes. but when it comes to taking care of the poor, it
doesn't have the strong arms to enforce its will. i'm not calling for
more government or for taking away our liberties. i'm saying that
people who want government to do more for them thru taxpayer money
should sacrifice some of their freedoms--at least until they're back
on their feet again and working for themselves. such people obviously
proved that they don't know how to handle freedom; freedom for them
means being lazy and stupid. since they can't handle freedom and feed/
clothe/house themselves and since they demand that the government use
force or threat of force to tax hardworking people to take care of
them, they shouldn't give up some of their freedoms too. if we are
forced to be 'generous', they must be forced to be 'grateful'.

consider the following scenario: there is bob and james. both are
free people. bob uses his freedom to work hard and earn his own
money. james uses his freedom to be lazy and poor. suppose the
government decides this is unfair. so, the government curtails bob's
freedom and forces him to pay 35%% of his earning to take care of
james. (taxation always violates freedom, because if we refuse to part
with our money we are dragged off to jail. in our democracy, we are
free only if we pay taxes. and in china, you are free only if you
don't criticize the government. we have to pay the government for
freedom or to be left alone; chinese have to mute their criticism of
government to be free or left alone). if bob doesn't pay this sum,
force will be used against him. gun-toting cops will arrive at his
door and arrest him. so, bob pays 35%% of his earning in taxes to enjoy
his freedom and to take care of james. since this money--forcibly
taken from bob--is being spent on james, shouldn't there be certain
conditions? since bob is being forced to be 'generous', shouldn't
james be forced to be 'grateful' and make most of this help he's
receiving? since bob had NO choice but to fork over 35%% of his
earnings--and had his freedom violated in the name of 'social
fairness'--, shouldn't james have NO choice but to make the most of
out of this help? the problem of liberalism is it calls for more
bureaucracy, more paperwork, more spending, more programs, etc BUT it
doesn't force its beneficiaries to feel grateful and make most of this
help. now, liberals will say that a democracy cannot and should not
force people to be 'good', 'hardworking', or 'virtuous'. well, our
democratic government certainly thinks it has the right to force us to
be 'generous', 'fair', 'compassionate', etc. if working people are
forced to give, why shouldn't lazy people be forced to appreciate and
make most of what they take? liberals will say the state has no
right to tell a woman not to have kids she cannot raise, but the state
obviously has the right to take OUR money--thru threat of violence--to
take care of the children that the stupid woman keeps producing.
under liberalism, ALL the burden is on the producers and NONE on the
takers. if liberals call for MORE programs for the poor, at least
call for MORE control over them also.

anyway, back to the original issue or tissue.
we are used to categorizing and classifying reality. we think in
terms of education, business, military, government, church,
entertainment, etc, etc. and of course, each of these entities
have its singularity, uniqueness, and purpose. but, they all link up
somehow. and certain links are more crucial than others. indeed, some
linkages are totally crucial.
for instance, tv can have a negative influence on kids, so there is a
linkage between popular culture and education. kids who watch too much
tv and imitate pop culture may suffer in school. but, the linkage
between tv and eduation isn't as crucial as the linkage between parent
and education. the parent can override the tv and force the kid to
study. a good parent will order the kid to turn off the tv and do the
homework. in the latter scenario, even if tv has a negative influence
on the kid's attitude and values, the kid has been taught there are
priorities in life: homework is more important that tv. so, the
connection between parenting and education is crucial.

there are different kids of relations we should consider.

there are the comparative, the connective, the contextual, and the
causative--among others.
all are useful in our understanding of social issues.

1. the comparative. this is useful in understanding why some people or
ideas work while others don't. for example, compare the educational
achievements of blacks, immigrant jews, immigrant hispanics, and
immigrant vietnamese. why is it that even when all these kids go to
the same city school, kids from certain backgrounds do much better
than other kids--despite the same teachers, same funding, same
everything? thru comparative studies, we can see why certain
arguments are essentially false. for instance, some guy wrote
recenlty about the success of vietnamese immigrants in new orleans
area. they arrived in the US with absolutely nothing. and their
ancestors had gone thru one historical trauma after another. yet, the
children of these viet folks did much better than blacks in new
orleans--even though they went to the same schools and were often
mocked and bullied by big strong blacks. why is this?
and, how come new york city colleges were superb when attended mostly
by jews but became sucky when it allowed a lot of blacks--even though
funding went up? this is where comparative discussion is important.
so, whenever some stupid liberal talks about single issues like
education, poverty, and so on, we must counter them with comparative
discourse.

