Here’s an exchange between Arthur Goldwag and me on his Facebook page:
Kevin Davidson: I’m very glad to know that you found my site useful. I get so tied up with partisan birther[s] and anti-birthers that I lose track of the fact that sometimes real people read the site too.
Arthur Goldwag: … I am flattered that you count me among “real people!”
Not to say anything against the discussion community that has grown up around this web site, but there is a fundamental difference between what goes on here and what goes on in the “real world.”
In the real world there is a news media with professional journalists and fact checkers. They talk to real sources. They consult real experts. They access databases of information that aren’t free on the Internet. They get printed and appear on TV. What they say matters. None of that happens here.
In the real world, what the court says goes. Here someone can say Judge Malihi in Georgia didn’t know what he was talking about. In the real world his decision and its affirmation by the Georgia Secretary of State gets Obama on the ballot. On the Internet, someone can argue that “anchor babies” shouldn’t be citizens. In the real world, they get US Passports and they can run for President.
In the real world, you better not quote this blog on your college term paper, or the Wikipedia for that matter. References have to come from authorities, real authorities, not partisan bloggers with a US Flag on their web site. [I note that I have a US Flag on my web site.] Authorities publish real books.
In the real world the fellow who gets the most electoral votes and is certified by the Congress becomes President, and gets to live in the White House, and gets the President’s salary and gets to sign the laws that if we disobey put us in a real jail. Here somebody can say Obama is a usurper and that it’s birth certificate is a fake. They can claim to be an expert, but when they come crashing into the real world, they don’t get to testify in court. [In Georgia some crackpots got to testify, but the judge discarded their “unqualified” testimony.] When they don’t get to testify, they don’t affect the outcome of the trial.
In the real world there are concepts of law, reliability, expertise, and authority. We have none of that here. We’re just arguing. Whether we argue correctly or not and whether we argue well or not, doesn’t matter in the real world because this is not the real world.
lol
i call the “real world” my “in-skin world”
as an aside
GA – Farrar v Obama – Appeal – Jablonski’s motion to consolidate
wait for the hissy fit re judge wright
no sos kemp on ANY of these lawsuits?
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/ga-farrar-v-obama-appeal-jablonskis-motion-to-consolidate/
In the “real world” of not too long ago, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wrote that Dred Scott had no standing to sue for his freedom.
You can assert what happens here doesn’t matter, but I don’t believe you. The adverse consequences of abdications of responsibility by those in power are visited upon the relatively powerless (e.g., the denizens of blogs like this).
I disagree with most of your conclusions regarding Obama and the birthers, but I credit you with following the dictates of your conscience in sharing your conclusions in hopes of righting wrongs and improving things.
Really.
Republican Liberty Caucus of California to taitz
Dr. Taitz and the Rally for Liberty
Reply |Parke Bostrom secretary@rlcca.org to MeDaMom23, me, bcc: John, bcc: Rick
show details 10:48 AM (14 minutes ago)
Dear Elaine,
I saw you RSVP’ed, expressing an interest in seeing Dr. Taitz speak at the RLCCA’s Rally for Liberty event.
It is the position of the RLCCA that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States of America. Unfortunately, Dr. Taitz does not agree, and as Dr. Taitz makes her disagreement the primary point of her campaign, the RLCCA has retracted the invitation to Dr. Taitz.
I apologize for any inconvenience this causes you or Dr. Taitz.
Sincerely,
Parke Bostrom
Secretary, RLCCA
Yeah, but any of that would still take place in the REAL world…
…not in virtual reality.
Your arguments comes across as someone who simply feels powerless in the REAL world and therefore desperately needs to belief that they somehow magically gain some “aura of power” via pretending that online conversations are “courageous”, instead of mere inconsequential opinion commentary, made from the safety and relative anonymity of one’s keyboard.
When you try to make mere internet commentary out to be anything more “significant” than it actually is, you are doing nothing but fantasy role-playing.
Bravo and Kudos to the RLCCA.
