Asymmetrical Information

I've heard a couple of Geoff Nunberg's little tidbits on NPR over the last couple weeks. He starts off under the guise of impartiality, but it isn't long before he can't resist the moneyshot and throws his biased interpretation to the fore. This time it was because in his feeble mind he couldn't comprehend that pro-disarmament protests are counter-protests to the anti-war protests. Last week, I think it was why it is "wrong" to use the term appeasement to describe the protests and european policy. (Instead of misguided foolishness with deadly consequences, I guess.)

His approach is quite flawed to be honest. It is true that one should be careful about using terms that have changed over time to describe events past. Obviously, what we call a Democrat today did not mean the same thing a hundred and fifty years ago. So saying Andrew Jackson was just as typical a Democrat as Bill Clinton today, it obviously doesn't make much sense.

What Nunberg completely and conveniently ignores is that the opposite is just as true. Just because these words meant something different decades ago, it is not appropiate to judge the present interpretation in terms of the word's former meaning. So if it upsets him so much to call Chirac an appeaser under the 1940's meaning of the word, maybe he could choose another perhaps more suitable word from that era and call him a Quisling instead.

One of my earliest blog posts was taking Nunberg to task for selective quotation:

http://epeus.blogspot.com/2001_11_01_epeus_archive.html#6988159

after I'd pointed out the AHD's diluted definition of 'refute'

Ah yes. One does not protest against protesters. Correct? %-)

Cory H wrote: "What Nunberg completely and conveniently ignores is that the opposite is just as true. Just because these words meant something different decades ago, it is not appropiate to judge the present interpretation in terms of the word's former meaning."

Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet this morning, but I wonder what this would mean if applied to the the "living document" view versus the "original meaning" view of constitutional interpretation.

Does "abridging freedom of speech, or of the press" mean that only word of mouth and words printed with hot type by a hand-cranked press is to be free? Even the "original intent" side would likely argue not, despite the fact that radio, TV and the internet weren't around when the document was written.

Does the right to "trial by jury" mean any size of jury, and a verdict by any majority? Even the "living document" side would likely argue for "original meaning" of unanimous vote by a jury of 12.

I'll go away quietly now.

I'm curious about Nunberg's take on "indeed."

Heh.

The great thing is that the linguist isn't even right on his narrow grounds.

The "pro-war" demonstrators were, even under his definition, protesting both the current situation (no war) and the policies of the people in power -- in France. In Russia. In Germany. In the Security Council. And especially in Iraq.

Comments are Closed.