Who?

Cui bono, or "Who benefits?", an adage supposedly coined by Roman consul and censor Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla, which means that the person or people guilty of committing a crime may be found amongst those who have something to gain. Although the principle is useful in criminal investigations, the party with the most to gain may not always be obvious, or the guilty party may distract attention by diverting attention on to a scapegoat.

"Cui bono" is often used to explain acts of political significance, but may not always be reliable or useful.

Whereas the motives for crime are typically rather simple (greed, jealously, hatred and fear), politics is far more complex. Ideology, religion, customs and historical developments have to be taken into account.

Political movements typically have more than one actor, motives can vary widely and political acts are often designed to have an effect that is very different from what actually happens.

The application of Cui bono in politics or other large-scale events is even more risky because many other factors have to be considered, and it is especially difficult to judge the motives of people of different ages and cultures. A common mistake is to overlook motives which do not fit the mindset of the observer.

-excerpted and adapted from wikipedia-

When dealing with a complex issue, I agree, it's not appropriate to apply a simplistic methodology. How often do we receive a forwarded e-mail with often not too subtle propaganda to push a political point? I get them all the time, especially from SOB's (supporters of Bush), and the first thing I try to do is ferret out the main point, and see if it is an attempt to benefit a cause, champion an idea, or support/bash a group, ideology or individual. Then I attempt to assign relevance to the arguments given. If I am able to assertain who benefits or is harmed, I can then see thru the discourse more easily. Then a re-framing is needed to rebut the claims made, the frame/label assigned by the advocate, or just to plain refute the sender of the e-mail (or whatever) based on the evidence given.

Essentially, I try to approach everything I can from the simplest point of view possible. If that doesn't suffice, I get more into the details and use other methods.

Here's today's e-mail from a right wing evangelical, rapture ready SOB:


Weather Bulletin - North Dakota

THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A MOMENT.

North Dakota News
This text is from a county emergency manager out in the western part of North Dakota state after a snowstorm.

WEATHER BULLETIN

Up here, in the Northern Plains, we just recovered from a Historic event--- may I even say a "Weather Event" of "Biblical Proportions" --- with a historic blizzard of up to 44" inches of snow a nd winds to 90 MPH that broke trees in half, knocked down utility poles, stranded hundreds of motorists in lethal snow banks, closed ALL roads, isolated scores of communities and cut power to 10's of thousands.

FYI:

George Bush did not come.
FEMA did nothing.
No one howled for the government.
No one blamed the government.
No one even uttered an expletive on TV .
Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit.
Our Mayor did not blame Bush or anyone else.
Our Governor did not blame Bush or anyone else, either.
CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC did not visit - or report on this category 5 snowstorm. Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards.
No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House.
No one looted.
Nobody - I mean Nobody demanded the government do something.
Nobody expected the government to do anything, either.
No Larry King, No Bill O'Rielly, No Oprah, No Chris Mathews and No Geraldo Rivera.
No Shaun Penn, No Barbara Striesand, No Hollywood types to be found.
Nope, we just melted the snow for water.
Sent out caravans of SUV's to pluck people out of snow engulfed cars.
The truck drivers pulled people out of snow banks and didn't ask for a penny.
Local restaurants made food and the police and fire departments delivered it to the snowbound families.
Families took in the stranded people - total strangers.
We fired up wood stoves, broke out coal oil lanterns or Coleman lanterns.
We put on extra layers of clothes because up here it is "Work or Die".
We did not wait for some affirmative action government to get us out of a mess created by being immobilized by a welfare program that trades votes for sit-in at home checks.
Even though a Category "5" blizzard of this scale has never fallen this early, we know it can happen and how to deal with it ours elves.
"In my many travels, I have noticed that once one gets north of about 48 degrees North Latitude, 90% of the world's social problems evaporate."
It does seem that way, at least to me.
I hope this gets passed on.

Maybe SOME people will get the message. The world does Not owe you a living.

_________________________________________________________________________________

In what way does the final point have anything to do with the text? Not much that I can see. I haven't yet responded to this individual, but I will. When I get time, I'll pick thru the evidence and show her just how the conclusion is unrelated to the evidence, how it is about an ideology rather than a fact, and how the points given would have been impossible without the use of the commons.

Latin seems to have some saying for almost any occasion... your example, above, being one of "Non sequitur", Latin for "It does not follow".

One thing there never seems to be a shortage of is faulty reasoning, and especially in the area of political discourse. I agree with your methodology of starting off by trying to approach issues from the simplest point of view possible, and take into account the finer grained complexities on an "as needed" basis.

At times it seems we are (to use a Biblical metaphor for no particular reason)experiencing a new Tower of Babel, where communication between people (who disagree) is breaking down. When we speak a word, what is the other person understanding?

In Lakoff's "Whose Freedom?" the point is made regarding "essentially contested words" with examples including "Freedom" and "Coercion". If our goal is to communicate our ideas as accurately as possible, perhaps avoiding those terms, instead explaining concepts using other terms, would prove to be more successful and avoid having our listener drop into an undesirable (from our perspective) frame.

I heard a lecture recorded in the 1970's that claimed that successful communication and understanding requires attention, conveying thoughts, and best occurs by remaining in the "temperate zone". When we speak using emotionally loaded/ charged terminology, we move into either the "frigid-zone" or the "torrid zone" where the other party may become bored or angry and stops listening, and communication ceases to occur.

If we can operate gently, avoiding the pressures of excessive heat or chill, we can enter into a real exchange which can be a great joy.

I'm no expert in the field; I'm currently a senior with 2 semesters to go seeking my degree in Public Address & Rhetoric, but the field fascinates me. It's one of the reasons that this whole issue of framing interests me so much.

For any interested, here's a link to the latin's as it were, the logical fallacies discussed.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html