Medary.com

Over at Ace of Spades HQ, proprietor Ace has been fighting a rear-guard action against a renewed assault upon the gates by those who insist that There Is Something Going On with Obama's birth certificate.

Here's my position:

It's a snipe hunt. (Credit to AoSHQ commenter Full Moon for the first reference to "snipe hunting.")

Let's break this down to the quark level of comprehension so I can demonstrate where I'm coming from. You see, I don't know if Obama was born in Honolulu or not. By that I mean I do not have first-hand personal knowledge of the event. Therefore, I must depend on the reports of others to either confirm or deny that this event occurred.

Everybody with me so far? The consensus opinion and belief (let's call this the null hypothesis) is that yes, indeed, Obama was born on August 4, 1964 in Honolulu, Hawaii. This is supported by contemporaneous newspaper reports in addition to certain documents (the authenticity of which have been disputed by some.)

The alternate hypothesis is that Obama was born somewhere else.

Everybody still with me? Because I'm about to pivot a bit.

Now, there are actually two issues involved here: what is actually true, and what people believe is true. These two things are not the same thing.

Between the two, the thing which is important in the world of politics is what people believe is true. Belief is supported by, but not dependent on facts. This statement is what pretty much all of religious thought is based on--the power of belief. Belief is very, very powerful.

(Please note that both "Obama was born in Honolulu" and "Obama was not born in Honolulu" are beliefs for almost everybody who discusses the issue--very, very few people have first-hand knowledge of the event. I am talking about both beliefs here.)

Once a belief is accepted by people, it is very hard to change. People do not like to admit mistakes in any circumstance. And once a mistaken belief becomes a part of someone's core view of the world, it becomes especially hard to dislodge--indeed, it becomes almost impossible to disabuse a person of a mistaken belief that has been internalized to the point of being a primary part of their personality.

(Still with me, I hope, although you're starting to get nervous, aren't you?)

Now, how do you go about changing a belief? There are two main ways in history that this has occurred: conversion by the sword, and the displacement of the belief by overwhelming contrary evidence.

I think we can all agree that conversion by the sword is probably not a road any reasonable person wants to go down.

That leaves the method of overwhelming contrary evidence, as the only available method of displacing a mistaken belief.

Now, let's assume for the moment that the alternate hypothesis above is true, that Obama was not in fact born in Honolulu. We are faced with the fact that most people still hold the contrary belief, in the face of a determined campaign by the advocates of the alternate hypothesis to convince them. So, the question becomes: what will constitute sufficient contrary evidence to disprove the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis as true?

This is not a question that people who already accept the alternate hypothesis are well positioned to answer. But let's try to narrow down what might constitute that sufficient contrary evidence.

First, we must recognize that some people will remain "true believers" in the null hypothesis, despite any contrary evidence. There is nothing that anyone can say which will convince them that they have been mistaken in their belief. Obama is "their guy" and they will stick with him to the very end.

My guess is that many reasonable people who currently accept the null hypothesis would change their belief to the alternate hypothesis if a doctor came forward--let's say from Vancouver, B.C., with a certified Canadian birth certificate in hand--testifying with documentation that Obama was in fact born outside the U.S.

The gray area is between those two poles. Long form? Short form? Certificate of Live Birth vs. Birth Certificate? Detailed forensic examination of Powerpoint images of the foregoing? Where is the "smoking gun?" Is there an "event horizon" where enough people flip their beliefs, such that the null hypothesis becomes the alternate hypothesis and vice versa--where a majority of people believe that Obama was not in fact born in Hawaii?

And what happens then?

If you demonstrate that he wasn't born in Hawaii without conclusively demonstrating an alternate location, what have you achieved, exactly? You've demonstrated that Obama is a liar. But he's been lying for a very long time about a lot of things, so the revelation that he's lied about his backstory would not really tell us anything new about him, would it?

Meanwhile, what would this additional confirmation of Obama's dishonesty cost?

This very post is a demonstration of the cost.

Time. And effort.

Time and effort that could be spent educating people--not on the subtleties of Obama's documents, but on exactly how and why this country has painted itself into a fiscal corner from which the extraction will be incredibly painful, but not as painful as letting things continue to go down the "progressive" path that has led us to this state.

There are so very, very many things that people believe that are not true.

That the value of something is associated with how much work you put into it (the value of something is nothing more or less than what somebody else will give you in trade for it.)

That the rich (in the United States, anyway) got that way primarily by stealing from the poor. (They get that way by producing things other people value--see above.)

That the poor are that way primarily because the rich exploit them. (They are poor because they can't or won't produce enough things that other people value--see above.)