2. the connective. this is about the relationship between various
elements of social reality. some are crucial, some are trivial. for
example, the book Freakonomics have shown that there is no connective
relationship between parental involvment in school activities--PTA
meetings, bake sales, etc--and student grades. but, we know there is
a close connective relationship between cultural values practiced
within the family and school grades. take some jewish family. even if
the parents never go to PTA meetings, they raise their kids to love
education and attain a sense of pride thru knowledge and intelligence;
so, kids do well.
we must try to find what the most crucial connections are in social
reality. oftentimes, it involves not only two elements but three or
four elements. and, it is this connective relationship among the
elements that produce what is desirable. for instance, a boxer needs
to learn not only how to box but to run--aerobics for stamina--,
weight training--for power--, eat right--for proper nutrition--, rest
properly between training--to repair the wear and tear. so, there is
no ONE thing that makes a successful boxer. it's a matter of various
factors all working together. certain things and the connection among
them are more crucial than other things and other connections. for
instance, yoga and meditation may help but are not crucial for a great
boxer.

3. the contextual. this is the trickiest and can easily degenerate
into excuse-making or proudful boasting. a case of contextual excuse-
making is blacks trying to explain all their failings in terms of
historical oppression or economic poverty. a case of proudful
boasting is japanese trying to explain their success in terms of
uniquess of japanese history and japanese race. whatever truth there
may be to such negative or positive contextualization, they tend to be
simplistic and even downright false/fallacious.
but, we cannot ignore context. generally speaking, closer the context
is to the subject, more relevant it is. wider the context, less
relevant/crucial it is. this is true at least in free societies. for
example, take a jew kid in the US. his immediate family is more
important than his local jewish community. also, the local jewish
community is more crucial than the loose community of worldwide jewry.
a jew is a reality unto himself, a reality within his family, within
his town, within his nation, and within the whole world. but, his
close reality is most important to him. there are exceptions in a non-
free society. a jew living under nazi rule could easily have been
more affected by the policies of larger society than by his immediate
family. whether the kid's jewish father was good or bad, nazis would
have killed the kid just the same. but, in a free democratic society,
reality immediately around you is most powerful and relevant--at least
in the formative stages. as an adult, one has greater freedom to
define one's course in life.

4. the causative. the causative link is like the connective link but
whereas connective relations tend to be parallel-ish, causative
relationships are trigger-ish. one thing crucially causes something
else. for instance, lack of exercise and eating fatty foods are
connective in producing a fat unhealthy body whereas smoking is often
the causative factor in lung cancer.

--------

we are aware of all these relationships, but most of our discussion
focuses on the single subject than on the relationships among various
subjects. so, a magazine article will have an article on 'failing
inner city schools' rather than an article on 'the relationship
between failing schools and breakdown of family and rise of gangster
ideal in pop culture'.
all social realities are interwoven of various strands of sub-
realities just like particles are made of subparticles. though each
element matters and has it own uniqueness and importance, it is a part
of a larger whole. all social realities are complex. they are
interconnected with many other stuff. some interconnections are thick
and dense while others are thin and loose. some connections are
harmonoius and complementary while others are confrontational and
contentious. in some ways, the connection between white and black
realities are both closest and furthest apart in america. in psycho-
cultural terms, whites feel closest to blacks as fellow americans.
but, in socio-economic terms, whites are closer to hispanics, asians,
and even arab-americans. psychologically and physically, black reality/
history is most closely linked with white--especially anglo- and irish-
american--reality/history but not necessarily in a good way. slavery
made whites and blacks very close but also very fearful and hostile to
one another.

