Is this what “Journalism” looks like?

Why, oh, why?

Picked up a copy of the Fort Worth WEEKLY a few days ago – for fun. Yeah, right. Then I had to spend four hours writing & perfecting an essay-response to a “guest author’s” column :-(.

It reminded me of Why I Avoid Reading the Newspaper at all Costs.

Here’s a link to the online version (I read the paper copy, like I said):

Here’s paragraph #2. CAUTION: it might get your blood pumping faster:

If China had an immigration policy like that of the United States, it could fill the gaping holes that will open up in the workforce when the present adult generation retires, and there would be enough people working and paying taxes to support that older generation. Otherwise, there will be barely one worker for each retiree, and their retirement years will be far from golden.

My response?

Too bad Dyer didn’t simply write the two or three paragraph piece she wanted to. It’s clear the purpose of her 14 paragraphs was her belief that the-sooner-whites-are-a-minority-in-the-U.S.-the-better. I’ll grant her though, the cleverness of padding her agitprop with a Chinese flavored faux-immigration wrapper.

The following is a point-by-point, start-to-finish deconstruction of Dyer’s creation, from the print version of FWW. You see, it’s impossible for me to let professional journalists think such lapses into illogic and fantasy plus overall lack of thinking-through of such key ideas can go unchallenged. Yeah, I’m annoyed. Annoyed that “London-based” Ms. Dyer – with her foggy writing style – gets to add the U.S. to her list of “many countries.”

Paragraph 2: First, China is a pretty tightly controlled nation, so for the author to think it would ever embrace an open/porous border type of “immigration policy” like we have in the U.S. is folly (the Chinese would then also be Free-to-leave!). So why does she wait until paragraphs 3 & 7 to admit it? Besides, why would huddled masses looking for personal opportunities yearn – once they rushed all the way to China – to labor day in and day out to dutifully support, in some kind of “golden-retirement-style,” a bunch of wrinkled old Asians they wouldn’t know from Adam? Again, folly.

Paragraph 3 & 4: What makes the author think China is any more keen than we ever were on fast-tracking unskilled/unmotivated ex-slum-dwellers or unmotivated Mexicans fleeing Mexico instead of “fixing” their own backyards? And neither would unemployed – which infers little or no experience therefore also unskilled – “youths” from Europe be a very smart addition to China’s economy. They in fact would be a great deficit, a “welfare” cost: they’d need a “free” education or slow down actual on-the-job producers in order to get hands-on training.

Paragraph 4: LOL, “They’ve tried being free and poor…” It’s no surprise she fails to ask why auto workers are so poor – she wouldn’t like the answers. Like all the China-like dictatorial policies and politics in the U.S., ruling minute aspects of the environment and of the workplace, not to mention business-shackling-then-strangling union-dictated demands. These are the things that ruined/continue to ruin a lot of industries in the U.S., not just the auto industry. So, please drop the tired tactic of blaming the concepts of Individual Liberty (vs. what we have: wage & market controls plus taxes from all layers of government) & free-market Capitalism (vs. the crony/political-payoff/bailout/subsidy capitalism we actually have) for layoffs and other business difficulties and subsequent failures.

Paragraph 5: By now according to Dyer’s hypothesis, bi-lingual Spanish/English education in the U.S. should have disappeared, LOL. And assimilation should be evident rather than Mexican-flag-waving angry Azatlan demonstrations. So what makes the author think China’s immigrants or their kids would learn Chinese any more readily than the illegals from Mexico have learned English here in the U.S. over the last few decades? The challenges going from Spanish to English are non-existent compared with the quantum leap required to go from a “Romance” language to an Asian tongue. Instead countless $millions-billions are spent in my country still – Mexicans coming over have every official & unofficial form, store sign, grocery item, and school program bent to them. They are so catered to they clearly could care less – in many cases – about even speaking “some English” much less aspiring to fluency. Why should they bother when they don’t have to? More folly.

Paragraph 6: Thinking-cap time: it would be easier for China to simply kill baby boys for a few years than to import hoards of un-indoctrinated/i.e. uncooperative females. Besides, how many halfway intelligent women of childbearing age would line up for that boat if they knew they were going primarily to be breeding-stock for “lonely-hearted” Chinese guys? Hell, if that’s what women want they could stay at home – in the U.S. anyway – and wait for the checks to roll in from Uncle Nanny-Sam. Single-motherhood is just as easy in most European nations as well. Folly.

LOL. By the “more or less happily ever after” I assume the writer means something like: until a new regime decides the round-eyes need to be rounded-up and sent home. Or worse.
Paragraph 8: Americans didn’t “let” the country get overrun with illegals, the politicians stalled and/or did what they wanted. Typically consisting of kicking the political hot-potato/can down the road. Like all tough decisions, they put it off until later, until after “the election,” which translates, Until My Retirement from Office. They don’t listen to those they were elected by.

Paragraphs 8,9,10: I’m sure the author thinks the loss of the “white European majority” is a good thing, after all, how boorrr-ring it used to be when out-of-wedlock births (therefore the welfare state) were nearly non-existant. How boorrr-ring when most children – regardless of their color – were born into a two-parent hetero-home . How boorrr-ring it was before massive Federal Deficit spending, oh yeah, with the major chunks being spent in social/welfare/dependency (i.e. societal-destruction) programs, right? Oh, boy-oh-boy, just wait until “the next adult generation in the U.S.” and it isn’t white and tightlaced and full of that old-fashioned father-in-the-home white-Puritan cradle-to-grave work-ethic…won’t that be un-boorrr-ring and fun?

The author needs to understand that the last two generations of us weren’t asleep-at-the-wheel. Repeat: politicians do what they want, when they want. Like Obama just did, declaring Illegal-children “legal” just because he could. Why? For the goodwill of those newly created voters. The illegal-parents can already vote since it’s “discrimination” to demand proper ID. Remember the election in November? Follow the votes.

Paragraph 13: Just because the author and some in the U.S. either suffer from “white guilt” or find “fairness” a great immigration-free-for-all sales pitch doesn’t mean the majority of Americans do. I can’t answer for acts – either good or bad – that others have committed in the past. Neither can Dyer, either, if she’s rational.

Paragraph 14: Gee, thank the author for me for saying “maybe” we Americans aren’t as “racist” as she thought. Who else in the entire world is going into deep-doo-doo-debt yet has continued decade after decade to spread taxpayers hard-earned dollars into practically every country on earth? Huh? Anybody? How does that behavior square with intimations of ever having been “racist?” For me, sure, carte blanche foreign aid equals “stupid” but then that is just one more way politicians do-what-they-want-to-do not what’s truly in the best interest of the people who’ve entrusted them with the reins-of-Power.

Lastly, the author closes on that favorite theme of hers: White-Guilt. No, Gwynne, it isn’t that either. It’s pandering stupidity on the part of Politicians. Just like in the locale you call “home.” By the way, is the author aware that, oh, 500 years plus a million – or two – ago none of us were white? All of us were short, brown, very hairy, with sloping foreheads, and probably congregated on one continent. Is she aware that this makes her and her “people” (and pretty much everybody else) squatters in whatever land they currently squat in, too – unless of course, they’re short, brown, and very hairy with a sloping forehead? Not to make anybody feel Non-Sloping-Forehead Guilt or anything…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s