Doc-I think the problem is that law and politics, unlike math and science lack objective truth. You have probably read of`the recent claim of neutrinos moving faster than light in violation of Einstein’s relativity. Today, there is news that the finding may be due to instrument error and Einstein can rest easier. Regardless of the ultimate answer, only one or the other of the following is objectively true-neutrinos can move faster than c or they cannot.
But now take, the law (please!!). Is there an objective right and wrong? Was Roe v. Wade correctly decided or not? Was Wong? All we can say is that we delegate to the judges the responsibility of deciding such matters.
So, when a judge (or Congress) decides that Obama is eligible, then he is. Simple as that. Arguments that they are wrong are foolish, since we have given to those bodies the authority to decide. Their decisions are by definition right-unlike with neutrinos where only the objectiive truth is right.
That’s quite an exercise in illogic … you counter that what happens here does matter, fine no problem … but that has no bearing on your opener, and your second sentence, which are no-brainers, that decision of those in power can have far-reaching effect. Which is what Doc said. you’re trying to say this blog also has far-reaching effect?
If people take it as a source of fact (which Doc is counseling against), not interpretation, you might be right. And they would make the same error those who treat other blogs as sources of fact, that of taking an interpretation and representing it far and wide as fact.
Do your own research and follow up on that of others. That’s the whole point of providing citations … and representing them honestly … so no one has to take anyone on their word.
As for correcting wrongs …. you referring to attempting to refute rumor and misinformation? Undo the dissemination of falsehoods? Pointing out the shaky underpinnings of the imagined wrongs others are deluded into “fighting”?
Whatever, real world. You don’t own me.
That’s true, but that didn’t get fixed by somebody’s blog. It got fixed because a constitutional amendment was ratified in the real world.
I guess what I am saying, and perhaps not well, is that in the real world actions lead to results. On this blog, action doesn’t lead to anything outside the blog.
I grant you that it is possible for a discussion to cross over into the real world and have real world consequences. That’s not what goes on here.
speaking of “real world”
AZ – Allen v Obama – Conference
Allen v Obama – Order Setting Status Conference
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82500518/2012-02-21-Allen-v-Obama-AZ-Order-Setting-Status-Conference-Tfb
Interesting. That sets the conference for tomorrow.
Yes, and Pamela Barnett is encouraging birthers to attend. It’s a status conference, not a hearing.
In the real world, THE OMEN is a movie. In Santorum’s America, it’s a documentary.
Though there probably will be a conspiracy theory somewhere on the internet that the new information is part of a conspiracy to hide the fact that Einstein was wrong. 😉
Don’t forget that for many people, everything is politics. Global warming, evolution theory, relativity theory – to the illiterate gullible zealots, there is no “science”, it’s all “just another means of forcing something onto us”.
Besides, law *is* like science to a certain degree. While some decisions may come out either way, most are simple applications of the law. But birfers take the route mentioned above – they ignore the “scientific” (used loosely) basis of the law and claim that the decisions were made for ulterior (political) motives, or that the law should be ignored if it gets in the way of what they consider “right” or “just”.
(Especially ironic since it’s the birthers who keep claiming that “the rule of law” has been replaced by “the rule of men”, when in fact it’s them who want it to be that way.)
In the real world, the LAW OF NATIONS is a philosophical treatise, in Donofridonia it is the law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5cJuAtNcJA
(Firefly even uses Leo’s cards)
Hitler rejected relativity as “Jewish science” and only allowed minimal work on atomic weapons. Given that Germany was the leading nation in physics in the 1930s, had he started a Manhattan project of his own (Berlin project?), there is a decent chance he would have gotten the bomb before the US did (the fear of which was why Einstein wrote his letter to FDR).
So, science, as a human activity is influenced by politics. But, at base, there IS an objective reallity out there in the Universe beyond mankind. Even if we humans aren’t always able to grasp it, it is there. Law, however, does not exist without humans. So, I can’t say whether in some absolute sense the Supreme Court ruled rightly or wrongly in Wong or other controversial cases. But, as a society, we have agreed that the decision stands, right or wrong. And when the Congress certifies a president-elect as qualified, then he is, whether somebody thinks that is right or wrong. Certainly, those who believe they did so wrongly, are free to vote against their representative, but that is the extent of it.
