« Reflecting on Advertisements | Main | Random Thoughts (so tired... must... blog) »
November 7, 2007
Sometimes the Ambiguous... Isn't
I was planning to do a "shout outs" post today, because there are lots of people to shout out. But then I scanned through the Viral Video Chart, as I do, and I came across the latest "Special Comment" from Keith Olbermann.
I was talking with The Spouse about Olbermann the other day, and I noticed that I hadn't seen any of his topical rants in a while. There was a period, a little while ago, when you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting someone posting an Olbermann video on his or her blog. (And where the hell does that expression come from, anyway? What sort of sickness has to become endemic to make "dead cat swinging" cliche?) Anyway, the Viral Video Chart has a new Olbermann video out... a Guy Fawkes Night video from Keith.
As always, here's my standard "this isn't a political blog" disclaimer. So, before you watch the video, and you should watch the video because Olbermann is very good and completely correct, here are a few things to ponder.
I'm an English professor. I read books and web pages and other things like that, and I try to figure out what's going on in individual works, and what the accumulation of traits, features, themes, character types, linguistic patterns, and what-have-you means culturally and historically. That is, I look for facts that I can state about literary works and/or reading and/or composition. But then I have to go beyond the mere statement of observable fact to form an interpretation of that fact. No one who is rational and who is well-versed with the text under discussion would argue the fact, but interpretations are eminently debatable. Interpretations are also more interesting, and more valuable than statements of fact, because they look for ambiguities in the text, and attempt to craft a plausible, sometimes provocative, reconciliation of the ambiguities.
Here's an example. In the director's cut of the film Blade Runner, Harrison Ford's character, Deckard, daydreams about unicorns. That's a fact. It's also a fact that one of the android-killing police officers creates origami figures which he leaves wherever he's been. That's also a fact. A third fact is that as Deckard returns to his apartment, there's a silver paper unicorn on the ground outside his door. Trying to connect these facts into an interpretation might lead us to conclude that the police officer knows what Deckard daydreams. As we know what artificial memories have been implanted in the androids, we could hypothesize that Deckard is an android, and that the other police officer is letting Deckard know that he knows. Rational, intelligent people can disagree as to the likelihood of this interpretation. And they used to, until the final cut version of the film was released this year. This version makes that interpretation explicit. It makes it a fact.
I'm going the long way here because the Bush Administration is still trying to convince us that something that is a fact is actually an interpretation, and is thus open to disagreement by intelligent, well-intentioned people. They say that the United States engages in waterboarding as part of our enhanced interrogation techniques. Waterboarding simulates drowning. They also say that the United States does not torture people. Therefore, they would have us believe, U.S. waterboarding is a fact, simulated drowning at the hands of Americans is a fact, but the conclusion that simulated drowning is torture is an interpretation of that fact.
This is not interpretation. It is the simple, horrible meaning of words. The question of whether viruses are alive is a serious question, and any answer to that must be qualified, and must also rely at least in part on an interpretation of conflicting data and definitions. Whether strapping a prisoner to a board and pouring water over them until they nearly drown, repeatedly, is torture or not is not a serious question. If we understand the meaning of those words, then we have no choice but to realize that there is no question of interpretation here. There is no controversy caused by conflicting observations and definitions here.
There is only the sad, terrifying fact that the U.S. does torture people. That the President has ordered and continues to order Americans to torture people. That the President's "Justice Department" (paging Mr. Orwell) has worked for years to craft byzantine justifications for the government-approved torture of its prisoners.
No matter how many times they may try to tell you that this is just an "interpretation" (and they will tell you this, and that it is an interpretation motivated not by reason but by partisan political hatred), it is not. It is a fact. It is not interesting. It is not provocative. It is not debatable.
Anyway, here's Keith. He's more eloquent than I am. And he has a platform that allows him to reach many, many more people than I can. I hope he does.
UPDATE: The Spouse adds this fuel to the fire. As if we needed more. :-(
Posted by reparent at November 7, 2007 2:28 PM
Comments
On torture and arguments-that-aren't, I offer the world's worst analogy:
Posted by: Liam at November 9, 2007 5:41 PM