> 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, ...
>
> read more »