You can't have a conversation about the meaning of something

if you don't agree on the basic premise as to what it is. Do you ever have a conversation, particularly a political conversation, in which the other person or persons make an assertion based on something you just know isn't true? This is at the heart of a lot of the political garble in our country. This morning's paper had a letter to the editor criticizing a writer because that writer had claimed that the majority of the insurgents in Iraq were Iraqi. The critic was outraged and asserting that everyone 'knew' that the majority of insurgents were 'foreign fighters'. Which is it? I guess it depends on where you get 'facts'. I believe (though I can't site the source offhand) that the US Army says that most of the fighters in Iraq are Iraqi. I don't know where the 'critic' was getting information. Another example (from the radio this morning) is the assertion by Bill O'Reilly on his show that his 'boycott of the French' is a) effective b) based on the fact that the French are doing nothing to help us fight terrorism. I didn't even realize that the so-called boycott was still being flogged by anyone, but I'm sure the US Department of Commerce has statistics on consumption of French products. And I'd be willing to bet that it's up over the past couple of years. Logic would suggest that the declining value of the dollar against the Euro would have more impact than Bill O'Reilly. His assertion that the French are doing 'nothing' to help fight terrorism is astonishing. The French have been involved, solidly and effectively, as our allies in Afghanistan (that place where the terrorists had their bases) and have also been central in breaking up Al Quaida networks in Europe where they are the host nation for the effort. O'Reilly's show is called the O'Reilly Factor, I believe. I think it's earned the name, The O'Reilly Factless.

Au revoir, mon ami!