anyway, we have a problem with discussing social interconnectivity
because of the pitfalls of both libertarianism and liberalism.
libertarianism, with its ultra-individualism, seems to think that
people are or can be atomized individuals living in bubbles of total
freedom. because of libertarian disdain of moral, historical, and
cultural factors, they fail to see the importance of cultural history.
also, libertarians see every individual as a free economic agent
making purely rational decisions when this simply isn't true--or at
least not totally true or true in all cases.
but, liberals also mess up the discussion because they contextualize
things all out of proportion. so, obama, instead of addressing the
issue of his relationship with pastor wright, goes on and on about
history of slavery as though that excuses wright's lunacy. and, there
are plenty of liberals who are ever so willing to make excuses for
black crime within the context of history of oppression or poverty.
so, we have liberals decrying the fact that many blacks are sitting in
jails as though black criminals are poor victims of white society.
according to liberalism, the individual is spiritually lost--except in
the enjoyment of black-inspired popular culture--and helpless(if poor)
or wicked(if rich), and the only hope for mankind is big government to
set things straight.
according to libertarianism, individualism is everything when in fact
successful individuals are the inheritors of a functional (communal)
moral culture that developed over centuries.
freedom and individualism didn't just pop out of nowhere. they were
incubated, created, nurtured, and strengthened over a long historical
period. just like all babies are born of mothers, all individuals are
created out of cultures with certain values of right and wrong with
great communal significance. a libertarian is like someone who denies
he was created and raised by parents.
this isn't to deny the importance or even the primacy of
individualism; it is just to point out that even free individuals live
in a society with moral and cultural obligations to the whole
community--not for EVERYTHING but for certain things. libertarians
who object to public education and public libraries are idiots. some
libertarians will say they started out poor and never asked for any
help. if they rose up in the world, why not everyone else? but, even
if government programs may have not done much for them, they were
surely nurtured by the cultural community they came from. for
example, jews and chinese, two successful peoples, relied heavily on
their cultural heritage and values. and germanic peoples, among the
most successful in the world, have a long tradition of moral values
and social principles that are inculcated into the hearts of every
citizen.
some libertarians understand this and should be called valuetarians.
but, some libertarians understand nothing of culture or morality and
simply think that all problems can be solved if everyone simply thinks
and acts like an atomized economic animal--like the potheads of
Wayne's World.

----------------

anyway, we need more linkonomics, linkology, linkographics, etc.
we should think mainly in terms of education AND family, culture AND
crime, family AND education, health AND education, technology AND
education, etc. and we need to find the most crucial links.

there's a connection between everything and everything, between
everyone and everyone, and between everyone and everything. but,
certain connections are far more crucial in determining and shaping
social reality. same is true in nature. all things are connected but
some are more deeply or directly connected than others. for example,
polar bears, ice caps, and seals are connected. polar bears need ice
caps to hunt for seals. also, some connections go one-way while
others are mutual. polar bears rely on seals but seals don't rely on
polar bears. indeed, seals would be better off without polar bears--
unless polar bears control the seal population which is, in the long
run, good for seals. also, arctic foxes rely on polar bears but not
vice versa. but, some organisms rely on one another. take bears and
apples. bears need apples to eat, and apples need bears--and other
animals--to swallow their seeds and spread them all around thru
poopery.
it would make no sense to speak of nature in terms of single organisms
living in their own world; they live in a world of wider
interconnectivity.
because humans have lived apart from nature for so long, we tend to
think we are capable of being independent of Other forces. of course,
even in our artificial world, we are ultimately dependent on nature.
if rain stops falling, we're all dead no matter what we do. and, this
is where global warming is troubling. it may not spell doom for all
mankind as prince albert says, but we are arrogantly thinking that our
human world is separate from nature. this is how the builders of
tower of babel thought. they defied the sky and their tower came
crumbling down. and, we must not defy nature that way. we must find
technological ways that can make us work with nature in a better way.
just as different organisms found a way to co-exist with other
organisms in a mutual way, we must seek ways to co-exist with nature
in a mutualistic way. too often, we think in terms of zero-sum games:
all human or all nature.

we need to find the most crucial links. and we need to set up an
hierarchy. for example, take the issue of education. why do kids fail
or succeed in school? what are the factors that should be discussed?
diet, social history, economy, school material, quality of teachers,
laws governing school discipline, popular culture, family life,
parental values, relatives, etc, etc. all these are or may be
important. but what are more important than others? for example, some
blame school failure on the influence of popular culture. some blame
it on failure of parents. but, what is more important? parents or pop
culture? if pop culture is the culprit, how come many kids don't
succumb to its rotten influence? is it because their parents
understand and practice their authority over the child? also, how
come many kids who consume popular culture do well in school? is it
because they are smart and can rise above it and see it for what it
is? is it because they are allowed to enjoy such ONLY after finishing
their homework? surely, there's a difference between those who see
pop culture as enjoyment and those who see pop culture as aspiration.
some college kids get together on friday night, listen to rap music,
sing along, and have a good laugh. next day, they hit the books. but,
some kids listen to rap music and regard it as the meaning of their
lives. this is also the difference between moderate muslims and crazy
muslims. some see it as part of cultural heritage that should be
respected while some crazies think islam is the total truth.
literalism and purism are dangerous, but such mentality exists in
realms outside religion. it can happen in ideology and popular
culture. there are many kids for whom rap/hiphop culture IS the
center of their lives.

