A Frame Ingrained...
...is plainly all in vain.
Here is a recent email back-and-forth between a friend of mine--I'll call him Ben to protect his identity--and me. Ben is a great guy, but it is very hard to discuss foreign policy with him. He has three members of family in Iraq now, so it is not hard to imagine that, from his point of view, the war *must* make sense. Still, I thought it was worth reproducing the discussion here because of how hard it can be to get someone to attend to facts when those facts are not what they want to be reading/seeing/hearing.
First, I sent this to a bunch of former colleagues; the usual feathers were ruffled and I got a reply from someone I shall call "Ben" to keep the identity protected.
--- begin email discussion ---
Me:
Folks--
Well, one has to decide whether to give up the fight or keep on keeping on. Since I am tired of opinion and falsehoods trumping facts and truths, I'm going to keep on pointing out facts and truths as best I can for as long as I can and hope that people actually care about their country.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20041114/ts_nm/iraq_falluja_scene_dc
Let's remember that one man's "Den of Thieves" is another man's city the size of Cincinnati.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html
Wow. In 2003, Virginia got back $1.58 on each dollar it sent to the feds. California got back $0.78.
I guess that you have to be intellectually superior to move to Virginia from California, so why dignify the facts with opinions? Not only do you get to call California socialist, but you get to take their tax dollars and make them yours. Exactly where are the welfare queens and socialists in this picture?
This not a one-time thing, either. While 2003 represents a peak on Virginia draining the federal tax base, it has been on the receiving end for ten consecutive years. California has been giving for ten consecutive years. In fact California has been in a steady decline in terms of money returned to it by the federal government.
The next time someone wants to tout the glory of capitalism and the pitfalls of socialism, it can be illuminating to see what state they live in.
Why does Mississippi need $1.83 back on every dollar it puts into federal taxes? That might be a really good question to answer. And why is it that the biggest feeders on the system are almost uniformly red states and the biggest donors are almost uniformly blue states?
Capitalism, my ass. Politics is more like it.
---
Ben:
And how sure are we that Reuters has remained neutral in the news over the past 10 years??? And are we sure there the situation is the same thru all of that city, when this reporter was just in one place??
---
Me:
> And how sure are we that Reuters has remained neutral in the news over the
> past 10 years???
Facts are facts. Reuters could be the most biased, corrupt, evil, nasty bunch of people on the planet. But that would not change facts. I mean, you are a warmonger, but not everything you say is stuff that is spun by the GOP. Since you often cite stuff that is spun by the GOP, should I assume that all things you say are therefore tainted?
Do facts not count if we merely do not like them? Do they bounce off us because we are no longer able to be receptive to them because of our biases?
> And are we sure there the situation is the same thru all of that city, when
> this reporter was just in one place??
How do you know that the reporter was just in one place? For that matter, how do you know that the reporter was even on site? I have read more than a few articles that have described how problematic it is to leave the Green Zone. How do we know that the reporter was even present as opposed to receiving photos and quotes from, say, native Iraqis?
I think we have enough news accounts to suggest that maybe life in Fallujah would be pretty FUBAR at the moment. Do you want to suggest it is peaches and cream anywhere in Fallujah? I'm open to facts to that end.
Present evidence, Ben. As I said before, I want facts, not opinions. Particularly opinions that are formed without facts.
Show me that the reports are inaccurate. Show me that the problems described there do not apply also to places such as Mosul (police stations burned down while the army attended to Fallujah) or Baqubah or Samarra or Baiji or Tuz or myriad other places.
(It has gotten bad when I find myself getting more familiar with Iraqi geography than I am with Illinois geography.)
What about the picture of the little kid who was shot up? Was that a Hollywood production? How do we know it is not all fabricated? Maybe it's all straight out of Orwell's 1984.
---
Ben:
Facts are ok, But the press needs to give the facts from more than ones mans opinion, O am not a warmonger, I am a defender of freedom,
---
Me:
Facts are "ok?"
Facts come from someone's opinion?
I'd like to do you the courtesy of having an actual discussion on the merits of the war, but it is clear this is impossible. Any kind of serious thinking must be based on facts.
As for finding more than one reporter's take, go to http://news.google.com. There, you can get thousands of matches for the conflict in Fallujah. Since you seem to like short and sweet, those reporters who quote the DoD or Rumsfeld or Bush often make things look lovely. Those reporters who are working independently of the DoD (like a free press is supposed to do, methinks) are talking about inability to get humanitarian aid to Fallujah and problems all over Iraq in terms of violence.
Last, and I am serious about this, whose freedom do you claim to be defending? And exactly how do you claim to be defending it?
---
Ben:
I am defending our Countries freedom by supporting our president and our troops.
---
Ben:
To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing and be nothing. - Elbert Hubbard
--- end email discussion (as of now) ---
How do I respond to that? To Ben, his last line is completely serious. To me, it is a parody.
It is clear that Ben equates defending freedom with supporting the President (though I do wonder whether that would be true if the President were a Democrat) and the troops. I am unclear on what "supporting the troops" means to Ben.
Missing from this discussion is that I have read a load of GOP-spun tripe from Ben in prior emails, so I have a pretty fair idea of his way of "fact-finding." This is why I came out with both barrels firing; this is perhaps a mistake on my part.
So, if this were you, how would you try to communicate with Ben? Is there any way to produce a frame through which he might try to see things differently, or is he past the point of absorbing new evidence which conflicts with his beliefs?
And, in a sickening thought, does it take a family member coming home from Iraq in a body bag to get someone to see the war in a new light? Would it even matter? Here's hoping that Ben never has to deal with it...
