Fact and Fiction

I don't think that books are any more "fact checked" than what you find on the internet. I have read several books over the years that claimed to be factual, only to have them declared to be false by somebody else later on. One example that comes to mind is the one about the Kazzars that we discussed awhile back. I read that book before the internet was even invented. I wasn't sure if I believed it or not, I just though it was an interesting theory. You were able to find information on the internet that said this guy's theory had been discredited a long time ago. I suppose you could have found the same information in a library or book store, but it probably would have taken you a lot longer. Of course there's a lot of garbage on the internet, but the internet certainly doesn't have a monopoly on false information. It's like they told us in the army: "Don't believe anything you hear and half of what you see."

I didn't remember exactly how Reagan's amnesty plan was passed and implemented, but I do seem to remember that it was supposed to solve our immigration problems once and for all. Three decades or so later we have more immigration problems than ever. How can this be? Do you think it might have been more effective if it had been passed by a Democratic administration?

I am not saying that we should deport Pedro because of a defective tail light, I'm saying that Pedro should have never been allowed to get away with entering the country illegally in the first place. Mexicans have been allowed to slip in and out of this country since forever. My position is that, if they don't want to enforce the law uniformly, then they should just repeal the law. Either let them in or don't let them in, but don't tell them that they can't come in and then hold the wire up with a wink and a nod. It's like that argument I had with the director of the Bliss Fest a long time ago. Stop me if you've heard this one:

There was a well publicized  rule that no dogs were allowed at the Bliss Fest but, every year, a few dogs managed to slip in somehow. I was approached by a family from out of town who had left their dog in a kennel when they came to the festival. This was traumatic for all involved because the dog and the kids had never been separated before. They asked me why other dogs were allowed and not theirs, and I promised to bring the subject up at the next board meeting. The director explained that they couldn't allow everybody to bring dogs to the festival but it was not a problem if only a few people did, so they let it slide. I told him about the family I had talked to, and that they had a valid point. Why should they be inconvenienced for doing the right thing while others are rewarded for doing the wrong thing? "No dogs allowed" means no dogs. If you want to allow some dogs and not others, then change the rule accordingly. You could charge extra for dogs and require that they be leashed or something. The director claimed that he didn't understand my point, and he was a college graduate.

For some reason, this Ferguson thing has not caught my interest as much as the Martin-Zimmerman case did. Now that the verdict is in, I may look it up on Wiki this weekend. I thought that their account of Martin-Zimmerman was pretty fair, and I have no reason to believe that they will treat this case any differently. Our local media has focused on the riots and the anger, not so much on the facts of the case.