when we think of crucial links, we should also think of crucial
authorities. who has the authority over others? for example, a pop
cultural merchant has access to many outlets and to our living rooms
but parents have the authority to turn off the tv in their own homes.
a parent can force his kids not to watch garbage whereas pop culture
merchants don't have the power to force kids to watch garbage. do we
give teachers enough authority? should we give them more, especially
since so many parents are neglectful of their own kids and refuse to
discipline them or teach them any values? on the one hand, we demand
more freedom, and many parents get pissed when teachers complain that
kids have no manners. the parents tell the teachers to control the
children and teach them manners. but, if teachers try to do that,
parents accuse teachers of using gestapo tactics. often, parents are
more spoiled than the kids.

anyway, there is a real problem of authority in our society. on the
one hand, we want more freedom, but oftentimes more freedom begats
more problems. fewer and fewer people believe in hard authority
though it works; consider the success of rudy giuliani's policies in
NY. instead, liberals call for soft authority in terms of more social
spending which comes to down to more fat crats pushing papers, making
speeches, sitting in offices, and getting paid for little work--
consider michelle obama's $300,000 paper pushing job. what does she do
again?

as for libertarians, they seem to think MORE freedom will solve
problem of too much freedom. so, if we have a drug problem, get rid of
all drug laws. if we have problem in education, close all public
schools and let everyone do as they please to educate themselves. free
markets will solve all problems. both are soft-headed. liberals
think good intentions and good-will be repaid in kind. and,
libertarians, for all their professed hardassed realism, are soft-
headed in thinking everything will be cool if we all think/act like PJ
O'rourke. for starters, most of are not even like him nor can ever
be.
rudy giuliani was right. the hell with liberals and libertarians. a
sense of hard authority--moral, governmental, economic, etc--must be
re-established in some areas, with some people, and concerning some
issues. both liberals and libertarians spoil the underclass. liberals
never blame the poor but blame it all on the rich for not paying
enough taxes. libertarians never blame the poor but blame the
government. in fact, many people are poor because they don't have
enough sense to control their own lives or behavior. and, this isn't
gonna be solved by soft-headed liberalism nor libertarianism.
libertarianism would be honest IF it said it cannot solve all problems
but it is the answer for intelligent, responsible, and rational
people. but, libertarianism sells itself as the panacea for EVERYONE.
this is where it is very soft-headed about human nature.

for those who cannot control their own lives, we need the government.
not the do-gooder soft-headed maternal nanny state goverment but
hardassed, tough, paternal, and iron-jawed(if not iron-
fisted)government. bad tough guys only respect toughness. they need
to see the tough side of law and the government. this is why newt
gingrinch's orphange idea was a great one. it said government should
raise kids who are raised miserably by stupid welfare mothers. if WE
must spend OUR MONEY to raise other people's kids, let's do it OUR
way. we need tough orphanages that practice tough love principles to
raise good tough kids. but, softheaded liberalism just takes OUR
money and gives it to moronic idiots who raise their kids to be
idiots. and, i say sew up the pussies of welfare bitches. if it's
okay to force us to pay taxes, i say it's okay to use force to
sterilize women who keep having kids though they can't support them.
if stupid women can do as they please, then let us do as we please and
NOT pay taxes to support the stupid bitches and their kids. if we must
be FORCED to be compassionate, i say FORCE the stupid bitch to be
responsible. but under our current order, we are all forced to be
compassionate but the beneficiaries of our compassion are not forced
to be responsible. our system is tough on good people and easy on bad
people. instead of using tough love on the poor, it uses soft hatred
on working people.

also, just look our teachers. even many idealistic teachers are
idiots. these white teachers have a kind of slackerish, hanging-
loose, hip-and-cool attitude. when they go to inner city schools,
they wanna come across as a homey. also, many of them are leftists
and teach kids that capitalism sucks, rich people are evil, and that
socialism is the only answer. just see the movie "half-nelson".
guilt-ridden white liberal teachers go to work in inner-cities to
purge themselves of guilt and angst. some of this guilt is historical
and some of this angst is personal. we have that in 'half nelson', an
educational version of the movie 'bad lieutenant' starring harvey
keitel. it's like the white liberal teacher needs the poor black girl
more than she needs him. how sickening. you see, he feels double
guilt. on the one hand, he's a white male--the guilt-ridden race.
but, he's also a drug user and failing in his duties as a teacher.
so, he did blacks wrong on both accounts--historically and
professionally. and we are supposed to feel sorry for him--like we are
supposed to feel sorry for the lousy cop in Bad Lieutenant. but hey,
at least the teacher instructs kids on marxism and so on, right? the
noble leftie planted the seeds of radical purity and politics which
may help bring about a new just order based on virtue and so on. he
has failed as a teacher but he has planted the seeds of Hope and
Change. it's liberal fantasy pukeville. it's contextualization-gone-
wild.