Here is a recent email back-and-forth between a friend of mine--I'll call him Ben to protect his identity--and me. Ben is a great guy, but it is very hard to discuss foreign policy with him. He has three members of family in Iraq now, so it is not hard to imagine that, from his point of view, the war *must* make sense. Still, I thought it was worth reproducing the discussion here because of how hard it can be to get someone to attend to facts when those facts are not what they want to be reading/seeing/hearing.
First, I sent this to a bunch of former colleagues; the usual feathers were ruffled and I got a reply from someone I shall call "Ben" to keep the identity protected.
--- begin email discussion ---
Me:
Folks--
Well, one has to decide whether to give up the fight or keep on keeping on. Since I am tired of opinion and falsehoods trumping facts and truths, I'm going to keep on pointing out facts and truths as best I can for as long as I can and hope that people actually care about their country.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20041114/ts_nm/iraq_falluja_scene_dc
Let's remember that one man's "Den of Thieves" is another man's city the size of Cincinnati.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html
Wow. In 2003, Virginia got back $1.58 on each dollar it sent to the feds. California got back $0.78.
I guess that you have to be intellectually superior to move to Virginia from California, so why dignify the facts with opinions? Not only do you get to call California socialist, but you get to take their tax dollars and make them yours. Exactly where are the welfare queens and socialists in this picture?
This not a one-time thing, either. While 2003 represents a peak on Virginia draining the federal tax base, it has been on the receiving end for ten consecutive years. California has been giving for ten consecutive years. In fact California has been in a steady decline in terms of money returned to it by the federal government.
The next time someone wants to tout the glory of capitalism and the pitfalls of socialism, it can be illuminating to see what state they live in.
Why does Mississippi need $1.83 back on every dollar it puts into federal taxes? That might be a really good question to answer. And why is it that the biggest feeders on the system are almost uniformly red states and the biggest donors are almost uniformly blue states?
Capitalism, my ass. Politics is more like it.
---
Ben:
And how sure are we that Reuters has remained neutral in the news over the past 10 years??? And are we sure there the situation is the same thru all of that city, when this reporter was just in one place??
---
Me:
> And how sure are we that Reuters has remained neutral in the news over the
> past 10 years???
Facts are facts. Reuters could be the most biased, corrupt, evil, nasty bunch of people on the planet. But that would not change facts. I mean, you are a warmonger, but not everything you say is stuff that is spun by the GOP. Since you often cite stuff that is spun by the GOP, should I assume that all things you say are therefore tainted?
Do facts not count if we merely do not like them? Do they bounce off us because we are no longer able to be receptive to them because of our biases?
> And are we sure there the situation is the same thru all of that city, when
> this reporter was just in one place??
How do you know that the reporter was just in one place? For that matter, how do you know that the reporter was even on site? I have read more than a few articles that have described how problematic it is to leave the Green Zone. How do we know that the reporter was even present as opposed to receiving photos and quotes from, say, native Iraqis?
I think we have enough news accounts to suggest that maybe life in Fallujah would be pretty FUBAR at the moment. Do you want to suggest it is peaches and cream anywhere in Fallujah? I'm open to facts to that end.
Present evidence, Ben. As I said before, I want facts, not opinions. Particularly opinions that are formed without facts.
Show me that the reports are inaccurate. Show me that the problems described there do not apply also to places such as Mosul (police stations burned down while the army attended to Fallujah) or Baqubah or Samarra or Baiji or Tuz or myriad other places.
(It has gotten bad when I find myself getting more familiar with Iraqi geography than I am with Illinois geography.)
What about the picture of the little kid who was shot up? Was that a Hollywood production? How do we know it is not all fabricated? Maybe it's all straight out of Orwell's 1984.
---
Ben:
Facts are ok, But the press needs to give the facts from more than ones mans opinion, O am not a warmonger, I am a defender of freedom,
---
Me:
Facts are "ok?"
Facts come from someone's opinion?
I'd like to do you the courtesy of having an actual discussion on the merits of the war, but it is clear this is impossible. Any kind of serious thinking must be based on facts.
As for finding more than one reporter's take, go to http://news.google.com. There, you can get thousands of matches for the conflict in Fallujah. Since you seem to like short and sweet, those reporters who quote the DoD or Rumsfeld or Bush often make things look lovely. Those reporters who are working independently of the DoD (like a free press is supposed to do, methinks) are talking about inability to get humanitarian aid to Fallujah and problems all over Iraq in terms of violence.
Last, and I am serious about this, whose freedom do you claim to be defending? And exactly how do you claim to be defending it?
---
Ben:
I am defending our Countries freedom by supporting our president and our troops.
---
Ben:
To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing and be nothing. - Elbert Hubbard
--- end email discussion (as of now) ---
How do I respond to that? To Ben, his last line is completely serious. To me, it is a parody.
It is clear that Ben equates defending freedom with supporting the President (though I do wonder whether that would be true if the President were a Democrat) and the troops. I am unclear on what "supporting the troops" means to Ben.
Missing from this discussion is that I have read a load of GOP-spun tripe from Ben in prior emails, so I have a pretty fair idea of his way of "fact-finding." This is why I came out with both barrels firing; this is perhaps a mistake on my part.
So, if this were you, how would you try to communicate with Ben? Is there any way to produce a frame through which he might try to see things differently, or is he past the point of absorbing new evidence which conflicts with his beliefs?
And, in a sickening thought, does it take a family member coming home from Iraq in a body bag to get someone to see the war in a new light? Would it even matter? Here's hoping that Ben never has to deal with it...
posted by Josh Paley at 2:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home