H!tl@r (trying to avoid moderation) rejected relativity as “Jewish science” and only allowed minimal work on atomic weapons. Given that Germany was the leading nation in physics in the 1930s, had he started a Manhattan project of his own (Berlin project?), there is a decent chance he would have gotten the bomb before the US did (the fear of which was why Einstein wrote his letter to FDR).
So, science, as a human activity is influenced by politics. But, at base, there IS an objective reallity out there in the Universe beyond mankind. Even if we humans aren’t always able to grasp it, it is there. Law, however, does not exist without humans. So, I can’t say whether in some absolute sense the Supreme Court ruled rightly or wrongly in Wong or other controversial cases. But, as a society, we have agreed that the decision stands, right or wrong. And when the Congress certifies a president-elect as qualified, then he is, whether somebody thinks that is right or wrong. Certainly, those who believe they did so wrongly, are free to vote against their representative, but that is the extent of it.
I couldn’t agree more. Communist Russia and Lysenko come to mind as well.
If Santorum is elected, are you going to reject the theory of gravity? I think it’s up for grabs.
A wise reminder, that some who appear to occupy space in the real world, are acting in a dreamworld, with very real consequences for the real world.
For instance, we can balance a budget by cutting taxes and spending. That always works.
He even tried to establish a “rival branch” of science he called “Deutsche Physik” (“German physics”). This errand was so foolish that even during the height of the Nazi empire (in 1940), its proponents had to publically concede enough points to actual modern physics that it effectively meant the end for this propaganda instrument. (The English Wikipedia article on “Deutsche Physik” is missing that part, the German entry has the info.)
Until today, most attacks on relativity theory are thinly veiled personal attacks on Einstein as a Jew (though the method of attacking the “inventor” as a proxy isn’t confined to anti-Semitic roots, the same method is applied towards evolution theory).
The intersection with politics is that those people claim that scientific theories aren’t really based on peer-reviewed methods but rather imposed by authority, as in “… said so and no-one dared question it”.
(Personally, I still fail to see what evil purpose would’ve motivated a “relativity conspiracy”. Unlike with evolution, it’s not even claimed it denies God.)
Hi Doc, you of course make a good point. But please recall this gem. 😉
“The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court,” Robertson wrote.
I am wondering if we’ll get to see you again sans cap at the next live stream.
If an event of the “importance” of the hearing in Atlanta happens at a convenient distance to where I am (I was going to be in Atlanta that week anyway) I may show up.
However, when we walked in Jablonski was a “no show” and there was the very real possibility that the hearing would be canceled. That highlights the risk of making a long trip to attend an event that could just as easily not happen or be postponed.
I like this article because it sort of talks about a realization I had about a year ago. In short, I realized I hated to debate matters of politics on the Internet because for a number of reasons. Mainly because I find it unpleasant and I find it’s usually unproductive. But most of all, because it’s not my job. I support Barack Obama and the Democrats. There are people who disagree. But it’s not my job to try to convince them to agree with me. It’s Barack Obama’s job and it’s the various Democrat politicians jobs.
It’s the same with some matter of public policy implemented. Whether I agree with it or not, it is what it is, and arguing with people about it on the Internet is not going to change that. The only place where debate, discussion, and argument matter is out there in the real world, when you stage rallies or protests, or address your Congresscritter. I can’t figure out any possible use for Internet debate, except for fun (provided you find it fun, which I personally don’t)
Once I realized that arguing politics, trying to win people over to my side, had no importance in the real world, I stopped doing it and suddenly felt a lot more relaxed as though a burden had been lifted off my shoulders.
Oh yeah, and now this song won’t stop playing in my head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwJazZIWNgg
…. due to the unreliability of the participants. And the savoriness of the event. Many things might be postponed. A friend road-tripped from Tulsa to Florida to see the last shuttle launch. Even less reliable than the birther happenings, but no one questioned his sanity. Meanwhile, Tulsa to Atlanta, for the Orly show, is plainly nuts.
KUDOS! Wise words.