That you can spend your way out of debt.

That "profit" is bad. (Profit is the indication that you have produced something that other people value. Its other name is "wealth.")

That governments are capable of "investing." (Investments are expenditures made the purpose of generating profit. It is a vile abuse of language to call government expenditures "investments.")

That a central bureau can more efficiently distribute society's resources than the organic, self-correcting market. (This is the "information problem." No person can assign the value that others put on any good or service--people are individuals and everybody values everything just a bit differently. These differences must necessarily be ignored in any attempt to direct economic activity from "on high," and that attempt instantaneously results in a permanent loss of economic efficiency and the total wealth of the individuals in society.)

That government interventions in market economies are not the single largest factor in causing "market failures"--specifically, that the Federal Reserve and government policies did not cause and deepen the Great Depression, and that the current economic troubles were not fueled and exacerbated by government policies to encourage people to buy houses who could not afford to do so. (See above, the Information Problem, and the automatic introduction of inefficiencies by government interventions in market activities.)

That health care is a "right." (Which implies that other people have an obligation to serve your needs--there is a word for this. The word is "slavery." Anybody who says "health care is a right" is advocating involuntary servitude, something which Americans have already fought one Civil War to end in this country.)

I could go on, but you get the idea. The correct understanding of how humans interact with one another to create an "economy" is far, far, far more important and will create a far more lasting impact on human happiness and well-being than the dogged pursuit of "the real story" of Obama's origin.

A snipe is a bird. They really exist. You can hunt them, if you really want to.

But a snipe hunt is something different. Ace of Spades HQ commenter ErikW accurately described what a snipe hunt usually consists of:

Snipe hunts are a rite of passage in my neck of the woods.

When boys reach puberty, the old guys set up a big night for the Snipe Hunt! A big bonfire is lit and good food is BBQ'd.

You are given a flashlight and a brown paper bag. To catch the snipe, you have to run through the woods yelling, "SNIPE, SNIPE!" because that's what lures them to you. At that point, you pounce on them with the paper bag.

Of course that never happens and the old guys who have been drinking beer are laughing their ass off when you come back pissed off and realize that you've been had.

Just like it doesn't really matter that there actually are birds called snipes, it really doesn't matter if Obama's birth certificate is forged or not. Advocates of birth certificate theories need to ponder the fact that Obama is fond of discussing "distractions" to his agenda. In fact, almost everything that his opponents say is immediately branded a "distraction."

Now, notice exactly who it is who is keeping the birth certificate issue in the public eye.

It is not the "right-wing" Fox News. More than any other network, it is hard-left MSNBC. MSNBC, which has been documented to be coordinating closely with the Obama Administration on its reporting. Why do you suppose that would be?

Every day, the Democrats wake up and begin thinking of more ways to try and make their political opponents look like fools. They are vulnerable on the facts regarding the economy, and they know it. Their "progressive" policies do not work. They have never worked. They only appeared to work all through the 20th Century because we were so wealthy that it masked how utterly wrong-headed and contrary to simple common sense "progressivism" really is. They have no honest intellectual arguments left to support their position. All they have left is invective, intimidation, and misdirection. That's what a snipe hunt is--misdirection. A distraction. Something to make their opponents appear foolish to the great middle of the population who really aren't paying that much attention.

You are not required to play along with their snipe hunt, however.

Consider Sun Tsu:

Cause division among them.

The important thing in a military operation is victory, not persistence.

Those who know when to fight and when not to fight are victorious. . . Those whose upper and lower ranks have the same desire are victorious.

To unfailingly take what you attack, attack where there is no defense. For unfailingly secure defense, defend where there is no attack.

Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate.

If you do not know the plans of your competitors, you cannot make informed alliances.

Therefore the considerations of the intelligent always include both benefit and harm. As they consider benefit, their work can expand, as they consider harm, their troubles can be resolved.

Those who come seeking peace without a treaty are plotting.

When you can go but have a hard time getting back, you are said to be hung up. On this type of terrain, if the opponent is unprepared, you will prevail if you go forth, but if the enemy is prepared, if you go forth and do not prevail you will have a hard time getting back, to your disadvantage.

When you traverse mountain forests, steep defiles, marshes, or any route difficult to travel, this is called bad ground.

If your ultimate goal is the defeat of the "progressive" agenda, then you must answer the question: does the advocacy of the birth certificate issue advance that goal as much as any other alternate activity you might be pursuing? What would Sun Tsu counsel?

Look, it's a Snipe! Hey, Snipe! Snipe! Snipe! Snipe!

ERRATA: changed "EricW" to "ErikW".